I recently had this discussion with another board member one night during an execution chat. While I may be alone with this belief, I feel I make some pretty strong arguments for it.
I suppose the biggest argument against capital punishment for impaired drivers who kill would be the fact that they didn't get behind the wheel with the intent to kill someone. Well newsflash, pal, not all capital murderers do either, and we don't question their executions.
If someone robs a store with a gun, and there is a struggle for the weapon and it goes off, killing somebody, the robber would be guilty of capital murder in any death penalty state. Even if he never intended to kill anyone, only rob them, he can still be sentenced to death. The fact that he brought a loaded gun to an armed robbery shows that he knew there is a potential for a fatality, and he still chose to go ahead and commit the crime anyways. The same logic can be applied to impaired drivers. If someone knows that driving while intoxicated puts the lives on everyone on the road in jeopardy, and still chooses to operate a motor vehicle anyways, and an innocent person does die as a result, what is the difference?
What about that guy in Georgia, Roy Blankenship, who was executed for causing the death of an old lady who suffered a heart attack while being raped? He could argue that he didn't intend to kill to victim, only rape her, and he didn't intentionally inflict any fatal wounds. But his actions still led to the victim's death, and I doubt anyone was heartbroken when he was strapped to the gurney.
Think about the guy in Wisconsin a couple weeks ago who was driving around while huffing chemicals, and crashed his truck into a girl scout troop, killing three of them along with one of their mothers. Why should he be allowed to live?
A year ago my mom was in a bad car accident caused by a man who was high on heroin. He fell asleep at the wheel, veered across the center lane and hit my mom head on. She is OK, but lucky to be alive. If anyone saw a picture of the car after the accident, they'd think there's no way anyone lived through that. Had my mom not made it, I would absolutely want the other driver killed.
Drunk driving is no better than driving while high on heroin or driving while huffing paint. If someone drinks a 5th of vodka to the point where they can't walk straight, but still chooses to drive a car and ends up killing someone, I have no sympathy for them.
Someone could argue what if someone has one or two beers, and is involved in an accident that they didn't necessarily happen to cause, and someone happens to die as a result. Surely they don't deserve to be executed. My response to this is it would have to be proven that the defendant's intoxication directly caused the accident that led to the victim's death, and it would be up to a jury to find this in order to convict on a murder charge.
Also, just as we can tell someone if they don't want to receive the death penalty, all they have to do is NOT murder someone, the same can be said about this proposed scenario. If one wishes to avoid the same fate, all they have to do is not drive while impaired. In the days of Uber, Lyft and other options available, there is absolutely NO REASON whatsoever to drive impaired, and anyone who does so is extremely stupid.
I believe this should be extended to other dangerous drives who aren't impaired. If someone is stone cold sober but is driving 100+ mph down the road, and they crash and kill someone, we should execute them as well.
What does everyone else think on this matter? Do you agree? Why or why not?
Bookmarks