grr

[yendi]

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0902/19dui.html

The nutshell desription -- an asshole, while driving drunk, killed three children and their mother (and then attempted to flee the scene).

That there are assholes who shouldn't walk the face of the earth bothers me, but is something I already knew, alas.

What really shocks me is the final sentence: "He was expected to be booked for vehicular manslaughter."

Manslaughter? Fuck that. Driving while drunk is the same as firing a gun randomly into a crowd. If no one dies, it's sheer dumb luck. But if anyone does, it's murder. Plain and simple. I've got lots of room for moral grey areas. But not on this topic.

Comments

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you.

But. The law doesn't. In georgia if you kill someone in vehicle accident, you may get in some trouble for your blood alchohol content, but just killing someone isn't a very big deal. You will lose your license for a year or two, but you can get it back with an appeal. Jail time is highly unlikely, unless you have been ruled a habitual offender before the fatal accident. 43,000 people die every year in traffic accidents, and we as a society don't care enough to even take away the person at fault's license to drive.
The person in the story you linked may get in trouble for blood alchohol, and for leaving the scene of the accident, but the dead family will just be a footnote in the sentencing phase of those other two charges. I think it's backwards. He should be tried for the dead people, and the alchohol content and running away should be the footnotes.

[yendi]

Oh, I know the law doesn't agree. But I blame that on lawmakers, who damned well can change it (although that would mean a drastic reduction in bribes donations from the liquor industry, of course).

Although I think an enterprising DA could (and should) attempt to try this as a murder charge -- it could well set a precedent that the courts would uphold.