Assuming similar blood alcohol levels and degree of reckless driving. Why should luck play such a big part? There are many other examples.
I wasn’t just thinking about drunk driving here. And I wasn’t merely suggesting that those lucky enough to cause less harm be given greater punishment. The opposite is true as well. If you punch someone who insults your wife, and he dies from a blood clot, you should not be punished that much more than someone who doesn’t endure this unintended outcome. On the other hand, if you shoot and miss, it’s the same as murder. Or very close to it. As far as drunk driving is concerned, if two equally drunk and equally careless drivers are arrested and one of them killed someone, I believe that the killer’s punishment should be smaller than it presently is AND the non-killer’s should be greater. Again though, the degree of recklessness and blood alcohol reading needs to be near equal. Thus, it is possible that a very drunk, reckless driver who hurts no one, deserves greater punishment than the unlucky driver who doesn’t stop fast enough while barely over the limit.
I agree with your premise and would support lesser penalties for drunk driving manslaughter, if this is a first offense, but would also support harsher penalties for all DUIs for all repeat offenders. Because even if he or she hasn’t killed anyone else yet, it would only be a matter of time until that happens.