BF2S Forums Should he be punished?

Vehicular manslaughter.

But, he should just be deported and save us the money.

Rather loud in the story was the lack of note that he had no drivers license. It does say he lost his American driving lost his American driving privileges for life, it doesn't say he never had them and by the fact that he was driving without a license he was also driving without insurance.


The relatives are not legally liable. He could have parked and slept it off, or not gotten wasted in the first place.

Last edited by ATG (2008-06-27 19:54:12)

I cannot speak for American law, but as a student of the English legal system- the only circumstance in which a bartender / drug-dealer of any kind can be held liable in the causation of a homicide is where they had a 'more than reasonably expected inferrence in the circumstances'. I.e. a drug dealer merely selling the heroin that a junkie overdoses on is not sufficient to place culpability, yet a drug dealer that coaxes and encourages a first-time user to try heroin that he has cut with glass will be.

You can't really cross-relate the occurence of a bartender being held liable for DUI with a duty of care being imposed between relatives. Ordinary laypeople do not have a duty to look out for or mind each other's responsibilities- yet relatives do, as do professionals and people that assume a duty through their conduct (this may be the 'grey' area where your bartender example becomes liable).

In the case of relatives, by implying that the relative had an involvement- this would be classed under English law as gross negligence manslaughter, which is a partial defense to the full offence of murder. For relatives to be responsible, they would first have to have a duty of care imposed upon them-- and by default, relatives do have a duty of care imposed on one another by the principle laid down in the case of R v Gibbins & Proctor. The argument may have caused the defendant to leave, but the relative did have a legal duty and obligation to look after him, unless of course s/he can argue that the defendant posed a threat or nuisance to her own wellbeing at the time!

From a legal perspective, the law has to remain objective and fair for the majority- almost in a utilitarian sense. Although the law is subjective in consideration of each case, and any special characteristics/circumstances that the defendant was placed in- at the end of the day, the law must still be fairly applied to everybody- with no one being exempt or above the regulation. Also bear in mind that pre-sentencing, a judge will consider aggravating or mitigating factors in the defendant's case, and in this case I am sure the defendant's status as an illegal immigrant would have been viewed positively as the former. Also of course the lack of a driving license complicates and worsens his case significantly. I do think that the man should have been punished ultimately, he committed the crime and he must do the time. You cannot shift blame to a relative because they have a duty of care imposed upon them- a breach of the duty must be proven first- and I'm not sure that by antagonising each other in an argument this was a clear-cut 'breach' of ones moral and legal responsibilities. The judges/juries discretion determines it at the end of the day though.

That's my $0.02 from an English legal perspective anyway... and our law systems are based on the same historical system.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-06-28 05:48:57)