So, many advocates were cheered when a Long Island, N.Y., jury last week convicted Martin R. Heidgen, 25, of murder for killing two people in a head-on collision with a limousine on July 2, 2005. Still, it was such a rare event that advocates, prosecutors and defense lawyers are still trying to figure out its implications.The trial certainly did raise questions for the future. The question I'm asking is the last one - is it fair?
Will murder charges help deter drunken driving? Will juries convict these drivers, knowing that they will be in prison for a long time? And is it fair?
At first I leaned towards no. Millions of Americans drive drunk daily and no one gets hurt. They don't do it to intentionally seek harm to someone. They have just lost perspective due to intoxication. It would be hard to tell millions of "voters" that they may need to cut down on their drinking habit because they potentially could get charged with murder.
Then my wife pointed out the vehicular manslaughter is the same whether alcohol is involved or not. If I, being in complete control of my faculties, run a red light and kill an elderly man I could be charged with vehecular manslaughter - regardless of the fact that I am sober.
So why shouldn't a stronger charge be put in place for those who knowingly go out drinking with the intention of driving home later. Its like adding fuel to a fire, you know it will explode. A gun can be used for things other than murder but if pointed at an unarmed person even in fun it could become murder. A knife has many other uses than murder but, again, if in the wrong place at the wrong time the charge could be murder. A car is transportation and if not used properly can result in a manslaughter charge. Add an additional component knowingly and it, in my eyes, is murder.
I acknowledge that this could still be up for debate and would love to hear your comments but currently I agree with the verdict of this trial.
Link
--------------
Alcohol, a Car and a Fatality. Is It Murder?
No comments:
Post a Comment