Imagine a man driving his car along a highway on an early Sunday morning. For some unknown reasons, whether because the car becomes faulty somehow or due to the road conditions, he suddenly loses control of his car, and then hitting a runner running at the roadside. She dies on the spot from the impact. Obviously, the man is responsible for the death of the woman although in this case the whole thing is accidental in nature. But how should he be punished?
Now consider an alternative scenario. Still back to the same basic facts above, except that the man is driving with an expired driving licence. His competency in handling the vehicle is still basically the same as in the first scenario, and whether he is driving with a valid or expired driving licence does not change the fact that he somehow loses control of the vehicle, leading to the death of the woman. The incident is still accidental in nature, although in this second scenario, he is driving with an expired licence. I think we can all agree that he deserves the punishment, as provided by the law, for "driving without a valid driving licence", or rather having a licence that has expired..But that is a separate matter and can well be considered in isolation from the fact that a woman lost her life because she was hit by the vehicle. Apart from the punishment for "driving without a valid licence", would you punish the man any differently for the part about the woman losing her life due to the impact of the car in the first scenario above?
Now imagine yet another possible scenario. Again, the same basic facts as in the first scenario above, but this time the man is driving while under the influence of alcohol. It is not known the level of intoxication, and it is unclear whether or not he would have been able to control his car any better if he were sober. I suppose this last issue depends on how drunk is the man. I'm not an alcohol drinker, so I'm not well versed in this, but I happen to know some people can drink gallons of alcohol and still won't loose their "driving skills" too much; whereas some people drink very little alcohol, and they would be knocked out for days. But anyway, in this third scenario, I think we can all agree that the man deserves the punishment, as provided by the law, for drunk driving. But bear in mind that as we have seen in the first scenario above, even a sober driver could not control the vehicle and ended up hitting the woman. So it does seem like the alcohol does not make any difference on the outcome of the incident.
The above three scenarios are very similar to one another, yet very different when the "expired driving licence" and "drunk driving" are included in the equation. What I know is that if it can be proven that the driver did not drive recklessly, and the the incident was entirely accidental in nature, he would normally not be blamed. But of course he is still answerable for "driving without a valid licence" and "drunk driving". In other words, the punishment that the man deserves will therefore depend on the exact details of the case, because a slight change in those details will result in different responsibility.
Well, such was the case with a woman named Sue Lynn, an avid runner who was hit by a car during her morning jog on 29 January 2025. The man behind the steering wheel was found to be drunk. According to this news article, he was initially investigated under Section 44(1) of the Road Transport Act for drunken driving causing death. However, he was later charged under Section 45A, which covers drunk driving without causing harm or death. Immediately we ask ourselves, "Why?". The family is now urging the authorities to reinstate a more serious charge against the driver.
A family member of the victim contacted me privately recently and sought my support to spread the family's call for a "higher" charge against the driver. Being a parent myself, my heart goes out to the family. I can just imagine the pain of losing a loved one. If it had happened to me, I would be devastated.
But I'm rather reluctant to support in this case, because I have insufficient information about the case. I don't know, for example, if it was the "drunk driving" element that was the real cause of the accident. Apparently, the police, in the course of its investigation, had decided that it wasn't, although no explanation was given in the news article. I reckon there must be an explanation why the charge was framed under Section $%A instead of 44(1). Until I discover that explanation, I can't decide whether to support or not the call for the man to be charged under Section 44(1).
I do support, however, for justice to be served, bearing in mind that both the victim and the driver deserve justice. No amount of punishment to the driver will bring Sue Lynn back, of course, and it is in that sense that the romantic idea of "justice" is sometimes just so cruel and unfair! I'm of the view that if the driver is only guilty under the heading of "drunk driving" and not under the "accident" element, then he should only be punished for "drunk driving". That is to say, he should be given only what he deserves, nothing more.
But like I said, I don't know what's the truth of the matter, and I'm reluctant to be influenced by my parental instinct and act emotionally, and then demand for a harsher punishment for someone who might possibly does not deserve it. May I repeat, "justice", despite the glory and grandness of that word, is sometimes very cruel and unfair!
No comments:
Post a Comment