A moral question

[Cosmo_ac]

Just a question i wouldn't mind seing the answer's too. Their is no right or wrong answer persey,but i'm curious to see what people put.

Here we have Tom. Tom's 50 years old, and has been a firefighter for a good 30 years, and has saved a lot of lives. However, Tom also has a drinking problem, and one day while he is drinking, he decides to run down to the store and pick up some more beer. Well, Tom hops i the car, and as he's driving accidently runs over a 14 year old boy in his car.

Now, Tom's not a bad guy, and he's truelly sorry about what happend. He had no intention of hurting anybody he just wanted some beer.

So, i guess the question is, should To be punished(And if so, how severly?), or because of his history of being a firefighter and saving so many lives, should he be let off the hook?

Thoughts?

 

[Majestic]

Moral question

Im my opinion "Tom" should be treated just as anyone else that is driving under the influence and kills another person.

 

[Soda83pop]

He should be treated just the same...but realistically he probably wouldnt be.

 

[Capnmad]

Oh good, an amoral question! ...hey. Waitaminnit! "A moral question"?! What kind of crap is this? Oh, okay, since I'm here...

It's a damn shame what happened to Tom and the kid. Regardless of his sterling past, however, Tom is still responsible for his actions. Neither you nor I nor Tom should have the sentence for a crime weighed on past behavior unless it is indicative of a pattern relevant to the crime (for instance, a pattern of recidivism suggests they didn't learn the first time, so longer "lessons" are in order).

Tom has a drinking problem. There are programs for that. Attending one is his responsibility as a decent human being, especially as he should be fully aware of the dangerous effects of drunk driving, given that he's the guy they'll probably call to use the "Jaws of Life" when someone gets wrecked.

His drinking problem is relevant to the crime as it contributed to it.

Tom saves lives. We all agree it is a noble profession. We hail them as heroes, as we should, and they pass it off as a job. But hero or not, you're mortal and have the same responsibilities as the rest of us. Having saved dozens of lives in the past will make little difference to the family who lost their child. It has no bearing on the case. Many judges will tend to be lenient in this matter given his past, but it is still a loss of life as a result of an irresponsible act. All should be held equally accountable.

 

[NavelTickler75]

Tom might not have meant to run over the kid, but the fact is he did. So how do we punish him? Simple, by the facts of what he and everyone around him knew. He KNEW or should have known, he has a drinking problem, and that drinking clouds the judgements. Therefore, he is guilty to the same level as the rest of us.

 

[jugner]

Drunk driving is attempted murder. Killing someonen while driving drunk is murder. Tom should be treated as such.

 

[Redmage]

In some ways one could argue that Tom is more at fault than someone without his training. Most drunk drivers aren't bad people. It's the sort of thing that very ordinary people do. I think his sentence should be about the same as any ordinary person's.

 

[Azrael]

Drunk driving is attempted murder. Killing someonen while driving drunk is murder. Tom should be treated as such.

Actually, it isn't. Murder in the legal sense involves intent, whether premeditated or in the heat of the moment. The fact that a person has died, in this particular instance, is bad enough; there's no need to make this out to be something it isn't.

Legally, by the laws of the land, I believe Tom would be charged with some form of manslaughter, but I'm not positive as to what impact the involvement of alcohol and the age of the victim would have on this... if any.

Also, do we know if Tom attempted to seek help for his problem? Do we know why the problem exists? I don't feel that we can honestly say his past has "nothing to do with what happened." Maybe it does. Maybe, one week ago, half a dozen of his fellow firefighters were killed in a warehouse firefighting effort gone horribly wrong, and Tom hit the bottle after finally managing to go sober prior to this.

Was the 14-year-old boy crossing the street, in the middle of the night, wearing all-black clothing and not looking which way he was going? Though Tom was driving under the influence, alcohol might not have even been a factor in the accident. A lot of children die every year in accidents that don't involve alcohol at all.

...

I'm missing the point, aren't I? Ok, simple answer. Disregarding all finer details, I believe that individual actions ought to have individual consequences, in most cases, so Tom's murder / vehicular homicide / manslaughter charge should stand independently of his prior record. His past ought to be considered in evaluations of his character, but not legally in evaluation of his sentencing.

 

[ObservingEgo]

The case is dropped due to sloppy detective work and there not being enough evidence to convict Tom. There will be more seasons of the hit TV series, Rescue Me.

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

So, i guess the question is, should To be punished(And if so, how severly?), or because of his history of being a firefighter and saving so many lives, should he be let off the hook?

Thoughts?

ANYONE who gets behind the wheel while their ability is impaired (esp. when it's impaired by drinking or drugs) should be punished. The fact that he hurt someone makes that even more necessary. The fact that he's a fireman and has likely seen the results of others driving under the influence should have kept him off the road. I don't buy the nice guy reasoning. He destroyed a life. Let him pay the price.

It's time we stop slapping people on the wrist for shit like this. I've lost 4 friends to drunk drivers (one of them quite recently) and have another one in a wheelchair with severe brain damage and needing constant care for life. If the innocents have to pay the penalty, why shouldn't those who do the damage?

If society starts taking this seriously, maybe people will think twice before getting behind the wheel when they've been drinking or drugging. If society insists on treating it like a joke, then we deserve what we get.

 

[Headsnap]

They take people's nature and background into account when sentencing people for certain crimes over here. I've seen people getting time off their sentences for "previous good character", but I'm not really sure how I feel about it. If Tom had a momentary lapse of concentration, hit the kid and killed him, was being done for death by dangerous driving then I'd say yeah, lessen the punishment, but drunk-driving is for morons and in this case I'm afraid I'd be forced for the largest book available to be hurled at Tom with an arbalest.

 

[Tickleslave07]

Excuse Me please while I weigh in:

Hi Cosmo,
Long time no see. Ok the topic at hand alright Tom has a drinking problem fact. Tom was drunk getting into his car to get more beer for himself fact.
Tom hits a kid and kills him fact due to his drinking and driving fact.

In my personal opion if you drink and drive your at a greater risk to not only hurt yourself in an accident, but some innocent person fact.
Tom sadly did killing a kid at best it's vehicular manslaughter more than likely he should be charged with vehicular manslaughter in the 2nd or 3rd degree fact.
A vehicular manslaughter charge in the 1st degree is unlikely that would suggest an intent on his part to commit murder.

Just my opinon hope it helps,
TickleSlave07

 

[subZer0]

To be in control of a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, is a grossly stupid thing to do. He needs to be punished in the same manner as other drink drivers who mow down pedestrians. Even though he has shown much remorse, and in this case, given we know what 'Tom' is like and we can expect remorse, there cannot be one rule for some and another for others.

The real big difference is that after the punishment has been done with, 'Tom' will never again drink drive; whereas some people don't give a damn, and will do it again.

 

[jugner]

Actually, it isn't. Murder in the legal sense involves intent, whether premeditated or in the heat of the moment. The fact that a person has died, in this particular instance, is bad enough; there's no need to make this out to be something it isn't.

Legally, no. Really, yes.

Legally, by the laws of the land, I believe Tom would be charged with some form of manslaughter, but I'm not positive as to what impact the involvement of alcohol and the age of the victim would have on this... if any.

Vehicular manslaughter, and legally manslaughter is accidental but avoidable murder, so it is murder

Also, do we know if Tom attempted to seek help for his problem? Do we know why the problem exists? I don't feel that we can honestly say his past has "nothing to do with what happened." Maybe it does. Maybe, one week ago, half a dozen of his fellow firefighters were killed in a warehouse firefighting effort gone horribly wrong, and Tom hit the bottle after finally managing to go sober prior to this.

Why does any of that matter? That boy is no less dead no matter the answers.

Was the 14-year-old boy crossing the street, in the middle of the night, wearing all-black clothing and not looking which way he was going? Though Tom was driving under the influence, alcohol might not have even been a factor in the accident. A lot of children die every year in accidents that don't involve alcohol at all.

Alcohol was involved though

 

[911]

I don't care if he saved a million people if he was drunk he knew better then to drive. He should get at least 15 years minimum.

 

[lespieds]

Well, make him run in the middle of a road while Paris Hilton and Billy Joel are driving around. You know those two are lush ass drunkards who have been drunk since they came out of the womb....
If he survives, he is free.

 

[BigJim]

Just a question i wouldn't mind seing the answer's too. Their is no right or wrong answer persey,but i'm curious to see what people put.

Here we have Tom. Tom's 50 years old, and has been a firefighter for a good 30 years, and has saved a lot of lives. However, Tom also has a drinking problem, and one day while he is drinking, he decides to run down to the store and pick up some more beer. Well, Tom hops i the car, and as he's driving accidently runs over a 14 year old boy in his car.

Now, Tom's not a bad guy, and he's truelly sorry about what happend. He had no intention of hurting anybody he just wanted some beer.

So, i guess the question is, should To be punished(And if so, how severly?), or because of his history of being a firefighter and saving so many lives, should he be let off the hook?

Thoughts?

Depends on a lot of things.

Was Tom under the affluence of inkahol at the time? If he was, then he's guilty of causing a death whilst under the influence, which in my opinion should at least involve a severe suspended sentence, perhaps eighteen months or two years unsuspended.

Was it a pure accident caused because the kid ran out after a ball? In that case it's not his fault at all, so he shouldn't be charged with anything. No-one can predict all the variables, no matter how well trained and experienced a driver they are.

As to his career, I don't believe that should influence his legal position. It's one case where the law would be justified in treating people equally.

 

[BigJim]

Drunk driving is attempted murder. Killing someonen while driving drunk is murder. Tom should be treated as such.

No it isn't, it's vehicular homicide in the States, causing a death by driving under the influence of alcohol here in the UK. Either way it isn't "attempted" at all, because he's actually killed someone, not failed to kill them whilst trying to.

 

[chicago]

Saving a bunch of lives shouldn't give you a free pass to take an innocent person's, whether it's inadvertently or not.

I think someone that drives under the influence and kills someone should have their license taken away for life.

 

[jugner]

No it isn't, it's vehicular homicide in the States, causing a death by driving under the influence of alcohol here in the UK. Either way it isn't "attempted" at all, because he's actually killed someone, not failed to kill them whilst trying to.

2 things

1. apparently you didn't read my other post
2. isn'thomicide a synonym for murder?

 

[BigJim]

2 things

1. apparently you didn't read my other post
2. isn'thomicide a synonym for murder?

1/ I read it after. I was replying to different posts in the list. I still disagree with it anyway, I would probably just have referred to it directly.


2/ Only in the minds of people for whom it has become an everyday word, thanks to horrifying news reports and who don’t know any better. It comes from to roots, hom (a derivative of the latin word for “man”) and icide (a suffix to just about any kind of incident that involved the death of a human being, caused in whatever way by another that seems to have developed from the latin word “caedere”; which is to cut or kill). Thus you have infanticide for killing a child; fratricide for killing a brother; sororicide for killing a sister (now you know where “sorority” comes from); filicide for killing your own child; regicide for killing a monarch; genocide for killing an entire race… ad infinitum.

To quote Wikipedia (you hear me Redmage? There’s my little disclaimer there)…
‘Although homicide does not define an illegal act necessarily, sometimes it is used synonymously with "murder." ‘

To return to my own meanderings…
Murder is a specific kind of killing. Namely one done through malice aforethought. The “icide” it is classified as is 1st degree homicide primarily, and 2nd degree under specific circumstances (much easier to understand in English law in my opinion). Vehicular homicide would come under things like culpable manslaughter or the most extreme cases of negligence.

 

[BigJim]

And before I forget...

2 things

1. apparently you didn't read my other post
2. isn'thomicide a synonym for murder?

3/ You ignored my comment on it being attempted or sucessful.

 

[drew70]

The case is dropped due to sloppy detective work and there not being enough evidence to convict Tom. There will be more seasons of the hit TV series, Rescue Me.

Very sloppy detective work, I agree. Next case!

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Depends on a lot of things.

Was Tom under the affluence of inkahol at the time? If he was, then he's guilty of causing a death whilst under the influence, which in my opinion should at least involve a severe suspended sentence, perhaps eighteen months or two years unsuspended.

Was it a pure accident caused because the kid ran out after a ball? In that case it's not his fault at all, so he shouldn't be charged with anything. No-one can predict all the variables, no matter how well trained and experienced a driver they are.

As to his career, I don't believe that should influence his legal position. It's one case where the law would be justified in treating people equally.

Tom was deffinitly under the influence of alcohal(inkahol?) at the time. We'll say, for arguements sake, 6 beers in 2 hours.

Tom would have in all likelyness not have hit the child if he was drinking. He didnt do a huge swerve unto somebodies property, but the kid was driving his bike on the road and in full view. Tom made a misjudgment because he was drunk.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

The case is dropped due to sloppy detective work and there not being enough evidence to convict Tom. There will be more seasons of the hit TV series, Rescue Me.

Well, thats....interesting...and certainly possible i suppose. Doesn;t realy answer the question, but possible.