Should courts assume a driver was under the influence when they fail to stop at accidents?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Punishment for driving away from accident should be the same as DUI sentence if found guilty.

This. 

[madbradd]

Punishment for driving away from accident should be the same as DUI sentence if found guilty.

This needs to be in addition to any assult/manslaughter (which I truly believe should be upped to murder/attempted murder) punishment.

[Stretch]

Lost his license due to excessive demerits.... So someone with a history of being caught driving recklessly eventually hits someone, and skips the scene.... I have no sympathy for someone like that.

I don't disagree... But you could also lose your license due to 4 minor speeding violations in three years. In this instance this guy had excessive violations but my point was different people react differently in panic situations. If the sentence for leaving the scene was so that your didn't even consider it then that would eliminate that.

[madbradd]

I don't disagree... But you could also lose your license due to 4 minor speeding violations in three years. In this instance this guy had excessive violations but my point was different people react differently in panic situations. If the sentence for leaving the scene was so that your didn't even consider it then that would eliminate that.

I think then we are arguing the same point. OP, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not so much about being guilty of a DUI. It's about facing a SEVERE penalty for leaving someone for dead.

[Jaws677]

The only reason someone would fled is because deep down they think that they can avoid the consequence of their action by simply fleeing the seen.

 

If no one saw them ,great they away with it.

 

If they get caught later just apologise and blame it on shock

 

I say fleeing and accident seen should carry a 5year prison sentence just for the act of fleeing a.scene

[Blackbeard]

The only reason someone would fled is because deep down they think that they can avoid the consequence of their action by simply fleeing the seen.

 

If no one saw them ,great they away with it.

 

If they get caught later just apologise and blame it on shock

 

I say fleeing and accident seen should carry a 5year prison sentence just for the act of fleeing a.scene

No one is arguing against proper punishment if properly convicted. The proposal is that the driver should be deprived of a natural law right.

[Edereese]

I say yes.. stopping at the scene could save a life. If the surrounding areas are not safe to stop, make your way to the nearest police station and report it. Only guilty people run so I say maximum punishment!

[Coolspin]

I heard an attorney on the radio one day that said that it is an often used platitude that someone is "innocent until proven guilty" (used mostly by politicians)

He says that there is actually no such law.

An accused person is not presumed guilty nor innocent by the court but is merely the accused, the guilt or innocence presumption is only able to be made/confirmed after the court or Judge has given the judgement.

 

An interesting concept that 99% of laypeople will say is bollox, just repeating what I heard, perhaps actual attorneys on the forum could enlighten.

So many people use the term" innocent until proven guilty" was just wondering if in fact this exists in SA law.

[stringbean]

I would say no.

Incident happened to me a while ago.

Fetched my daughter from horse riding lesson and busy on my way home thru Dunoon( local squatter camp where a drunk walks in the road and I have to take some serious skills to miss him.

Now if I had hit him.

Do I stop,wait at the scene( with a 13 year old girl in the car)in the middle of the squatter camp?

I would definitely not feel safe to hang around in that situation.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I heard an attorney on the radio one day that said that it is an often used platitude that someone is "innocent until proven guilty" (used mostly by politicians)

He says that there is actually no such law.

An accused person is not presumed guilty nor innocent by the court but is merely the accused, the guilt or innocence presumption is only able to be made/confirmed after the court or Judge has given the judgement.

 

An interesting concept that 99% of laypeople will say is bollox, just repeating what I heard, perhaps actual attorneys on the forum could enlighten.

So many people use the term" innocent until proven guilty" was just wondering if in fact this exists in SA law.

correct. It is in essence the same thing, even though it's grossly misunderstood by some. The judge makes a call based on the weight of the evidence & arguments before him, but that evidence needs to ensure that it overcomes the "reasonable doubt" that surrounds the matter. 

 

Innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of the judge. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (even if he is *guilty* of having actually committed the offence) just that there's not sufficient evidence to overcome the reasonable doubt, and therefore the guilt cannot be PROVEN. 

[Coolspin]

I would say no.

Incident happened to me a while ago.

Fetched my daughter from horse riding lesson and busy on my way home thru Dunoon( local squatter camp where a drunk walks in the road and I have to take some serious skills to miss him.

Now if I had hit him.

Do I stop,wait at the scene( with a 13 year old girl in the car)in the middle of the squatter camp?

I would definitely not feel safe to hang around in that situation.

Hectic, not so clear cut, I dont think would be smart to stop in such circumstances either, a moral dilemma for sure, just hope never to be presented with such a situation.

[Stretch]

Hectic, not so clear cut, I dont think would be smart to stop in such circumstances either, a moral dilemma for sure, just hope never to be presented with such a situation.

My uncle had a bum walk out in front of him on the N2. He yanked to the left but still hit him firmly on the front side and killed him. He never really got over it

[Bonus]

Lost his license due to excessive demerits.... So someone with a history of being caught driving recklessly eventually hits someone, and skips the scene.... I have no sympathy for someone like that.

 

Yeah, not drunk this time maybe but hardly an angel.

 

I can't think of a single legitimate or morally correct reason for not stopping.

 

Even if you already had someone in your car who was dying and you were rushing them to the hospital - you'd still have to stop if you hit someone.

 

Equally though, out of all the (admittedly bad) reasons someone might have for not stopping, how do you guess "which one" applies in each case? 

[BigDL]

We bumped a child that ran out in front of us on a Saturday afternoon in Warwick Avenue, Durban, in 1994. Child was fine, I got out the car, checked on her, she got up and was ok, but we had to beat a fairly hasty retreat as a hostile crowd formed in a couple of minutes. If she was, heaven forbid, badly hurt, we would most likely have had to do the same.

[gummibear]

This needs to be in addition to any assult/manslaughter (which I truly believe should be upped to murder/attempted murder) punishment.

Problem is that you have a guy that has 3 beers and I in an accident and is over the limit.

Then you get a student who was shooters drinking all night and hasn’t slept and hits a cyclist.

 

Two different cases that can’t get the same sentences.

[Jaws677]

Problem is that you have a guy that has 3 beers and I in an accident and is over the limit.

Then you get a student who was shooters drinking all night and hasn’t slept and hits a cyclist.

 

Two different cases that can’t get the same sentences.

Why ? If you are over the limit you are over the limit. If it three beers or a hundred it doesn't matter. Your ability to drive has been impaired and you should not be behind the wheel of a 2ton metal object.

 

There is no excuse to drink and drive even two beers.