I think any drunk driver who hurts or kills another should have their crime viewed as “premeditated” or have the exact same damage done to their body that they did to others, including death if they killed an innocent.
If you choose to give up control, you’ve chosen to suffer the punishment you desired to give others, in my book.
You missed the point entirely. This is not about drunk driving; it’s about the overreaching Nanny State and being unconsititutionally framed by overzealous police.
This is a completely ignorant statement. What ever happened to the tried and true statement “shit happens”? Since when is guilt presumed over innocence a good thing? And if say you happened one night to have a couple of drinks at a family members or friends house and drive say, three blocks to your house, presuming that its such a short distance nothing could possibly happen. And then out of no where your breaks stop working or you loose steering control and you slam into a car at an intersection or fly threw some ones front window and kill one of them or permanently disfigure or disable one of them. Would your statement stand true then? Even though it wasn’t the result of being too trashed drive? Because under current legislation this “accident” would be considered “alcohol-related” and you would be charged with premeditated vehicular manslaughter. So once again I ask, does this make any sense whatsoever? NO
Oh pullease.
By your example, anyone who accidentally causes harm to another, through any forseeable circumstance, gets the penalty of "eye for an eye".
If you skid on an icy road, going 40 MPH, and cause a death, you would be sentenced to death. Because you should have known that 40 MPH was far too fast for conditions, yet you pushed the envelope, because you were in control.
There are countless similar situation similar to this, where one believes he is in control, but is demonstrably not.
Conservative mind my a$$.
Define "Drunk".