15 Jul 08
I notice the BBC are doing a little piece on the suggestion that drivers who kill a pedestrian should get a mandatory jail term of several years.
Some counter arguments suggest that this should be the case only in the case of dangerous driving or if you happen to be sending an SMS on your mobile at the time ( thought this was the case already).
I can see some difference if you have been negligent such as being drunk, driving too fast or having a badly maintained car but I ask the following question to see know what people think.
If your car comes off the road, hitting a bus load of school children and killing them, should you be punished differently than if the bus was empty?
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94140
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyRationally, no -- the drivers actions themselves are no different -- merely the consequences.
I notice the BBC are doing a little piece on the suggestion that drivers who kill a pedestrian should get a mandatory jail term of several years.
Some counter arguments suggest that this should be the case only in the case of dangerous driving or if you happen to be sending an SMS on your mobile at the time ( thought this was the case already).
I can se ...[text shortened]... school children and killing them, should you be punished differently than if the bus was empty?
But I am not a rational animal.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by HumeAI agree with you but it must be very hard on the relatives of people killed in this way.
Rationally, no -- the drivers actions themselves are no different -- merely the consequences.
But I am not a rational animal.
For me, I think the law should be above normal human emotional reactions and therefore the punishment should always fit the crime. In the above scenario the crime is the same and it becomes a matter of luck if the bus is empty or full and therefore you go to prison for seven years or walk away with nothing more than an insurance claim against you.
I stress that this becomes a different matter if you have increased your risk to pedestrians over the average driver by your lack of control, attention or maintenance.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by HumeAThere are many rational reason to consider consequences. Incentives to act differently in situations where the consequences can be higher, for example.
Rationally, no -- the drivers actions themselves are no different -- merely the consequences.
But I am not a rational animal.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe point here is that if you are an averagely conscientious driver, you are aware of the possible consequences and therefore drive adequately carefully and don't drink under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It doesn't matter how carefully you consider the consequences you can still have an accident and hit a bus. Whether the bus is empty or not is completely beyond your control.
There are many rational reason to consider consequences. Incentives to act differently in situations where the consequences can be higher, for example.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyBut the accident itself is not "completely" beyond my control. It may be not "entirely" under my control, but that's a different issue.
The point here is that if you are an averagely conscientious driver, you are aware of the possible consequences and therefore drive adequately carefully and don't drink under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It doesn't matter how carefully you consider the consequences you can still have an accident and hit a bus. Whether the bus is empty or not is completely beyond your control.
The fact remains that if I see a group of children playing near the sidewalk, I slow down. Tying consequences to penalties provides incentives in a similar direction.
It doesn't matter how carefully you consider the consequences you can still have an accident and hit a bus.
The question is that penalties are not simply about punishment but also about providing incentives. It's true that anyone may still have an accident and hit a bus, but it's about probabilities. And by the law of large numbers, a fall in the probability is almost surely accompanied by a fall in actual accidents.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat you say is true. However, to me it sounds that the logical extension of what you are saying is that you should go to jail for seven years for hitting an empty bus too.
But the accident itself is not "completely" beyond my control. It may be not "entirely" under my control, but that's a different issue.
The fact remains that if I see a group of children playing near the sidewalk, I slow down. Tying consequences to penalties provides incentives in a similar direction.
It doesn't matter how carefully you consider the s, a fall in the probability is almost surely accompanied by a fall in actual accidents.
That makes some degree of sense really until you extend the example a bit and say the bus drove off five minutes before you got there. You can therefore commit exactly the same crime as someone who killed some children but because you arrived five minutes later you don't even get a speeding ticket.
To me there seems an inordinate amount of luck involve din the sentencing process here. You could say "seven years in jail" for any time your car comes off the road or skids to a halt instead of stopping gracefully or perhaps anything other than the normal driving experience. This would at least be consistent but I imagine it would cause far more of an outcry than someone unintentionally hitting a pedestrian who dies and gets off with a light sentence for not paying attention.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyThats almost like saying you should get seven years if you don't pull up quick enough at a stop sign and go over the white line, because a person might have been walking across that intersection.
What you say is true. However, to me it sounds that the logical extension of what you are saying is that you should go to jail for seven years for hitting an empty bus too.
That makes some degree of sense really until you extend the example a bit and say the bus drove off five minutes before you got there.
Edit: What you are saying is absolutely correct. When does an accident stop being an accident. Why should a fatality make an accident culpable behavior?
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyNo way!
I notice the BBC are doing a little piece on the suggestion that drivers who kill a pedestrian should get a mandatory jail term of several years.
Some counter arguments suggest that this should be the case only in the case of dangerous driving or if you happen to be sending an SMS on your mobile at the time ( thought this was the case already).
I can se ...[text shortened]... school children and killing them, should you be punished differently than if the bus was empty?
Any bastard who gets in the way of my Alfa Romeo is going down like a sack of potato's.
Well, that's if my car car doesn't fall apart first, obviously.
Bloody Italians, when I come to think of it...
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyHowever, to me it sounds that the logical extension of what you are saying is that you should go to jail for seven years for hitting an empty bus too.
What you say is true. However, to me it sounds that the logical extension of what you are saying is that you should go to jail for seven years for hitting an empty bus too.
That makes some degree of sense really until you extend the example a bit and say the bus drove off five minutes before you got there. You can therefore commit exactly the same crime ly hitting a pedestrian who dies and gets off with a light sentence for not paying attention.
Er... Not at all. That would break the connection between consequences and penalties which is essential to my argument. Actually, it's you who is arguing for the unfairness of different penalties.
You can therefore commit exactly the same crime as someone who killed some children but because you arrived five minutes later you don't even get a speeding ticket.
Well...not exactly. If you did nothing against the law, it's not clear it would be a crime simply because the consequences were terrible.
What I would agree with, would be that because you arrived five minutes later you get a speeding ticket but could face much more if you kill someone.
To me there seems an inordinate amount of luck involve din the sentencing process here.
There is obviously luck, but the more reckless you are the more likely you are to cause dire consequences. Again the incentives issue.
You could say "seven years in jail" for any time your car comes off the road or skids to a halt instead of stopping gracefully or perhaps anything other than the normal driving experience. This would at least be consistent but I imagine it would cause far more of an outcry than someone unintentionally hitting a pedestrian who dies and gets off with a light sentence for not paying attention.
But again this can be solved by tying the consequences to the penalty. Perhaps it's not perfectly consistent but I believe it to be more effective.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyIf there's a bus full of children you should be more careful than if there's an empty bus.
I notice the BBC are doing a little piece on the suggestion that drivers who kill a pedestrian should get a mandatory jail term of several years.
Some counter arguments suggest that this should be the case only in the case of dangerous driving or if you happen to be sending an SMS on your mobile at the time ( thought this was the case already).
I can se ...[text shortened]... school children and killing them, should you be punished differently than if the bus was empty?
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre you suggesting that, even assuming you can see the bus in the first place (perhaps it´s over a small hill) that you should check the contents of every vehicle that´s on each side of the road as you drive along? We are already assuming that our driver drives with the normal quantity of care and attention. We are saying that regardless of this, he has an accident and hits a bus.
If there's a bus full of children you should be more careful than if there's an empty bus.
Lets say your crime is you have been driving for a week with your tire tread below the regulation depth. You hit a slippery patch and slide into the bus. Then your crime is the same regardless of whether the bus was there at all, full of children or empty and care and attention doesn´t come into it at all. Mandatory seven years, an insurance claim or nothing depending on luck.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by PalynkaYou believe that the consequences should determine the punishment.
[b]However, to me it sounds that the logical extension of what you are saying is that you should go to jail for seven years for hitting an empty bus too.
Er... Not at all. That would break the connection between consequences and penalties which is essential to my argument. Actually, it's you who is arguing for the unfairness of different penalties.
...[text shortened]... the penalty. Perhaps it's not perfectly consistent but I believe it to be more effective.[/b]
Would someone who crashed into a bus containing several children have a harsher penalty than someone who hit a car with one occupant?
If I shoot a bullet into a crowd of people and nobody gets hit, is that a lesser punishment than if someone does get hit?
Laws are written to make specific actions illegal, not consequences so I think, however difficult it is to accept at times, the punishments should reflect this.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyCare and attention came into it when you decided to drive on public roads in an illegally unsafe vehicle.
Are you suggesting that, even assuming you can see the bus in the first place (perhaps it´s over a small hill) that you should check the contents of every vehicle that´s on each side of the road as you drive along? We are already assuming that our driver drives with the normal quantity of care and attention. We are saying that regardless of this, he has an ...[text shortened]... ´t come into it at all. Mandatory seven years, an insurance claim or nothing depending on luck.
Now if we're assuming an omniscience judgement system, the second you turned on that engine, the fairy policeman* will appear to stop you from doing it. But since the police can't do that, they have to use a system that works with human limitations.
What happens if an accident is judged to be not your fault?
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyWhen is an accident no longer an accident. My understanding of an accident is something that occurs even when the law is being observed and due diligence is shown by those involved.
Are you suggesting that, even assuming you can see the bus in the first place (perhaps it´s over a small hill) that you should check the contents of every vehicle that´s on each side of the road as you drive along? We are already assuming that our driver drives with the normal quantity of care and attention.
If an event occurs that is proved to be the result of negligence or oversight in terms of the vehicle not being roadworthy, or due to the fact that the driver was not obeying the relevant traffic laws, then can that event still be classified as being an accident?