The Seriousness of Drunk Driving - Intro + Conclusion

343 Words2 Pages
PHILO – READING AND WRITING I * The intent to cause harm or death is not what defines murder, it is recklessness ( reckless to drink and drive) Drunk driving is dangerous and can therefore be seen as a secondary degree of murder * Not the standard of driving that matters but the actual fact of driving whilst intoxicated (incapable of driving ) * Experts say that drinkers hit others 4 times as often as they are hit, drinking drivers kill themselves at a higher rate than the rest of the population * Ross had a different view: whilst the probability of a crash is 3 times higher for an intoxicated person, the absolute risk of a crash is still “only” in the order of 1 in 1000 and the risk of causing injury or death even lower. Counter this argument, bomb in empty building less dangerous? Potential harm is still there and increases, also an unjustified risk with human life. * Need to make a difference between the person who always drinks and drives and one who does it once. The first is a murderer and shows that he is aware of the risks he is taking. Malice is important for murder. As previous charges cannot help define if the driver is indeed drunk trails should take place in two parts, one to decide if he/she is drunk, the second to decide if the previous charges should have any impact on the sentence. II * The person who regularly drinks and drives is more at fault than the person who can’t foresee that he is going to be drunk and therefore hasn’t made other plans for transport * If there was a better public transport system then drunk people wouldn’t need to drive dangerously in order to keep their jobs III * Should follow the Scandinavian example where drunk driving means a revocation of you license and jail sentences. But we need to not only make charges more intense but also back it up with police force presence. BUT

More about The Seriousness of Drunk Driving - Intro + Conclusion

Open Document