Critcial Thinking ID301 Bachelor’s

It is, hence, not the judgment of a single person or a single group. It needs to be a decision that may be applicable for majority of DWI cases. The sound claims and arguments presented by Kathleen Rice in Martin Heidgen’s case, call for a revision in the laws pertaining to homicides. She is of the opinion that DWI homicide cases should be prosecuted as murders and the offenders should be dealt with accordingly. This paper further elaborates on the topic and affirms the reasonableness of Rice’s arguments to a great extent.Some argue that education, social awareness and individuals’ acceptability of the severity of driving under the influence incidents are the route to long-term solution of drunken driving incidents. However, the case reveals a well researched analysis that despite all the publicity, all the education campaigns, and all the advertising over the past decade, the number of drunk-driving fatalities has not gone down (CBS, 2009). Hence, the statistics reveal a counter argument and a stronger claim against such an approach which is theoretical and less operative practically. The claim of letting such offenders to live independently in the society again by not implementing stricter and more severe laws is like giving them another chance to kill a person or persons. Laws are made for the safety of the wider population, the society, and not the individual offenders who would forget the incident and the minor punishments and repeat the offense.Steven Lamagna, who defended Heidgen in the case, was not able to accept that prosecutors are charging a vehicular homicide with murder, with a life sentence (CBS, 2009). Lamagna provides an argument in favor of Heidgen as he had no previous convictions of any kind. However, having no prior convictions does not prove a person as innocent like it does not prove him as guilty of the current offense. It may, however, be helpful in the investigations and evidence gathering