USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Name:
Institution:
Contents
Effects of the Law on the Average American. 9
Vehicular Manslaughter
Introduction
For a long time, many states in the United States of America have relied heavily on federal and state laws on manslaughter to deal with reckless driving. However, following increased road carnage in the country, different states have over the last few decades enacted various statutes that currently constitute vehicular manslaughter law. This law treats reckless driving as a specific felony thereby requiring drivers to act responsibly (Scheb, & Scheb, 2013).
ORDER LAW PAPER NOW
For this assignment, the selected topic is vehicular manslaughter. This term refers to the wrongful killing of other people other than drivers that result from reckless driving (Carper, McKinsey, & West, 2008). It mainly occurs due to alcoholism or abuse of other types of drugs (Carper, McKinsey, & West, 2008). Based on the manner of occurrence, vehicular manslaughter can be classified as either voluntary or involuntary. A voluntary manslaughter is an intentional form of killing whereas involuntary manslaughter is an accidental killing (Gardner, & Anderson, 2014). When criminal negligence is involved in vehicular manslaughter, defendants are usually charged with unintentional killing (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2016). However, in the absence of criminal negligence, defendants may receive life sentences in prison.
When making decisions, judges and magistrates usually consider manslaughter as excusable, justifiable or criminal depending on circumstances of the killing as well as the mental state of the killer. In spite of this fact, most judges and magistrates consider vehicular manslaughter as criminal because drivers are not supposed to drive recklessly or under the influence of drugs such as alcohol. As a result, when charged with this type of felony, defendants must do a lot of work to convince judges and magistrates that killing did not occur intentionally. Failure to do so may lead to a life sentence. This notwithstanding, vehicular manslaughter is treated as manslaughter rather than murder because killing usually occurs without malice aforethought (Hall, 2006). Even in this case, though, drivers cannot justify their acts of driving while drunk. As a result, they should be held responsible whenever their acts result in the death of other people.
This essay starts by looking at the historical development of vehicular manslaughter in the USA before looking at state laws on the same and its effects on average Americans. The historical part of the essay concerns itself with the major steps that have been made in this area whereas the state law part evaluates the way states deal with the issue. The last part addresses the manner in which the law in question affects the daily life of an average American.
Historical Development
Firstly, under normal circumstances, one would expect vehicular manslaughter law to be as old as motor vehicles. However, this is not the case because, after the invention of motor vehicles and the joy that came with it, people did not think that this noble development would endanger their lives. Upon realizing this, the U.S. government countered the problem by requiring all vehicle owners to register their vehicles. Drivers were also required to register themselves with the government. For some time, the registration practice appeared to solve the problem, but it did not solve it in totality. The practice was accompanied by regulation of driving behavior through speed limits. Although these practices were aimed at bringing sanity in the transport industry, motor vehicle owners opposed it, arguing that motor vehicles were supposed to be governed by the same rules being applied on horse-drawn vehicles (Brenner, 2007). The basis of this argument was that there was no big difference between vehicles drawn by horses and those controlled by drivers. If anything, the opponents argued, those controlled by drivers were better off because in terms of communication. Based on this argument, motor vehicle owners succeeded in countering the government’s measures on road safety, but this opposition did not last long because of the rising number of injuries and deaths from road accidents. The majority of state governments responded to this problem by imposing speed limits.
As time went by, the government introduced precautionary measures such as fitting vehicles with safety gadgets. Drivers were also required to take precautions to minimize road accidents, especially when encountering pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles. This move was seen as placing some element of obligation on drivers. In the meantime, motor vehicles were fitted with devices such as horns to signal pedestrians. With time, road licenses were introduced, with Rhode Island being the first state to embrace this new development. The aim of this move was to separate qualified drivers from unqualified ones. At this point in time, the focus of road safety was not on alcoholism, but on the physical capability to drive, age and knowledge of traffic laws. In line with this shift in focus, by the end of 1954, all states in the USA had managed to pass laws that required drivers to obtain road licenses (Brenner, 2007).
ORDER LAW PAPER NOW
Evidently, the above measures were instrumental in reducing road accidents, though they did not eliminate them in totality. For instance, because between 1922 and 1930, the number of road accidents had risen from 15,000 to 32,000 (Brenner, 2007). The same results were witnessed in other parts of the world. Population experts attributed this increase in road accidents to highway driving. In line with this claim, the effort was made to impose stricter road safety measures. This development saw the introduction of a traffic law that criminalized the act of driving without a driver’s license. It also witnessed the banning of minors from driving vehicles with the minimum driving age being set at fourteen years in 1925. The speed limit law was also revised to bar drug addicts and alcoholics from obtaining driving licenses. In 1931, the minimum driving age was raised to sixteen. In addition, New York State required drivers to drive carefully and in a prudent manner. It also called on drivers to drive at a speed that would not endanger life and property. During this time, a speed limit of over 30 miles per hour was widely perceived as an indication of reckless driving.
At the onset of the twentieth century, lawmakers in the USA were developing a criminal liability law known as the public welfare offense. This move was informed by a growing emphasis on the protection of public and social interests rather than that of individual interests as motor vehicle owners had done for a long period. Following the introduction of this practice, most states started classifying vehicular manslaughter as a felony. Accordingly, they defined and included it in their state laws. The vehicular manslaughter law that resulted from this practice traces its origin from the uniform vehicle code of the 1960s (Brenner, 2007). These were model laws that were drafted by a non-profit group that was dedicated to standardizing and improving traffic laws at the state level. Since then, different states have developed their state vehicular manslaughter laws from this model law, with some referring to it as vehicular homicide and others as homicide by vehicle.
State Laws
Over time, different states in the USA have enacted different laws on deaths that result from reckless driving. This part of the essay will highlight some of the laws on vehicular manslaughter that have been enacted at the state level. Only three states namely Arizona, Montana, and Alaska have been excluded from this analysis because they do not have this type of law (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014).
California
California is among the states with the strictest laws on vehicular manslaughter. Rather than treating it as crime generally, it classifies it into different categories depending on the degree of recklessness and the type of drug used by the driver. The most common categories of vehicular manslaughter in the state include general vehicular manslaughter, second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. In all these categories, the prosecution is supposed to prove that defendants committed wrongful acts that led to the death of victims and that they should be held accountable for those acts. Second-degree murder charges are reserved for most fatal cases that have strong indications that drivers were intoxicated at the time of the accident and that they caused death intentionally. These charges attract imprisonment of up to ten years. In other crimes, the jail term depends on the charges leveled against defendants.
Minnesota
In Minnesota State, this type of crime is treated slightly differently from the way it is treated in California. However, the concept is almost similar to that of the latter state. Under Minnesota’s criminal law, a person is considered to have committed vehicular manslaughter if he/she causes death in a grossly negligent manner while driving meaning that the person could have avoided the crime or if the person violates the existing driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) laws, Moreover, vehicular manslaughter charges can be pressed if the person leaves the crime scene in violation of state’s hit-and-run law that requires the person not leave the crime scene after the accident. Similarly, one may face the changes if he/she commits the crime under the influence of controlled substances, alcohol or a combination of the two (Hall, 2006). Lastly, the law prescribes vehicular manslaughter if the accident occurs when the driver is under the influence of a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.08. Although these conditions are well elaborated, the sentence imposed seems rather low – it does not exceed ten years in prison and the fine imposed does not exceed $20,000.
Louisiana
Louisiana has a more specific vehicular manslaughter law than Minnesota because it addresses other means of transport instead of restricting the offense to motor vehicles. For a person to be charged with this type of offense, he/she should be driving under the influence of a controlled substance or alcohol at the time of the accident. The jail term for this offense ranges between five and thirty years. Alternatively, the person can pay a fine of between $2,000 and $15,000 or face both a jail term and the fine.
In Washington D.C., drivers are accused of vehicular manslaughter if they were driving under the influence of drugs or intoxicating liquor, they were driving recklessly or they disregarded the safety of other people at the time of the accident. In contrast to other states, drivers in the state are held to account for such offenses if the injured persons die within three years from the time of the accident. The offense is classified as class A felony and those found guilty of it can serve between 31 and 177 months in jail or life imprisonment. They might as well pay fines that do not exceed $50,000.
Georgia
In Georgia, the offense in question is termed as homicide by vehicle and it is defined as the unlawful killing of other persons using a vehicle. For a person to be guilty of this offense he/she does not need to have premeditation, malice aforethought or intent to kill. Rather, he/she only needs to commit the offense as defined by the law. The two types of offenses of homicide by vehicle in the state include first- and second-degree homicide by vehicle. A person charged with first-degree homicide serves between 3 and 15 years in jail, but habitual offenders serve between 5 and 20 years. A person charged with second-degree homicide serves a jail term of up to one year and/or a fine that does not exceed $1,000. Drivers are said to be guilty of first-degree homicide if they drive recklessly, drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, do not stop after a collision, or are declared as habitual offenders (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 2016).
Other States
In Alabama, drivers that are found guilty of the offense in question serve between one and ten years in jail. They also pay fines of between $500 and $15,000 depending on the nature and severity of the offenses committed. In Alaska, drivers found guilty of this offense serve between one to ninety-nine years in jail. Depending on the degree of offense, a person can be charged with criminally negligent homicide, manslaughter or second-degree murder. On the other hand, in Arkansas, those found guilty of the offense serve between five and twenty years in prison. They may also be compelled to pay fines not exceeding $15,000 (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 2016).
In contrast, in Colorado, the jail term is less than 12 years for non-aggravated offenses, but 24 years for aggravated ones. In Connecticut, the jail term for the offense is between one and ten years. A person is guilty of manslaughter with the motor vehicle if he/she was driving under the influence of a drug or intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident. The fine for the offense in this state does not exceed $10,000. Elsewhere, in Delaware, for example, those found guilty of vehicular manslaughter serve between one and five years in jail. In Florida, offenders serve less than 15 years in jail although they may also pay fines not exceeding $10,000. In contrast, the jail terms for offenders in Hawaii do not exceed ten years. In this state, this offense is categorized into class B, class C, and misdemeanor. The fine for those charged with first-degree offenses does not exceed $25,000 (Hall, 2006).
Overall, the above state laws are similar in terms of what they refer to when describing vehicular manslaughter. However, they define the term differently. Some refer to it as vehicular manslaughter while others refer to it as homicide by vehicle or vehicular homicide. Although this does not bring a lot of difference, it determines the manner in which states define the offense in addition to the fines and the jail terms prescribed for the same. In this respect, state laws on vehicular manslaughter differ in terms of the length of jail term, fine and conditions under which one can be accused of the offense. In some states, drivers are guilty of the offense for merely driving recklessly, while in others, prosecutions have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that drivers are guilty of the offense.
Effects of the Law on the Average American
Although vehicular manslaughter law does not address itself to ordinary citizens directly, it impacts their lives significantly in the sense that they are victims of reckless driving. Indeed, when irresponsible drivers are punished for their reckless driving practices, it is the ordinary citizens that benefit significantly. As an illustration of the fact that American citizens are the major beneficiaries of vehicular manslaughter law, Staples (2012) claims that between 2008 and 2009 about 22,550 Americans lost their lives due to drunk-driving accidents. Given that the number of road accidents has been on the rise annually, the law in question has been instrumental in holding reckless drivers responsible for their bad behaviors. In return, this might have cautioned drivers from driving when drunk and in so doing, reducing the number of people that lose their lives due to drunk-driving.
As highlighted earlier on, the invention of motor vehicles did not come with benefits only, but also some disadvantages as well. At first, people were concerned with fatalities and loss of limbs, but as time progressed and technology advanced in the motor vehicle industry, speed became a concern as well (Brenner, 2007). Drivers became irresponsible to the extent that they could drink and drive. In so doing, death became a concern in the transport industry. To date, this is a major problem on the roads. As explained in the previous section, vehicular manslaughter law was developed as a way of ensuring that deaths do not occur on anyhow. Fortunately, the law stipulates the conditions that constitute vehicular manslaughter fairly well such that drunk drivers are discouraged from driving vehicles. Although it might not be possible to eliminate accidents from the roads completely, the law in question tries to ensure that accidents resulting from alcoholism and drug abuse are eliminated. Given that it addresses itself to the death of other people apart from drivers, the law benefits average Americans significantly by ensuring that they are safe from deaths that result from reckless driving.
Conclusion
Overall, vehicular manslaughter discourages drivers from taking alcohol or abusing other types of drugs. It also discourages drivers from driving under the influence of those drugs. Moreover, it specifies what drivers should do and not do every time they get drunk. From a criminal justice perspective, the law tries to bar crime from occurring by stipulating how drivers ought to behave while on the roads. The development of the law marked a significant improvement in road transport in America because many drivers are discouraged from driving under the influence of drugs for fear of stiff fines and sentences. This not only stops drivers from being arrested for driving while drunk but also minimizes the number of road accidents that occur due to drunkenness. Given that American citizens might be the first victims of reckless driving, their lives are protected any time drivers are discouraged from driving under the influence of drugs. More importantly, they are the major beneficiaries when irresponsible drivers are held responsible for their bad behaviors through the enforcement of this law. Based on these facts, the average Americans are the major beneficiaries of vehicular manslaughter law.
References
Brenner, S. (2007). Law in an era of smart technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Carper, D., McKinsey, J. & West, B. (2008). Understanding the law. Mason, OH: Thomson/West.
Cole, G., Smith, C. & DeJong, C. (2016). The American system of criminal justice. New York, NY: Cengage learning.
Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (2014). Criminal law. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Hall, K. (2006). The oxford companion to American law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hess, K., Orthmann, C. & Cho, H. (2014). Police operations: theory and practice. Delmar, CA: Cengage learning.
Scheb, J. & Scheb, J. (2013). Criminal law and procedure. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Staples, A. (2012). Another small step in America’s battle against drunk driving: How the spending clause can provide more uniform sentences for drunk-driving fatalities. New England Law Review, 46, 353-385.
