Due Punishment?

By Wes White

Pro

Forsyth County District Attorney Tom Keith has had enough of drunken drivers who kill people - and he wants to make them pay.

He wants them to pay, potentially, with their lives. Keith has asked legislators to pass a law that would allow habitual drunken drivers to be subject to the death penalty if they kill while driving drunk. The measure would add habitual drunken driving to the list of felonies that, under state law, can be used to convict a defendant of first-degree murder.

Keith also has asked legislators to extend the period from seven to 15 years for accumulating the drunken driving offenses. Currently, drivers can be convicted of felony drunken driving if they have three prior DWI charges within the seven-year period.

Drunk driving is a serious problem in North Carolina. The time is past due for Keith's proposals to be implemented statewide. Killing another person while driving drunk is a serious offense; it is an offense that merits serious consequences. Even death.

Keith's request stems from the case of Thomas Richard Jones, who was convicted of first-degree murder after killing two people when his car collided with a carload of Wake Forest University students in 1996. In Jones' case, the underlying felony used to convict him under the state's felony murder rule was assault with a deadly weapon - his car. Though prosecutors sought the death penalty, Jones was only sentenced to life in prison.

In December, the state Supreme Court overturned the conviction - saying the "implied" intent did not rise to the "actual" intent needed for first-degree murder. Justice Robert F. Orr noted in the ruling that the courts would need "a clear mandate of the legislature" to uphold a conviction such as Jones'. The General Assembly should give them such a mandate.

According to MADD, drunken driving is the nations most frequent violent crime. Moreover, more than one-third of drivers charged with DWI are repeat offenders.

Opponents of Keith's proposals argue that repeat offenders should not face a stiffer penalty. Many argue that current penalties for drunken driving-related fatalities, such as vehicular homicide and manslaughter, should apply to all drunken drivers who kill, regardless of the number of offenses. But clearly the laws aren't working and drunken drivers are not getting the message.

Why should a repeat drunken driver not face a stiffer penalty, particularly in the case of a death? The time has come for lawmakers to give as much priority to drunken driving as is given to gun violence, drug offenses and hate crimes.

Anyone who chooses to drive under the influence knows the consequences that can potentially occur. One who chooses to repeatedly ignore the potential disasters associated with driving drunk, and consequently takes a life, deserves no less than the full measure of the law.

Ashley Holmes

Con

Drunken driving is a serious issue. Though a lot has been done to curtail the problem, the effects of it are far-reaching and fatal.

In 1999, there were 15,786 alcohol-related traffic fatalities, accounting for 38 percent of all traffic deaths.

Certainly something must be done to eliminate the problem of drunken driving. A Forsyth County prosecutor has proposed a law that would make drunken driving a capital offense, first-degree murder, if a habitual drunk driver should kill someone.

While this law should be commended for its tough stance on drunken driving, it is not a fair solution to the problem. Drunken driving, while an irresponsible and often deadly crime, is inherently different than the traditional definition of first-degree murder.

As most students figure out on beer-drenched Thursday nights, a person might behave in ways when drunk that he or she would not even consider when sober.

That does not relieve the individual of the consequences of his or her actions. When dealing with life or death issues the excuse "I was really drunk" just doesn't cut it.

If one kills another while driving drunk, it does not lessen the severity of the crime. However, most would agree that alcohol impedes proper reasoning and judgement, hence the term "Driving While Impaired."

If one is driving while impaired, he or she does not possess the usual capabilities for reason. Thus, he or she does not possess the usual capabilities for malice that are required for a murder to be considered first-degree.

There is something inherently different between killing someone while driving drunk and premeditated first-degree murder.

And although this law rightly targets habitual drunken drivers, there is still the issue of alcohol addiction to consider. Alcoholism is an all-encompassing disease that ruins lives. Alcoholics come in all types. Even President Bush has had problems with alcohol and drunken driving in the past.

Consider the case of Phil Ford, a former assistant UNC basketball coach. Although he is a former National Player of the Year and is, by most accounts, a decent human being, Phil Ford has made the decision at least two times to drive home drunk.

If his driving drunk had caused a fatal traffic accident, Phil Ford would be culpable for his actions. But one should agree that his decision to do so was greatly influenced by his problem with alcohol, making it a different case than premeditated murder.

Alcohol-related fatalities fall into a different category of murder altogether. It is a severe crime worthy of harsh punishments. But to make such a complicated crime a capital offense would not be a fair reaction.

Instead of grouping first-degree murder and killing someone while driving drunk together, the state legislature should take steps to recognize the unique circumstances of alcohol-related fatalities.