White Collar Crime vs. Drunk Driving

[CDRaider]

This is an interesting notion that our criminology prof brought up.

White Collar Crime is considered a crime of negligence. By WWC(white collar crime) i mean things like not replacing faulty equipment instead of Matha Steward kind of stuff.

So anyways, WWC is a crime of negligence that kills thousands of people a year. Things like Three Mile Island and the mining incident where the roof collapsed and there was a finding that the supports weren't stable but they were never replaces. Things like this are considered a crime of neglicence because the person KNEW that there was something wrong and did NOTHING about it. The Justice system generally gives a sentance of around a decade for these kind of crime. The reason they do this is because 'they do not believe the person went into the business or ignored the report with the intent of killing someone'.

Now drunk driving is considered a captial offense and the person is charged with FIRST DEGREE murder if they kill someone whil DUI. But heres my question, does the drunk person get in the car with the intent to kill someone? Their actions do not seem that different from someone who reads a report of faulty equipment and decides its too costly to replace. They both kill someone due to negligence. Why is one only a dozen years and the other is life?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There has got to be a better way to define your terms.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_collar_crime

 

[CDRaider]

There has got to be a better way to define your terms.

What do you mean?

 

[GloriaPatri]

If you ask me, I think drunk driving laws should be abolished.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What do you mean?

White collar crime cannot be generally defined as a crime of negligence because most white collar crimes are willful acts of deception, which ruins your argument.

 

[CDRaider]

White collar crime cannot be generally defined as a crime of negligence because most white collar crimes are willful acts of deception, which ruins your argument.

I think you may have misunderstood.

I DO NOT think they are acts of negligence, i do believe they are purposeful acts but the justice system defines it as such. So working with the definitions that are currently in place.... the comparison is valid.

 

[Booko]

If you ask me, I think drunk driving laws should be abolished.

I don't. But then as my husband was nearly killed by a drunk driver years ago, I have an obvious partiality on the subject.

Someone who is irresponsible enough to get behind the wheel when they are impaired, be it by alcohol, drugs, or perfectly legal Benadryl, has endangered others and already proven they lack the judgment to deserve the privelege of driving a car.

It's perfectly legal for me to drive while I'm having a migraine, but if its bad enough, I don't, because I know I am not capable of handling the vehicle safely, and have no desire to kill myself or someone else.

 

[Ðanisty]

If you ask me, I think drunk driving laws should be abolished.

:areyoucra Why???

 

[jamaesi]

Now drunk driving is considered a captial offense and the person is charged with FIRST DEGREE murder if they kill someone whil DUI. But heres my question, does the drunk person get in the car with the intent to kill someone? Their actions do not seem that different from someone who reads a report of faulty equipment and decides its too costly to replace. They both kill someone due to negligence. Why is one only a dozen years and the other is life?

They both should be first degree murder, and yes a drunk getting into a car and a higher-up who ignores the report that says their equipment/building is unsafe (or even better, doesn't even keep up maintence and inspections) both know their actions can hurt or kill people.

If you ask me, I think drunk driving laws should be abolished.

Yeah, those innocent people killed by drunk drivers should have just stayed underground in bomb shelters where cars can't hit them. :sarcastic

 

[d.]

If you ask me, I think drunk driving laws should be abolished.

because...

and instead you propose...

 

[jamaesi]

I've made a post about Drunk Driving laws, as not to further derail this one. Sorry about getting offtopic here, CDRaider!

I do agree with your professor about this being interesting. What did (s)he/the other students have to say about it during class?

 

[CDRaider]

Well my professor used to work in a Uranium mine when he was younger, he lost SEVERAL of his fellow peers in mining accidents that could have been avoided.

For instance, the inspector would come and he would take the air samples right at the shaft entry instead of 200 ft into it where the men were acutally working!

 

[gerrywilson]

Drunk and drive can be considered very big crime. Driver will fall asleep. Then he will drive the vehicle. He cannot even view the traffic sign properly.