Both drivers are guilty of impaired driving, but this should not amount to the same punishment because Pat ran over Miss Dalloway’s poodle while John got home without an incident. In response to this, one could say that Pat should not be punished because he is just unlucky that the poodle crossed, otherwise he would not kill it, regardless if he consumed alcohol or not. After all, there are no conceivable differences between John and Pat’s cases besides the role of luck. It is true that Pat never intended to kill …show more content…
Pat is simply unlucky that his conscious decision to drink and drive coincided with the crossing poodle, so he is blamed for running it over. On the contrary, John committed the same offense but he did not hurt anything while he was drunk-driving so he is excused. It is unfair for Pat to be greatly ashamed because a person should only be ashamed of his actions if he acted maliciously, otherwise the person is being held in contempt for an act that is not intended to harm others. Clearly, Pat is blamed and should be subjected to an appropriate punishment, but he should not necessarily be ashamed because shame should only follow from intended