Talk:Vehicular homicide

Vehicular Manslaughter versus Vehicular Homicide

I have an acquaintance who has recently been charged with vehicular homicide because he had an accident while driving under the infuence of alcohol. What I am seeking a better understanding of is whether vehicular homicide is a more serious offense than vehicular manslaughter. It seems from my reading that homicide is the automatic charge becuase alcohol was involved. Manslaughter would be the more serious crime if it were voluntary manslaughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.224.26 (talk • contribs) June 17, 2006

sources

Attn: Uncle G or whoever else, here is a summary of Minnesota's Vehic. Homicide statute. --W.marsh 00:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Death of an unborn child

There's a whole load of source material about vehicular manslaughter and unborn children, and various courts' views of the matter, at:

• Emma Cave (2004). The Mother of All Crimes: Human Rights, Criminalization and the Child Born Alive. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 48. ISBN 0754623661.
• John (John A.) Seymour (2000). Childbirth and the Law. Oxford University Press. p. 140. ISBN 0198264682.

However, much of the discussion in the literature is general, and not specific to vehicular manslaughter. It includes discussion of murder, assault, and other offences and how they are construed with respect to unborn children. There's probably a better place to discuss the subject of the "born alive" rule than here. Uncle G 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, it seems important to mention in this article but not something to dwell on. I'm surprised we didn't have an article on that topic actually, you might consider adding it to Template:Abortion (under "Debate & social issues") for increased visibility. --W.marsh 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As a common law legal principle it relates to homicide rather than to abortion, though. Uncle G 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples of People Convicted

I see nothing wrong with citing examples of "high-profile" people convicted of this crime (as well as "high-profile" people who managed to get off). Your removal of this item from this page is no more than some odd version of being "politically correct". So long as the cites are accurate, there is nothing wrong with making lists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.15.105 (talk • contribs)

Why is this notable, though? And it seems very politically motivated and biased to list people you think were guilty of it but "got off". There were also no citations, contrary to your claim above. --W.marsh 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable source for Kennedy having been charged with vehicular manslaughter. According to this conspiracy page (which is in itself obviously inappropriate as a source on Wikipedia), he was charged "only with leaving the scene of an accident after causing personal injury." Without a reliable source that he was charged with vehicular homicide, the text as it was may be interpreted as libelous. It's true that there has been wide public perception that Kennedy might have been involved, but "wide public perception" is really just another phrase for gossip, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I've removed Kennedy from the article. Please don't reinsert him without proper citations. (Speaking of which, I have added citations for the list of those convicted. This information is potentially quite controversial, and ready citations may be necessary to discourage editors from randomly inserting false accusations.) --Moonriddengirl 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the "famous people convicted" were actually convicted of vehicular manslaughter

Dwayne Goodrich and Lane Garrison. Should they be removed from this list?

Wilson44691 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This section has long been a problem... in fact at one point the article seemed to be a WP:COATRACK just to hang the list on. I have removed the list for now. Anyone can re-add it but they should take the above comment about inaccuracy into consideration. --W.marsh 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's some [help and advice] for dealing with trivia. WP:BLP problems must be removed. For names without WP:BLP problems, consider tagging the section with {{trivia}}, and add to this discussion.

The "Famous people convicted" section contributes nothing of importance to the Vehicular Homicide article. One would expect to read about the Lindbergh case in an article about Kidnapping, but Lindbergh is worked into the kidnapping article in a way that explains its significance. A simple list in this article is an ever-expanding log of convictions. None of them affect the issue of Vehicular Homicide in a way that Lindbergh affects kidnapping. Comments welcome. -- Mtd2006 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of an incomplete list which may be inaccurate is not a good idea. A short list is more WP:TRIVIA than informative as an encyclopedic list of people involved in this felony. A full list is likely of no interest to anyone. Collect (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A comprehensive list is almost never complete; it's long, difficult to keep current for WP:BLP, — and is uninformative to the importance of the Vehicular Homicide law. A short list amounts to a sample, chosen at random, from dubious news sources (news reflects reported events, but not final resolution of a case, i.e., appeals, pleas to lesser charges, etc.) If we're to list someone here, shouldn't it be on the basis of court records? But more importantly, any case that is cited should have significant affect on the Vehicle Homicide law, which is the subject of the article. --Mtd2006 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I'm removing the list (again?). --Quuxplusone (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It had worked its way back into the article again. I agree with everyone above, it does not add to the article in a way that helps people understand the concept. Earlier, I had just removed some that had no source, but after reading the talk page I have completely removed the list. -- GB fan 18:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In states with versus without

I changed the sentence, "In states with such statutes, defendants can still be charged with manslaughter or murder in some situations," to read "In states without such statutes…" This seems to be the intent of the paragraph. States have Vehicular Homicide laws to permit "easier conviction and more severe penalties," while those states that do not have such laws can still charge manslaughter or murder. --Mtd2006 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Cubs133, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove the section entitled "Famous people who were not convicted but should have been". The information it contains is unverifiable, and the source it references is an unreliable humor website.

Cubs133 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done elektrikSHOOS 17:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sentencing" section

From the article: A study by professors at Dartmouth College and Harvard University found that those convicted of vehicular homicide are given, on average, shorter sentees than those found unguilty of other types of homicide. Is that correct? There is a large intersection set, namely those who are convicted of vehicular homicide but no other crime (thus unguilty of other types of homicide). However, if the intended wording was, "(...) those found guilty of other types of homicide", then the intersection set would be much smaller, almost negligibly small. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)