what crimes are punishable by death in al quran?
-
Peace Samia, Wakas,
Thank you both for helping to enlighten me with your excellent contributions to this discussion.
Before I comment, let me first say that I am thinking loudly with you as I am writing this and I don't have an answer for most of the issues raised on this thread. All I know is that we don?t seem to be understanding 2178 and 1733 correctly.
My previous reply was ALL based on 2178. I am sorry I was a bit neligence, but also I could not go through all my previous posts (and yours) to read the context.
I think that you are right that 2178 is the basis for understanding the issues raised here. Who is 2178 addressing? Is it the victims, the perpetrators, society, ... ? At first sight, it seems to be addressing the believers who are victims who seek "qisas" (compensation/justice?/???). But then suddenly in the middle of the passage it seems to be addressing the perpetrator who is forgiven by his brother (in faith!) (the victim). Then the same perpetrator is told to do the good thing and provide "ada'a bi ihsan" (perform/deliver something with kindness?). Then it is warning (who?) not to assail (who?) after that. Then 2179 addresses those with minds/intellects/intelligence and tells them that you have in ?qisas? (compensation/justice?/???) a life/living when up to this point we thought that ?qisas? was supposedly about death for a death!!!?
What is going on here? What if we don?t really understand anything of this passage? What if we don?t even understand what ?believers? at the very beginning of the passage really means?
We get a glimpse of what a ?believer? really means in 492-93.
"It is not for a believer to kill another believer EXCEPT ACCIDENTALLY..."
Is someone who kills a believer other than accidentally and hence falls under 493 really a "believer"!???
Since throughout 2178, it is the believers who are addressed (?O you who believed?, ?your brother (in faith)?), then the question of murder doesn?t arise and if we have faith in 492-93 then what 2178 is really talking about must be accidental killing.
I don?t think that there is a sudden change in who is being addressed in the middle of 2178. I think that throughout 2178, it is the perpetrator of an accidental killing who is addressed.
I think that 2178 further clarifies what is meant by the ?diyat? (compensation/performance/delivery/???) in 492.
I also think that ?hurr? and ?abd? have nothing to do with the free and the slaves.
I think that the ?hurr? for the ?hurr? and ?abd? for ?abd? and ?female? for ?female? is the only way that the compensation would work.
I think that ?abd? means ?servant? not ?slave?. I think that ?abd? and ?hurr? are relative terms. In a way, unless we are born super rich or don?t have to work for someone, then most of us are practically ?servants? at one point or another (nowadays this is called ?employees?). We are most likely a ?hurr? relative to some people but a ?abd? relative to others.
I think that 2178 is giving us practical everyday instructions on what to do when we accidentally kill someone.
Think about it. If, for example, a driver is driving down the road and accidently hits a pedestrian and kills him or her. What do you do now? Your victim was providing for a family and had a job. Now what fair compensation would you give to those negatively affected by his or her death? If you are a poor servant/employee and you accidently killed another poor slave/employee then you can go and help his family with whatever money you can but this is not enough since as an employee, you most likely have limited money. You would probably have to work for providing for the victim?s family to be able to compensate. So practically speaking you would act as a kind of substitute for the victim. If you had hit a rich man who is the boss or controls his own business, then there is really nothing you can do as far as compensation goes, so this is why a ?hurr? cannot be for a ?abd?. Similarly, if you are rich and you accidently killed a poor person, you would compensate his family directly with money. It wouldn?t do the family or you any good to substitute for the ?abd? by doing a service or job in order to give the family similar support. So this is why it doesn't make sense for a ?abd? to be substituted for a ?hurr?.
Now let?s say the victim was a woman who had a job that provided for her family and after-school she also spent time with her family studying with her children and cooking meals for the family and taking care of the kids while the husband was away, etc. Now what is that family to do? If you are a female perpetrator then in addition to providing as above for the family, you would also need to perhaps babysit or provide home-cooked meals, or tutor the kids, whose grades are now suffering since their mom was killed in the accident. If you are a male perpetrator then, as far as the kids are concerned, you are not in a position to provide that female presence in their lives. So it is impossible for a ?male? to be for a ?female?. Instead, you may hire for them a nanny (again female for female), if you can but you cannot yourself substitute for the female victim.
This is all about the family of the victims and trying to keep their world from falling apart because of this accidental killing. Without this compensation and substitution for the victim, the victim?s family may fall into despair and maybe tempted by their devils to seek revenge and more death. This is why in the ?qisas? there is LIFE for the people who have intelligence. This is why in places that forsake the real ?qisas?, such as Egypt that Samia was talking about, we see the family of victims gathering around the site of the accident and beating the driver to death.
I did not consider 1733 in my last reply. But yes, this verse cannot be about murder for two reasons
- "Israaf exaggeration, excess" in killing is meaningless. How much more is "israaf"? Maybe two unemployed are fair for the one who was working, or three supporting three families are worth one who was supporting three families! There is no explanation of how much "israaf" is. The word means "too much". Can you define how much is too much?
There doesn't even seem to be a strong prohibition like (whoever does this will get the wrath of God) for example, so no consequences in this world nor in the next. It doesn't, at least, remind that the "extra" killing falls within (killing not by "haq" - It shows that the family, or nearest of kin of the victim, are allowed to take the law in their hands.
Maybe this is the logic of people in Upper Egypt where they would kill more than one for their victim, since it is not said it is forbidden...just "laa israaf" and they would think it is not "israaf" to kill two or more for their dear victim.
Now to 1733. The passage lays down the rule at the beginning ?Do not kill the self that the God made inviolable except with the truth?. So the question of ?israf? (more killing) is bound by this rule. The passage next talks about murder, which is unjustly killing (as opposed to with truth or accidental as in 217. In this case, the person in authority has the license to kill WITH THE TRUTH (i.e., kill the proven as true murderers) but shouldn?t excessively kill. It is left to the person in authority to decide what is excessive and what is not. So one murderer who was young and with the wrong crowd in the wrong place at the wrong time could be excessive or a hundred hardened serial killers who would do it again if given a chance could be not excessive.
May the god guide us to what is best.
Peace,
Ayman
- "Israaf exaggeration, excess" in killing is meaningless. How much more is "israaf"? Maybe two unemployed are fair for the one who was working, or three supporting three families are worth one who was supporting three families! There is no explanation of how much "israaf" is. The word means "too much". Can you define how much is too much?
-
Peace,
The Qurans ays that there is to be life in qisaas. So killing a murderer must be on the condition that it saves other lives. See chapt 2179 about qisaas and how it ultimately serves to protect ourselves from harm. The condition for eliminating a murderer is here.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
The Qurans ays that there is to be life in qisaas. So killing a murderer must be on the condition that it saves other lives. See chapt 2179 about qisaas and how it ultimately serves to protect ourselves from harm. The condition for eliminating a murderer is here.
2178-179 talk about the believers. I don't see "murderer" there unless you think that a believer can be a murderer.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Aymen, all
Thank you for the very valuable input, which I agree with some. Allow me, nevertheless, to disagree with you in the fllowing
The first problem I read is that you are setting a "price" to different people based on their output. God speaks about "nafs", not "people", because you really can't tell who should be "priced" more than the other. This reminds me of chapter "18". We cannot say how much someone is valuable to their family.
Also, according to your categorization of "Hurr", "abd" and "female", you have forgotten about many others the children; the handicapped; the elderly ..are they "hurr" or "abd"? Doesn't it matter if they were females or males?Some problems with vocabulary you have oversighted the term "untha" is too anatomical a term to charge it with any role other than giving birth. When used in the qur'aan, it is meant as gender, no more, and in opposition to "dhakar", or linked to procuration138; 3511; 4147, and mentioned four times in chapter "al-an3aam the cattle" as animals.
"abd" and "hurr", therefore, are men, according to you. Why not mentioned as "dhakar"? If we just know that the "untha" can be a working mother who studies with her children, then we can also conclude that a "dhakar" is a man who is employed/unemployed and broke or rich/self employed! Is this how the quraan categorize humans? This is more in line with the Saudi's legislation in this respect where women do not work and men work so they call for double "compensation" for those who work.
"qasas" God spoke of "diyya " in the principlal verse about manslaughter, and just categorize "souls" according to the covenant held between them..which could mean people we feel safe with "amn mu'minuun believers?", and nothing to do with faith. Otherwise, why can't a "mu'min" kill another "mu'min" except in error, but kill a "kafir??" intentionally?
And yes, there's life in "qasas". Unless you believe that wars and killings do not errupt because of killing animals belonging to the others. It's still going on in Western and Southern Sudan, leading to wars between tribes; in Upper Egypt and in any society depending on animals for their life. Even here in England last year (or the year before) a farmer killed his neighbour because she casued a fire in his farm that killed/or chased away some of his animals.
As for serial killers, locking them up is also a way to keep people safe. Thes are sick people. Locking them up and studying their case is more beneficial to the society than just erasing them from the map.
-
As for serial killers, locking them up is also a way to keep people safe. Thes are sick people. Locking them up and studying their case is more beneficial to the society than just erasing them from the map.
It's also a drain on society and costs money and resources, which could be used in more useful ways. The Quran gives us choices. We don't have to kill them, but if we do we have to do this to protect the lives of others. Serial killers and violent criminals are still dangers to those who work in prisons and other prisoners. And if they escape? Like I said we should only kill to protect life. That is what 2179 means. The Quran's laws are mainly for us to deal with each other in these cases. How we should deal with those not apart of our community is outlined in the rules of conflict and war with those who don't believe as we do, who are not apart of our community and who fight us or cause us harm. And as for those who go around spreading mischief and killing others, we know they are not believers (serial killers for instance) and the Quran outlines what we should do with them. Again, killing the guilty has to be on the premise of saving lives, and prisoners are still dangerous even within the prison system (even if they are mentally ill, treatment may not be possible, however they are still dangers to society). Furthermore not every society has the wealth to set up a functional detaining system. So prison is not always feasible, and in some cases it still does not eliminate the danger that this person represents. A trial and a probation period should be enough to judge whether that person is an expressed danger to others. Also I would urge those who are considering this topic to review all of the meanings of qatl. The word can even mean to curse. As the Quran uses it qutila fulaanun. .. . (cursed be so and so . . .)
Godbless,
Anwar -
As for serial killers, locking them up is also a way to keep people safe. Thes are sick people.
Alas, not necessarily. The definition of a psychopath is someone who knows what they're doing is wrong, but doesn't care. They choose to kill for trivial reasons. That's why they aren't put in asylums.
-
Peace Samia,
Thank you for the very valuable input, which I agree with some. Allow me, nevertheless, to disagree with you in the fllowing
The first problem I read is that you are setting a "price" to different people based on their output.If we agree that there is ?compensation? involved in accidental killing then what else do you want to set a price based on? Practically speaking, basing someone?s value on output is what you and I and everyone naturally do everyday. When you hire a driver, you don?t pay him as much as you would pay if you hire a CEO for your company. This is solely based on the ?output? that you expect from the person not on because you value the ?nafs? of the driver less.
God speaks about "nafs", not "people", because you really can't tell who should be "priced" more than the other. This reminds me of chapter "18". We cannot say how much someone is valuable to their family.
Of course, everyone is priceless for their family. So life insurance companies would be out of business very quickly if we base compensation on ?value to the family?. This is not about the dead person or his or her value to the family. This is about the surviving family itself. This is about how to mitigate the negative effects of the death of the loved one as much as possible.
I know we don?t like to think about it, but accidental deaths happen all the time. The dead is already dead and nothing can bring him or her back. Humans have naturally figured out that the best way to objectively provide for the surviving family is to have some measure for compensation based on the person?s output. I never thought about life insurance until my first job. My employer had a life insurance on me. The life insurance was worth two times my salary (a rough measure of output). Did my family or I feel insulted and objected to my employer ?We cannot say how much someone is valuable to their family!?? No, and I am sure that you wouldn?t have either.
Also, according to your categorization of "Hurr", "abd" and "female", you have forgotten about many others the children; the handicapped; the elderly ..are they "hurr" or "abd"? Doesn't it matter if they were females or males?
I forgot about those that don?t provide output (not necessarily your list) and so did life insurance companies. Are life insurance companies evil? No this is natural. Remember that we are not talking about the value of the person (priceless) but we are talking about the value of the output of the person. This is why the passage talks about ?hurr? and ?abd? and female. These are all categories of people in terms of output, not ?nafs?/self-value.
Some problems with vocabulary you have oversighted the term "untha" is too anatomical a term to charge it with any role other than giving birth. When used in the qur'aan, it is meant as gender, no more, and in opposition to "dhakar", or linked to procuration138; 3511; 4147, and mentioned four times in chapter "al-an3aam the cattle" as animals.
"abd" and "hurr", therefore, are men, according to you. Why not mentioned as "dhakar"?According to me, it is because they are not strictly men. They include men and women.
If we just know that the "untha" can be a working mother who studies with her children, then we can also conclude that a "dhakar" is a man who is employed/unemployed and broke or rich/self employed! Is this how the quraan categorize humans? This is more in line with the Saudi's legislation in this respect where women do not work and men work so they call for double "compensation" for those who work.
Me, in line with Saudi labor legislations, no offense meant to brother Layth or any Saudis on the forum, but sister Samia, you should know me better by now.
As you noticed and I confirmed, the classification is based on output and hence ?hurr? and ?abd? certainly include men and women. Females are singled out because they provide some additional special outputs to the family. So if she is not a ?hurr? or a ?abd?, i.e. she is not employed, then even as a homemaker she provides valuable measurable output that is worth insuring.
"qasas" God spoke of "diyya " in the principlal verse about manslaughter, and just categorize "souls" according to the covenant held between them..which could mean people we feel safe with "amn mu'minuun believers?", and nothing to do with faith. Otherwise, why can't a "mu'min" kill another "mu'min" except in error, but kill a "kafir??" intentionally?
Murder is already covered under 1733. Doesn?t matter what the person believes. This is also why 494 comes right after 493.
And yes, there's life in "qasas". Unless you believe that wars and killings do not errupt because of killing animals belonging to the others. It's still going on in Western and Southern Sudan, leading to wars between tribes; in Upper Egypt and in any society depending on animals for their life. Even here in England last year (or the year before) a farmer killed his neighbour because she casued a fire in his farm that killed/or chased away some of his animals.
There are more killings in the US over Nike shoes and Sony PlayStations than over cattle. If I was driving and killed someone?s cow crossing the road by mistake in Egypt, the damage to my car (and possible injury or death) would probably cost a lot more than the cow. There is no reason to single out cows and sheep for compensation and leave all sorts of more important stuff out. I think that 2178-179 is talking about a kind of very practical and well ahead of the times life insurance policy that can be applied in any society and at any time. Humans in advanced societies have naturally figured the same. However, what the great reading has is even better because your family is not out of luck if you are uninsured.
As for serial killers, locking them up is also a way to keep people safe. Thes are sick people. Locking them up and studying their case is more beneficial to the society than just erasing them from the map.
The god leaves this up to the authority in charge. If you are the authority in charge, and this is your judgment then be it. I think one should consider the probability of them killing again in any decision.
Peace and thanks for the very thought provoking comments (except the Saudi legislation comparison, that hurts),
Ayman
-
It's also a drain on society and costs money and resources, which could be used in more useful ways. The Quran gives us choices. We don't have to kill them, but if we do we have to do this to protect the lives of others. Serial killers and violent criminals are still dangers to those who work in prisons and other prisoners.
Salaam Anwar
Imprisonment protects lives of others, too. Tax payer's money will well be spent.
There are many other dangers to people. I do not think serial killers and violent criminals kill more than those manslaughtered. And killing is not the worst thing that happens. What about rape? Should we legislate a law to kill rapists?Like I said we should only kill to protect life
This is where I mainly differ with you. We kill to "save" lives not protect them. You do not kill someone because they may kill again (Chapter 1.
-
Salaam Aymen
First of all please accept my apology if I hurt you by a badly worded phrase
This is more in line with the Saudi's legislation in this respect where women do not work and men work so they call for double "compensation" for those who work.
.
You also know that I would never intentionally accuse you of such a way of thinking.you don?t pay him as much as you would pay if you hire a CEO for your company. This is solely based on the ?output? that you expect from the person not on because you value the ?nafs? of the driver less.
I do not see any comparison here. I pay for the service, not for the driver. Whether he was a female, a hurr or a abd is irrelevant.
The life insurance was worth two times my salary (a rough measure of output). Did my family or I feel insulted and objected to my employer ?We cannot say how much someone is valuable to their family!?? No, and I am sure that you wouldn?t have either.
Again, the life insurance company is not concerned about how much you are worth but how much money you pay them in instalements. Hardly relevant to what we are discussing.
This is why the passage talks about ?hurr? and ?abd? and female. These are all categories of people in terms of output, not ?nafs?/self-value.
And this is why I see that the passage is not talking about humans. I cannot see anywhere in the quraan a ligislation based on abd/hurr or male/female. Does it tell how much a rich person should pay or a poor should pay? What if the victim was unluckily killed by a poor person? Who will compensate their "output"?
Females are singled out because they provide some additional special outputs to the family.
This is a "cultural" thing, not a "Godly" thing. Distinction between men and women on this basis is not a firm, unchangeable "law". God did not assign roles based on gender other than birth to females. Many men- and the number is fastly growing- share the house work, and may even do more than women.
Murder is already covered under 1733. Doesn?t matter what the person believes. This is also why 494 comes right after 493.
What about 492? This is the one on manslaughter and talks about "diyya" not "qasaas"
There is no reason to single out cows and sheep for compensation and leave all sorts of more important stuff out.
Other important stuff are "lifeless". Why do we have a chapter on "cattle" and not one on the other more important things?
I think one should consider the probability of them killing again in any decision.
That's what I meant by "reminding me of chapter 18" somewhere in my post. You do not kill someone because they are likely to kill again. Killing is not a punishment either. If we are attacked by the enemy, more likely the enemy would have distructed a lot an killed many. The quraan commands us to fight in defense, but if they stop, we are not allowed to follow them and punish them for what has already been destroyed/killed by them.
-
Anyone who kills for no reason is sick.
It depends what you mean by sick. The clinical psychologist Oliver James estimates that, by one definition or another, roughly half the population of the world have some kind of mental illness. But we obviously can't lock up half the world as a precaution!
If you narrow your definitions, judges only ask if the accused are in control of their actions. So the answer is yes, a lot of murderers are in control of what they do. Most murders are related to either sex or money. As I see it, the behaviour they exhibit is pretty inhuman, but normal for our evolutionary ancestors. Wild animals often tear each other apart for food or sex.
So are they sick? Possibly. But if they are in control of their actions, that doesn't make any difference.
-
Wild animals and humans are not the same, different standards man.
Joe
The way I see it, human beings have greater potential than wild animals. But not all human beings live up to that potential. If a person consistently behaves like a beast, hurting everyone around them, using their brain not to make the world happier, but instead to cause harm and kill anyone who gets in their way, they are imitating the worst behaviour of animals.
-
The way I see it, human beings have greater potential than wild animals. But not all human beings live up to that potential. If a person consistently behaves like a beast, hurting everyone around them, using their brain not to make the world happier, but instead to cause harm and kill anyone who gets in their way, they are imitating the worst behaviour of animals.
And those threats to human life should be eliminated. Locking them up still presents a danger to other prisoners and those who work in prisons. Think of all the violence, murder and rape that still happen within the prison systems. Locking people up still does not protect all people from those who continue to willingly disrespect human life.
Samia, Chpt 18 is big, mind giving me something specific? Futhermore manslaughter is killing unintentionally, murder is purposeful killing. There is a difference. And i think the Quran is clear that we should judge people's actions based on their intentions. Those who kill, not in self defense or to defend others and have no remorse are threats to human life (in prisons and outside of prisons). They should be eliminated. If you have a rabid dog are you just going to lock it up, continue to feed it and still run the risk of being bitten? With human beings you still have to let them get excercise and guards and other prisoners are often the victims of such dangerous prisoners. This is not eliminating the threat. It is not something you do for revenge but for the betterment of all. Just like that rabid dog. But being a human being we ought to investigate that person's intentions better. But dangers to our society must be eliminated. Furthermore I am not talking about our governments or tax paying governments. I am talking about a Quranist community. The Quran says that they can be killed, crippled, crucified or banished. If you care to not make an example of them, kill them or if banishing them is not effective, then crippling them is the better way (hands and feet amputated on opposite sides). But again this is not a matter of revenge but protecting society. Rapists are people who go around harming and taking men and women's honor and self-dignity (Men get raped and sodomized as well). We can refer to the Quran about how we are to deal with such people. I don't think they should be killed, no. However if not remorseful and if showing no sign of change or having no evidence to redeem them they are to be dealt with according to the Quran. Not only would they be a zaani but they would also be someone who's causing mischief and stife in the land. Refering to the Quran on these issues will tell us how they would pay for such a crime. But we have to make the issue clear rape is not just rape all on its own, but it is a violation, an act of violence against the person and his/her dignity and honor. And those among us who refuse to compensate to God for their crimes, as outlined in the Quran, are to be dealt with as enemies who fight against us.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Samia,
First of all please accept my apology if I hurt you by a badly worded phrase.
You also know that I would never intentionally accuse you of such a way of thinking.No need to apologize. I am not that easily offended anyway.
I do not see any comparison here. I pay for the service, not for the driver. Whether he was a female, a hurr or a abd is irrelevant.
You do pay for the "driver" (by definition a driver's output is driving). You wouldn't pay for a CEO to do the job of a driver. Again, this has nothing to do with "self-value". Your comment shows that you may still be seeing "hurr" and "abd" through the traditional lens of human value as opposed to output (employee vs boss).
Again, the life insurance company is not concerned about how much you are worth but how much money you pay them in instalements. Hardly relevant to what we are discussing.
Someone who affords (or his/her employer affords) to pay higher premium likely makes more money. Also, one of the questions the insurance companies ask is how much money you make. In fact, the more money you make, the cheaper your life insurance becomes for the same amount of coverage. A very poor person who tries to get a $10 Million life insurance will most likely be denied coverage.
And this is why I see that the passage is not talking about humans. I cannot see anywhere in the quraan a ligislation based on abd/hurr or male/female.
There is no place in the entire great reading that describes lifestock as "abd" and "hurr". Contextually, the whole passage from 2178-182 is talking about humans and what to do in death circumstances. The first part talks about accidental death caused by others and the second part talks about witnessing the death wishes of a dying person.
Does it tell how much a rich person should pay or a poor should pay?
This is not about rich or poor. This is about compensation by the person who caused the death to make up for the measurable output that was lost when the person died.
What if the victim was unluckily killed by a poor person?
This is why it is only a "hurr" for a "hurr" and a "abd" for a "abd". A "hurr" cannot be for a "abd". So if a rich person was accidently killed by a poor person, there is nothing that the person can do to compensate the family.
Who will compensate their "output"?
No one. Only a "hurr" can make up for the output a "hurr".
This is a "cultural" thing, not a "Godly" thing. Distinction between men and women on this basis is not a firm, unchangeable "law". God did not assign roles based on gender other than birth to females. Many men- and the number is fastly growing- share the house work, and may even do more than women.
These are all fine and wise words that I agree with. However, whether we like it or not, the fact of the matter is that if their mother suddenly died, young children would most likely prefer that their nanny be female. This has nothing to do with house work. The children wouldn't want to have two males in the house and suddenly lose all female influence in their lives. I know that this influence is very valuable. When it comes to compensating the family for the accidental death of a female, this is reality. We shouldn't let our feminism make us focus on stereotypical house work and lose sight of reality and what valuable influence female presence provides.
What about 492? This is the one on manslaughter and talks about "diyya" not "qasaas"
2178 also talks about "diyya". What do you think "addu" means?
Other important stuff are "lifeless". Why do we have a chapter on "cattle" and not one on the other more important things?
Samia, there are other "life" things that would be more valuable to their owners than cattle. Pets, dogs, cats, etc.
That's what I meant by "reminding me of chapter 18" somewhere in my post. You do not kill someone because they are likely to kill again. Killing is not a punishment either. If we are attacked by the enemy, more likely the enemy would have distructed a lot an killed many. The quraan commands us to fight in defense, but if they stop, we are not allowed to follow them and punish them for what has already been destroyed/killed by them.
I agree with much of what you said. If you are the community leader/judge then this is your call, 1733 gives you this authority.
Peace,
Ayman
-
bump
I think that 2178-179 is talking about a kind of very practical and well ahead of the times life insurance policy that can be applied in any society and at any time.
NB For accidental killing, amongst those of the same faith.
Out of curiousity, does anyone know if the findings in this thread have been discussed by a Traditional Muslim "scholar" or in a book etc?
I would find it hard to believe that the genius of AQ on this point has not been brought up before.
-
I see sense in making people compensate the families of victims of accidental killing and not punish them any further, but shouldn't the punishment for involuntary manslaughter be a bit harsher? I think that people who kill other people unintentionally, but while doing something really dangerous like drunk driving should be punished more severely than just be forced to compensate the families of their victims.
