08-22-2014, 06:09 AM
The difference between legal and moral is distinct. Legally, the cops could have shot the driver and covered it up. A neighbor could have shot the driver. If I was a prosecutor, I wouldn't want this case just because the evidence is so circumstantial I'd not want to hurt my record with a loss. If I was a prosecutor and had better evidence, I'd want to put him in jail or an institution. The point of law is to administer justice. Those who take revenge ignore justice. They're not the same.
Morally, I think both parties are responsible for the accident. However, the drunk driver is reprehensible for impairing himself and operating dangerous machinery. Obviously he's more responsible for the incident... but the person to decide his punishment is NOT the other person responsible for the incident. If it had been an 82 year old woman that was impaired due to terrible vision, she'd still be reprehensible. Would you hand the 82 year old woman a death sentence?
Morally, I think both parties are responsible for the accident. However, the drunk driver is reprehensible for impairing himself and operating dangerous machinery. Obviously he's more responsible for the incident... but the person to decide his punishment is NOT the other person responsible for the incident. If it had been an 82 year old woman that was impaired due to terrible vision, she'd still be reprehensible. Would you hand the 82 year old woman a death sentence?