I was a little irritated to see "how come no one is complaining" in the headline and then have the very first line of the article say "Texas courts are treating it like murder." In fairness to the author, it's probably a careless editor.

I'm sure the stats are well researched, and the premise that drunk driving kills more people than guns is true enough. But the idea that people aren't paying enough attention to drunk driving is hardly true: there's a very strong prohibitionist movement in the US and DUIs are regularly used as an excuse to harass honest businesses and responsible patrons.

The conclusion is "why isn't Paul Helmke saying anything about this." You know, maybe it would be more morally consistent for people like that to add drunk driving to their placards and sermons, but I'd rather they just STFU entirely.

To say that the punishment for DWI fatality and intentional murder should be the same because they have similar costs is a serious misunderstanding of the issue. The problem is that you can't deter DWI very well by threatening to punish severely if there is an accident, because people who commit DWI don't think there is a significant chance they will get in an accident. However those who commit intentional murder know there is a quite significant chance of being caught, even if they are smart and well prepared.

What's more is that driving under the influence is practically never meant to be harmful, and usually isn't even thought to be negligent by the perpetrator. No matter how misguided, such bad judgment isn't nearly as deserving of punishment as the blatant evil of intentional murder. If you think the consequences are so severe that it needs to be treated just as harshly as murder, then at least the punishment should be just as severe for someone who drives drunk and doesn't get in an accident as it is for someone who gets in an accident.

It maw well not be "intentional" murder, but it's murder nonetheless. Consider some yahoo who thinks it's good fun to cap off random rifle rounds in a populated area. He's not trying to hit anybody, but just wants to have a little fun. He probably doesn't think there's any real chance that he might ever hit anyone. In other words, it's exactly the same as your typical drunk driver scenario. We all know that if this shooter kills anybody the charge will certainly be murder, so why not the drunk?

Drunk drivers who kill are regularly charged with and convicted of vehicular manslaughter. Current statutes are adequate.

Drunk driving deaths are a logical consequence of our car-dependent, largely suburban living arrangements, and the eschewing of walkable communities.

This is one thing the Brits and the Irish get right; The institution of the neighborhood pub, where everyone walks (or takes public transport) there (and stumbles home), everyone knows each other, and the barman will cut you off if/when you're becoming an obnoxious ass, is a thing of beauty, much better than the typical American sports bar, which is much more anonymous, seedy, hyper-individualist, etc.