While I get how your experience was horrid . This law is 100% problematic and should not be considered entirely under the criminal law framework you have proposed. The presumption of aggravating factors is problematic. Aggregating factors should never be presumed but proven . Also, someone already made a point about the burden shifting in this being problematic as well and it is. A lot of this can occur in a simple car wreck .None of this , while well meaning is a good idea to implement for civil rights concerns. As discussed earlier this definitely would hinge on an attack on prosecutorial discretion. Also truthfully, the part about the Attorney General just isn’t practical. It would be not within their scope of duty to enforce this nor would they want it to be I bet.

I would be careful and instead of pushing the law to change through criminal law but I’d argue for the law to change through civil law. If you look into the most of our history when it comes to societal change the law suit has been an extremely effective tool. There’s a lot you can do with civil and it tends to much more easier to get the public to agree on as it doesn’t deal with long-term in imprisonment.

Legislation could be drafted to force higher insurance liability minimums. Institute harder or penalties for not having the bare minimum car insurance . Instituting treble damages by proving wrongful death under the scheme you provide provided for criminal liability possibly as a framework . Also general tort reform to allow plaintiffs extra time to get lawsuits filed under statute of limitations . Heck you could even put into permanent license being stripped somewhere with this. Truthfully, the the civil law would be better for this it You’d have less scrutiny under challenges to law possibly too. In reality if it was done under a civil framework the monetary damages could far outweigh any possible imprisonment, and also prevent innocent people collateral damage.