Originally posted by: desigal90
It just seems kinda counterintuitive to me.The law says don't drink and drive because it impairs balance, perception, reflexes.But alcohol also impairs judgment. And decision to drive drunk or to find a friend to designate to drive you is a judgement you make in a state when theoretically your judgement is impaired.I find it so much more similar to punishing a minor because their judgement is not mature yet/impaired. In a state of intoxication, I would think that even a responsible adult would make the same mistakes a minor makes.I guess that's why to me, when it comes to punishment, I think the intent takes precedent over the end matter.Yes, a life was lost. But a life is also lost in an accident. We still say it was an accident.. I didn't mean for it to happen.From what I've read, most people seem content that Salman is punished because it was the law and nobody should be above the law.I'm more concerned about the victims, the families involved, and yes, even the accused's intent.In such cases, my intuition and basal morality says to me...well if you didn't mean for it to happen, you still caused harm. You still caused a life to be lost. Make up for it. Do something about it. Help these people out.But I guess I'm not the law.Just a rambling mind 😆
but the judgment was not impaired when a person drove themselves to a venue and decided to consume alcohol there without making arrangements for a designated driver or take a cab back or catch a ride with someone else, or any such arrangement that would not require operating a motor vehicle. in that case the person made a judgement, in a non-impaired state of mind, to drink, knowing that they will at some point have to leave the venue, presumably driving themselves back.