Alcohol, a Car, and a Fatality. Is it Murder?

[Blue Order]

October 22, 2006

Alcohol, a Car, and a Fatality. Is it Murder? (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/weekinreview/22vitello.html)

By PAUL VITELLO

DRUNKEN drivers who kill people with their vehicles are almost never charged with murder.

Even the usual terms of criminal prosecution, vehicular manslaughter or reckless homicide, which carry far lesser degrees of punishment, are felony charges that until 25 years ago were only lightly used by prosecutors. When a presidential task force tallied the numbers of victims from various crimes in 1981, drunken driving was not even on the list.

Times have changed. “Reckless homicide” and then “manslaughter” became common charges brought against drunken drivers after advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving began campaigning in the early 1980’s. But now even those terms are considered gentle euphemisms by some advocates against drunken driving — as in, words that shelter people from looking too closely at the ugliest of realities.

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.

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?

The Heidgen jury, which took five days to reach its verdict, seems to have had difficulty confronting these questions. In a way, the confrontation was forced on them — in part by a newly installed district attorney elected on an anti-drunken driving platform and in part by a grieving mother.

The facts of the case were never in dispute: Mr. Heidgen, an insurance salesman returning home from a party, was very drunk, his blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit. He was driving the wrong way on a highway when he plowed head-on into the limousine carrying the family of Neil and Jennifer Flynn home from a wedding. He killed the chauffeur, Stanley Rabinowitz, and Katie Flynn, 7.

The girl’s mother used no euphemisms in describing the accident. “As I crawled out of the car, the only thing that was left of Kate was her head,” Mrs. Flynn, 36, said two days after the crash. “And I took her, just like that, and sat on the side of the Meadowbrook and watched at the horrendousness going on around me. I want everybody to know that.”

There is no official count of how many times drunken drivers involved in fatal accidents have been charged or convicted of murder. But of the more than 13,000 alcohol-related driving deaths last year in the United States, prosecutors are aware of only a few murder cases each in Texas, California and New York. So there seems to be at least a bit of ambivalence about whether drunken drivers who kill people should be subject to the same legal penalties as gunmen who kill people.

“There is a certain psychological barrier there,” said Marcia Cunningham, director of the National Traffic Law Center, an agency of the National District Attorneys Association, in Alexandria, Va. Americans spend an enormous amount of time in their cars, she noted, and at one time or other just about everyone has had too much to drink. “The combination of these two familiar activities makes for a certain, what have you, difficulty with the word ‘murder.’ ”

Nonetheless, she said, it is murder, no different from “carrying a loaded gun around, pointing it at people walking down Fifth Avenue, and having a few shots go off, killing them.”

Steve Oberman, a lawyer in Knoxville, Tenn., who defends drunken drivers and who is the co-author of “Drunk Driving Defense,” a textbook widely used by lawyers in the field, said the situation is usually much more ambiguous.

“The terrible part about intoxication is that once you become intoxicated you lose the ability to know that you should not be doing certain things, including driving,” Mr. Oberman said. “It doesn’t make it any easier on the family of the victim. But people do make mistakes.”

The jurors in the Heidgen case apparently considered that. Twice they sent the judge a note saying they were deadlocked. After the fourth day of deliberations, an 8-to-4 majority in favor of a murder conviction became 10 to 2, according to the jurors. In the fifth day, the last two holdouts joined the majority. But one of those two, the jury forewoman, said later that she had felt unbearably pressured by other jurors. She said she was still convinced that Mr. Heidgen was guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

Kathleen Rice, the district attorney, said the jury reached the right verdict, regardless of any second thoughts by any of its members. “We hope that this verdict sends a message that if you drink and drive and kill somebody you will be prosecuted for murder,” she said.

Since the early 1980’s, when grassroots groups like MADD began a campaign against drunken driving, the rate of traffic fatalities linked to alcohol has dropped by about half, according to federal highway statistics.

But progress has stalled, said Chuck Hurley, chief executive of MADD. “The numbers have not moved substantially in 10 years,” he said. “The country has gotten used to MADD, and gotten used to increased law enforcement, and the result is that every month in this country another 1,000 families get a knock on the door with very bad news because of drinking and driving.”

But he added: “Is every drunk driver who kills someone a murderer? “We don’t advocate that.”Instead, MADD has campaigned successfully to lower the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers to .08 from .10 — now the standard in every state. Ignition-interlock devices, which prevent drunken drivers from starting their cars, have been installed in the vehicles of about 100,000 people serving probation for drunken driving offenses around the country, he said.

“We are hopeful that the Flynn-Rabinowitz case will mark a new turning point in public awareness,” Mr. Hurley said, referring to the Long Island limousine victims. “But we are not sure how much we can depend on that. For now, we are putting our hopes in technology.”

Better to save lives before the fact, he said. “A murder trial will not bring anyone back.”

[John E]

I strongly advocate charging drunk drivers who kill with murder.

[Geraldo]

Better to save lives before the fact, he said. “A murder trial will not bring anyone back.”

This is the best line of the article.

For some reason, I've never been particularly fond of MADD, but their greatest achievement has been to try to change the culture of drunken driving, which they have done with some measure of success. There is still work to do, but making people think before they have a crash will do more than the fear of law ever will, as the deterent effect of laws and prison sentences has proven to be pretty minimal.

Harsher charges and increased sentences do one thing: fill more prisons. We already incarcerate more people than any country in the world, and it doesn't seem to help the underlying problems. Of course, if you work in teh prison systems or own one of the companies that contracts out prison services, the "get tough on crime" stance equates to serious job security.

[ken cummings]

Murder, homicide, manslaughter. Wikipedia had a lot to say on one shading into the other. From causing the death of a person with deliberate intent to comitting a misdemenor that consequently caused a death. Hitting a cyclist while driving drunk can fall in several slots on the spectrum depending on the drivers' past record, actions on the day of the death, local standards, and whether the DA ran on a procycling ticket.

We have a man sitting in the local jail charged with murder for hitting a cyclist while he was drunk. He violated several of the 'standards' that such things are judged by so he got nailed for the big M and not accidental manslaughter.

[ItsJustMe]

Even allowing the devil's advocate position of the "you lose the ability to judge what you should be doing" argument, I think that ambiguity of "murder" should certainly disappear after a person has been convicted of DUI once. At that point, the person has had their warning; apparently they can't judge when they are impaired. They now know that, and as such they should take actions while they're still sober to make sure that they will not be able to drive while drunk later. That means either removing their own access from a car by any means including getting a friend to stop you, or not drinking in the first place. If you can't do the latter, then you should probably seek substance abuse treatment.

I'd like to see serious convictions on the first DUI, but if we can't achieve that, then certainly we should start to see VERY serious consequences on the second, including at least lengthy if not permanent driving privilege loss.

And if someone is found to be driving with a suspended license, then the state has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect society from this dangerous individual; either lock them up or fit them with a GPS ankle bracelet (at their expense) that alarms when it moves faster than 25 MPH or something, and they are only allowed to move at that speed at their assigned times going to/from work, or when they arrange it with their parole officer.

[infernobutterfl]

Unfortunately, (and I know I will get flamed for this) but I dont think that accidently killing someone in a car accident should be considered murder. Yes, killing someone when you are drunk and behind the wheel is ridiculous and should be very heavily punished, but not with a murder charge. (maybe a very large fine, tons of hours of rehab. classes, even removal of his driving rights, etc). By definition a crime is committed with intentions. In an auto accident, and I use auto accident in its general term, the damage resulting from the incident is an ACCIDENT. In other words, YOU could be involved in an accident and have murdered someone. Now, should you be badged with the title of a murderer? I don't believe it is justify to compare you, the person involved in the accident, and a cold blood criminal.

Now as for drinking, driving and fatality, I believe this comparsion can set some light to what our society has imposed on us. Say a boy, age 7, plays with fire, and set his parent's house on fire. The people in the house dies. Ok, is the boy a murderer? He did accidently set the fire, which is responsible for the deaths. Does he aware that fire can burn down a house? Most likely. Does he knows that fire is dangerous? Most likely. Did he choose to play with fire? Yes. Is he a murderer? The reader has to decide that for themselves.

Relating the above back to drunk driving and fatality. A person drinks and decides to drive. Does a drunk knows that he can cause an accident? Most likely, but maybe he is in denial. Does he knows that a car can kill? Yes, when he is sober. Is he a murderer? - Better yet, is he different from the child above? Compared to age, yes,. People can say, he is a grown man, and can make decisions. The child is a child. Ok, but when the man is drunk, can he make decisions? It is not smart for him to drink and drive. Same for the child to play with fire. Their levels of understanding can be consider similar, drunk man = poor decision maker, child = poor choices.

The differences between the child and the drunk is that our society makes readily available the tools for a potential accident to the drunk. Cars has been accepted in our society. Everyone knows the potential danger for a 3 tons metal travelling at 60 mph. You can easily use a car to kill, almost as easily as a gun, and, fro the child's example, fire. But our society makes the car an "acceptable risk" and makes it more assesable and interweaved into our culture. Hence, a drunk man has much more assess and "motive" (you may say) to use a car, then a child to play with fire, granted both are bad.

Anyways, back to topic. The drunk did not intentionaly kill anyone. The social accepted risk, a car, is in everyone who is driving. Just that being drunk gives you a higher risk. An enraged driver also has a higher risk of causing an accident. What makes the combination of drinking and driving murder when other forms of driving, ie: enraged, distracted on the phone, etc, not murder?

Form what I see, drinking + driving is an EXTREMELY stupid thing to do, but it should not mean if he gets into an accident and someone dies, he intentionally killed the someone, ie: murder. What is the difference between someone killing someone else in an auto accident and a drunk killing someone else in a car accident, besides that fact that one is drunk. But the end result, someone died is that defines the crime. Not the fact that someone was STUPID and got in a car while drunk.

[gpsblake]

One of the problems with making it murder for someone drunk who kills a bicyclist is that it will make it very profitable for them to drive-off and by the time the cops catch up to them, they are sober or below the limit and charges would be much less.

I think the law that needs to be much harsher is for drivers to be charged with murder IF THEY DRIVE OFF regardless if they are drunk or not. That will put a stop to a lot of these drive offs that happen when a cyclist gets struck & killed. It almost pays to leave a scene of an accident, especially if you are drunk or high.

[CrosseyedCrickt]

Drunk driver killings should be charged with muder, not manslaughter.
When you drink, and drive a car, that is NO accident. Even though there is no intent to kill, there is more to it than just an "oops".
If I open fire at a gradeschool with an automatic weapon and kill 5 people what would I get charged with?
Maybe I'm a bit one sided on this issue, but I have a damned good reason.

[ItsJustMe]

As I said above, at the very LEAST, once a person has been convicted of DUI once, they have been given their warning. That warning is "When YOU drink, you do not have the sense to not drive afterwards." Once given that warning, it's encumbent upon the person WHILE STILL SOBER to take appropriate actions, either not drinking, or taking actions so that once they start drinking they will not be able to access a car.

They know ahead of time that to NOT take these actions puts many lives at significant risk. Therefore IMHO while I don't know if this meets the technical definition of premeditated murder, it is at the very least premeditated reckless endangerment resulting in loss of life. The person knew that when he put that glass to his lips without locking up his keys, he WAS ENDANGERING LIVES AT THAT MOMENT. If he is in denial then he needs to have two things done: Immediate removal of his driving priviledges, and psychological counselling and monitoring, at the end of which, if successful, he MAY get his priviledges back.

If a person with a previous DUI hurts/kills someone (or even IMHO gets a 2nd DUI) then they have proven their inability to control themselves, and the state should step in to control them. Step one is they do not drive again at least until they can prove that they have changed. If they drive anyway, step two is to lock them up or take physical action to make sure they do not drive.

We seem to think that the "right" to drive trumps all else because you "need" to be able to drive to survive. Well, people "need" to not get crushed under their tires in order to survive as well. Judges are reluctant to remove driving priviledges because they're "needed" to support themselves. However, their right to go to work in a convenient fashion does not trump my right to not be killed by them.

[CrosseyedCrickt]

However, their right to go to work in a convenient fashion does not trump my right to not be killed by them.

I like that quote.

[serpico7]

One of the problems with making it murder for someone drunk who kills a bicyclist is that it will make it very profitable for them to drive-off and by the time the cops catch up to them, they are sober or below the limit and charges would be much less.

I think the law that needs to be much harsher is for drivers to be charged with murder IF THEY DRIVE OFF regardless if they are drunk or not. That will put a stop to a lot of these drive offs that happen when a cyclist gets struck & killed. It almost pays to leave a scene of an accident, especially if you are drunk or high.
+1

Charging drunk drivers who kill someone with murder is the wrong solution both from a mens rea perspective and because it creates skewed incentives as pointed out by gpsblake.

It is also likely to result in fewer drunk driving convictions. Juries are more likely to acquit a drunk driver if the charge is murder than if the charge brought is manslaughter.

[MichaelW]

In the UK, murder requires intent to kill, we dont have 2nd degree homicide here.
Manslaughter covers a whole range of killings from robberies which go wrong where "the stabbing was not intended to kill" to builders who accidently drop tools off scaffolding onto passers by.
It is exceedingly rare for drivers to be charged with manslaughter, even if they have no licence, tax and insurance, were drunk, driving the wrong way and mounted the pavement to kill a pedestrian. The usual charge would be "death by dangeous driving" and the get-out clause here is dangerous. If you can convince the jury that you were careless rather than dangerous you go free.
The only cases of murder by car have been car thieves who deliberately run over and kill policemen.

[kemmer]

I think a second DUI should result in jail time. Driving drunk with a suspended license should result in jail time. Killing someone while drunk should be called murder. Everyone knows a car can kill, and that it isn't safe to drive drunk. If you drive drunk, I think intent to kill is implicit. What would happen if I waved a gun around with the safety off and "accidentally" killed someone? Is drunk driving any different?

[infernobutterfl]

What would happen if I waved a gun around with the safety off and "accidentally" killed someone? Is drunk driving any different?

The difference is proof. which is more believable. You accidently shot someone, or you accidently hit someone with a car?

In our society, there is pressure to use a car. one can say, although i am drunk, i still need to go home and get to work tomorrow or i will lose my job. Hence, the "need" to drive. People can say, too bad, you shouldnt drive when you are drunk regardless of the reasons (and i agree with this p.o.v.) But if you say that to a father of 3 whose minium wage income is the sole income, he is going to risk it and get home.
Now, if you had a reason to be waving the gun around, and can prove that you accidently killed this person you dont like, then yes, its just an accident. :rolleyes:

[kemmer]

The difference is proof. which is more believable. You accidently shot someone, or you accidently hit someone with a car?

In our society, there is pressure to use a car. one can say, although i am drunk, i still need to go home and get to work tomorrow or i will lose my job. Hence, the "need" to drive. People can say, too bad, you shouldnt drive when you are drunk regardless of the reasons (and i agree with this p.o.v.) But if you say that to a father of 3 whose minium wage income is the sole income, he is going to risk it and get home.
Now, if you had a reason to be waving the gun around, and can prove that you accidently killed this person you dont like, then yes, its just an accident. :rolleyes:


Did you NEED to get drunk without a way to get home? No. However you look at it, it's a pre-meditated crime. By not arranging transportation ahead of time, you plan to drive drunk. The reason drunk driving laws aren't more strict is that most people drink. Most people have driven at least a little drunk at some point so most people can sympathize with someone that drives drunk and write it off as "a mistake." But that's exactly the attitude that needs to change. It's a really serious crime that puts people in danger, but people treat it like a simple mistake that they can just laugh about if they make it home safely. What a crock of ****.

[CommuterRun]

First off, there is a difference between an accident and a crash. An accident is an unfortunate event that nobody has any control over. A crash is caused by one or more people being negligent. A drunk driving incident is always a crash. The mere action of being under the influence while driving is blatant negligence.

A seven year old is not mature enough to be held responsible for his actions. His parents, however, are. If he burns the house down, where was the supervision?

Someone who is legally drunk is old enough to be considered a mature adult. He should be held responsible for his actions, regardless of the consequences of those actions. Being drunk is no excuse for bad decision making.

The drunk driver who causes a crash resulting in a fatality made a conscious decision to drink alcohoic beverages, knowing that the result could be intoxication, followed by a conscious decision to drive. Both bad decisions, followed by bad consequences. He should be penalized to the fullest extent. Not only did he take a life, he also put the lives of everyone near him in jeopardy up until the point where he crashed.

I can see a murder charge as being suitable punishment for a drunk driving fatality.

[Geraldo]

I think a second DUI should result in jail time. Driving drunk with a suspended license should result in jail time. Killing someone while drunk should be called murder. Everyone knows a car can kill, and that it isn't safe to drive drunk. If you drive drunk, I think intent to kill is implicit. What would happen if I waved a gun around with the safety off and "accidentally" killed someone? Is drunk driving any different?


I'm not a defender of drunk driving, which in my home is a death penalty offense (my wife being the judge, jury, and most likely the executioner), but the problem is that jail time doesn't solve the problem: that someone has already been killed.

Culturally we want harsher punishment, but punishment is not a deterent to crime because almost no one thinks of the consequences when they commit a crime (believe me, I deal with the accused all the time). Without resorting to the already proven failure of prohibition, we need to change our culture. Even though we have punishment, some segment of the population apparently still believes that drunk driving is appropriate behavior. Of course changing culture is much harder than yelling for increased penalties or enhanced charges, but it the only way to actually stop the problem before someone dies.

[kemmer]

Without resorting to the already proven failure of prohibition, we need to change our culture. Even though we have punishment, some segment of the population apparently still believes that drunk driving is appropriate behavior.

If you read my last post, you'll see that that's exactly the position I have taken. I suggested that a good way to help change our culture is to pass laws that send a clear message. Drunk driving is wrong. The laws we have now send the wrong message. Yes, it would suck to get a DUI. It's expensive and you can't drive for 3 months, but that's it, it's not really that big of a deal. The message we are sending: "It's bad, but it's not that be a deal."

[Roughstuff]

but the problem is that jail time doesn't solve the problem: that someone has already been killed.


Sure it solves the problem. I have yet to see someone in a jail cell be able to kill someone by driving drunk.


Culturally we want harsher punishment, but punishment is not a deterent to crime because almost no one thinks of the consequences when they commit a crime (believe me, I deal with the accused all the time). Without resorting to the already proven failure of prohibition, we need to change our culture.

Ahh yes...the old 'change the culture' argument. I think we should change our culture too. UNTIL THEN, drunk drivers who kill should be charged with murder. And while it MAY NOT be a deterrent before the crime takes place, it sure is a deterrent after it takes place!


Even though we have punishment, some segment of the population apparently still believes that drunk driving is appropriate behavior.


Yes, like Senator Kennedy.

roughstuff

[Geraldo]

And while it MAY NOT be a deterrent before the crime takes place, it sure is a deterrent after it takes place!


By definition you cannot deter something that has already taken place.

[genec]

I'm not a defender of drunk driving, which in my home is a death penalty offense (my wife being the judge, jury, and most likely the executioner), but the problem is that jail time doesn't solve the problem: that someone has already been killed.

Culturally we want harsher punishment, but punishment is not a deterent to crime because almost no one thinks of the consequences when they commit a crime (believe me, I deal with the accused all the time). Without resorting to the already proven failure of prohibition, we need to change our culture. Even though we have punishment, some segment of the population apparently still believes that drunk driving is appropriate behavior. Of course changing culture is much harder than yelling for increased penalties or enhanced charges, but it the only way to actually stop the problem before someone dies.


Perhaps there is not a way to directly change the culture... but through technology, there may be ways to limit what that certain segment of the population can do when under the influence.

Just throwing ideas out here... what if there were some way to determine whether a motorist was "under the influence" of some kind and not capable of driving... and then "locking out" that motorist?

[Geraldo]

Just throwing ideas out here... what if there were some way to determine whether a motorist was "under the influence" of some kind and not capable of driving... and then "locking out" that motorist?

IIRC that technology is already used in a few jurisdictions, mainly post-conviction, but it's certainly an idea.

The trouble with the "prison deters someone from committing another crime" line of thought is this: in such a scenario we are talking about two crimes; in the first someone is killed; in the theoretical second, someone is prevented from killing by means of incarceration. If I am the first victim, you can charge my killer with crimes against humanity or send him off with a warning, it will make no difference to me.

The problem is cultural, whether it is drinking to excess, everything in excess, the idea that every single person has to drive a car, lack of concern about public transportation, that we won't tell people what behavior is unacceptable but expect the police or the justice system to do it for us, or the lack of concern some people show for human life. Tough-on-crime sound-byte answers keep the justice system flowing, but I don't see them ending the problems.

Rant over-Geraldo out.

[genec]

IIRC that technology is already used in a few jurisdictions, mainly post-conviction, but it's certainly an idea.

The trouble with the "prison deters someone from committing another crime" line of thought is this: in such a scenario we are talking about two crimes; in the first someone is killed; in the theoretical second, someone is prevented from killing by means of incarceration. If I am the first victim, you can charge my killer with crimes against humanity or send him off with a warning, it will make no difference to me.

The problem is cultural, whether it is drinking to excess, everything in excess, the idea that every single person has to drive a car, lack of concern about public transportation, that we won't tell people what behavior is unacceptable but expect the police or the justice system to do it for us, or the lack of concern some people show for human life. Tough-on-crime sound-byte answers keep the justice system flowing, but I don't see them ending the problems.

Rant over-Geraldo out.


Yeah, while we find drinking and driving reprehensible, society keeps making bars with parking lots. Go figure.

[CommuterRun]

........Now as for drinking, driving and fatality, I believe this comparsion can set some light to what our society has imposed on us. Say a boy, age 7, plays with fire, and set his parent's house on fire. The people in the house dies. Ok, is the boy a murderer? He did accidently set the fire, which is responsible for the deaths. Does he aware that fire can burn down a house? Most likely. Does he knows that fire is dangerous? Most likely. Did he choose to play with fire? Yes. Is he a murderer? The reader has to decide that for themselves.........
Something just occurred to me while reading about the latest spate of California wildfires.
If someone sets a fire and can be charged with arson, in some states they can also be charged with murder if the fire resulted in a death.

In this respect the drunk driver is much like the arsonist. He knows it's wrong, he knows it's illegal, he knows it's dangerous, both to himself and others, and he does it anyway.

In both cases, yes, the guilty should be charged with murder.

[Bikepacker67]

, the last two holdouts joined the majority. But one of those two, the jury forewoman, said later that she had felt unbearably pressured by other jurors.

Stupid Byatch.

[Bikepacker67]

Charging drunk drivers who kill someone with murder is the wrong solution both from a mens rea perspective...

When someone is inadvertantly killed during the commission of a crime, we charge the perp with murder.

What's different about this? The commisioned crime is DUI, and the result was the death of an innocent.

[aadhils]

Alcohol....a drunk cyclist....an accident. is it suicide?...

[ItsJustMe]

Something just occurred to me while reading about the latest spate of California wildfires.
If someone sets a fire and can be charged with arson, in some states they can also be charged with murder if the fire resulted in a death.

In this respect the drunk driver is much like the arsonist. He knows it's wrong, he knows it's illegal, he knows it's dangerous, both to himself and others, and he does it anyway.

In both cases, yes, the guilty should be charged with murder.

The same thought occurred to me; when I read that the arsonist was guilty of murder, I immediately thought of this thread.