Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is my point. An accident should be defined as something that is not your fault, because you obeyed the appropriate traffic laws and your vehicle was roadworthy. As such if you are involved in an accident, whether the bus was full or empty you should only be liable for property damage.
What happens if an accident is judged to be not your fault?
Originally posted by kmax87Missy, Missy, Missy. I send you to the best schools and you don't comprehend simple concepts.... that is of proportional negligence. If you hit a bus it may be partly the bus drivers fault and part your fault.
This is my point. An accident should be defined as something that is not your fault, because you obeyed the appropriate traffic laws and your vehicle was roadworthy. As such if you are involved in an accident, whether the bus was full or empty you should only be liable for property damage.
Doe this make any sense?
GRANNY.
Originally posted by kmax87Even if it is your fault, e.g. you didn't get your tire changed immediately the tread depth dropped below the regulation depth, I believe the punishment should fit the crime, not the consequences of that crime.
This is my point. An accident should be defined as something that is not your fault, because you obeyed the appropriate traffic laws and your vehicle was roadworthy. As such if you are involved in an accident, whether the bus was full or empty you should only be liable for property damage.
I guess you could say that the consequences of having a bad tire could be, in extreme circumstances, dire and therefore anybody who has a tire tread depth less that the regulation should get seven years regardless of whether they have an accident or not.
Originally posted by WheelyYou're just repeating yourself now with those examples...
You believe that the consequences should determine the punishment.
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 spec ...[text shortened]... ces so I think, however difficult it is to accept at times, the punishments should reflect this.
Every justice system in the world has elements that tie consequences to punishments. Specific actions remain illegal regardless of consequences, but the punishment of that illegal action varies according to the consequences.
It's not about making consequences illegal at all.
Originally posted by PalynkaI realise I am repeating myself but people are so pedantic that you find you have to refine your question even though spirit of the question was clear enough. At least I thought.
You're just repeating yourself now with those examples...
Every justice system in the world has elements that tie consequences to punishments. Specific actions remain illegal regardless of consequences, but the punishment of that illegal action varies according to the consequences.
It's not about making consequences illegal at all.
Can you give me examples of laws that tie consequences to punishments? I mean apart from consequences that were specifically intended by the perpetrator of the crime. I'm not sure I can readily think of any.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Here is a real-life example of this very situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7498562.stm
If the girl had not died, I don't think we would be hearing the same sort of outcry for laws to change.
Should he have been sentenced to jail because her head hit the pavement in a fatal way when she fell over? Should every cyclist that hits a pedestrian go to jail?
It was also reported that the girl stepped out in front of the cyclist without looking (he was heading for a gap in the crowd). If he had gone over the handle bars, broken his neck, and died, should she have gone to jail?
How do we draw the line if we try to link consequences with punishment?
Originally posted by HumeAInteresting.
Here is a real-life example of this very situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7498562.stm
If the girl had not died, I don't think we would be hearing the same sort of outcry for laws to change.
Should he have been sentenced to jail because her head hit the pavement in a fatal way when she fell over? Should every cyclist that hits a pedestrian go t ...[text shortened]... e have gone to jail?
How do we draw the line if we try to link consequences with punishment?
This kind of thing worries me. It starts to become retribution rather than justice in my view.
However, you can understand why the relatives are so angry. It must be hard to understand with tall the emotion and telling them she could have died just falling over isn't going to help much.
1 edit
Originally posted by HumeAThe law already draws that line as there are many cases where the penalty depends on consequences.
Here is a real-life example of this very situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7498562.stm
If the girl had not died, I don't think we would be hearing the same sort of outcry for laws to change.
Should he have been sentenced to jail because her head hit the pavement in a fatal way when she fell over? Should every cyclist that hits a pedestrian go t ...[text shortened]... e have gone to jail?
How do we draw the line if we try to link consequences with punishment?
The obvious mistake here is pretending that I'm arguing that consequences are the single determining factor. They are not (hence the fine and not anything more serious) as it is a combination of both the perpetrator's responsibility, the severity of the law being broken and the consequences.
The only way to minimize injustices is to consider all three.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell I guess that´s where we disagree. I think your third point is unjust. The other two I´d agree with however.
The law already draws that line as there are many cases where the penalty depends on consequences.
The obvious mistake here is pretending that I'm arguing that consequences are the single determining factor. They are not (hence the fine and not anything more serious) as it is a combination of both the perpetrator's responsibility, the severity of the law ...[text shortened]... broken and the consequences.
The only way to minimize injustices is to consider all three.
Originally posted by WheelyWhen is justice not about retribution. Whether financial or by the physical loss of your life or liberty, all forms of justice surely contain a strong element of retribution.
Interesting.
This kind of thing worries me. It starts to become retribution rather than justice in my view.
No matter how you cut it its still an eye for an eye.
If you tripped a school friend in the hall vs tripping them going down a staircase, should the punishment be the same. The act is the same, but the consequences will surely be different!
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by kmax87Could it not be argued that that are two seperate acts?
When is justice not about retribution. Whether financial or by the physical loss of your life or liberty, all forms of justice surely contain a strong element of retribution.
No matter how you cut it its still an eye for an eye.
If you tripped a school friend in the hall vs tripping them going down a staircase, should the punishment be the same. The act is the same, but the consequences will surely be different!
Tripping someone in the hallway
AND
Tripping someone down the stairs
The hallway and the stairs -- the main differences here -- are not the consequences... Just as smoking inside public areas is now a crime in the UK, and smoking outside is not.
Tripping someone in the hallway and on one hand them grazing their knee, and on the other dying... now that is a difference of consequences.
Originally posted by HumeASo exactly what do you want to laws to be explicit about? The number of steps until the last? The height of the tackle? The age, weight and physical condition of the individual?
Could it not be argued that that are two seperate acts?
Tripping someone in the hallway
AND
Tripping someone down the stairs
The hallway and the stairs -- the main differences here -- are not the consequences... Just as smoking inside public areas is now a crime in the UK, and smoking outside is not.
Tripping someone ...[text shortened]... and them grazing their knee, and on the other dying... now that is a difference of consequences.
That would be a legal nightmare.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by PalynkaExactly, so we have to be content with faux-justice. Justice, quite simply, isn't feasible. The world is too complicated.
So exactly what do you want to laws to be explicit about? The number of steps until the last? The height of the tackle? The age, weight and physical condition of the individual?
That would be a legal nightmare.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, going back to your point a bit.
So exactly what do you want to laws to be explicit about? The number of steps until the last? The height of the tackle? The age, weight and physical condition of the individual?
That would be a legal nightmare.
Tripping someone up in a hallway is a minor offence because the likelihood of serious injury is slim and the intention was probably not to do any real harm.
Tripping someone up in a place very likely to do serious harm is a more serious offence because a reasonable person would know that the injury is likely to be serious.