1 edit
Originally posted by HumeAWell, laws are intended to prevent stuff like this situation.
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?
Workers do well when they told what they must accomplish and then allowed to do what they need to do to accomplish it. Workers do not do well when every little action is micromanaged and they're never told why. Focussing on consequences instead of what people do to avoid or promote consequences just works better. It's more efficient because it means every brain is engaged in accomplishing the goal instead of panicking about stuff like "are my tires up to regulations?" I can easily see deaths being caused by people so afraid of breaking 1000 different little regulations that they don't pay attention to the road.
Originally posted by HumeAJustice itself probably isn´t feasible because at the end of the day justice is quite a subjective term. Consistency on the other hand is probably important.
Exactly, so we have to be content with faux-justice. Justice, quite simply, isn't feasible. The world is too complicated.
For me it´s the intention that is important or the level of responsibility. A reasonable person behaving reasonably who didn´t change their bald tire in a week should be considered to have been unlucky if they kill someone. Most if us have probably had a tire bald in places or have driven above the speed limit. If everyone does it but one person got unlucky (apart from the victim of course) why should they be punished more.
Originally posted by WheelyThis probably brings in the level of maturity or competence of the perpetrator. If kids were engaged in a game of tripping each other up while going down a hallway and that activity spilled over onto a flight of stairs at the end of that hallway, the idea that the consequences might not be insignificant, may not be readily apparent to a kid who just wants to get their turn at tripping up a fellow classmate.
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.
Are we more likely to throw the key away on a sober person riding an unroadworthy rust bucket with bald tyres or the guy driving the Lexus who had a couple of scotches before driving home, and even though he had been doing the speed limit and had stopped in the shortest distance possible had knocked over a kid who had just launched themselves onto a crosswalk, a fact that a few independent witnesses could attest to.
I know the sober guy in the rust bucket would probably get our sympathy even though his vehicle would have stopped a full 3 meters further down the road that the lubricated executive in the Lexus, but just the hint of alcohol on his breath and the presence of alcohol in his bloodstream would probably be enough for the book to be thrown at him even though his car would have stopped within the distance of the rust bucket.
On the other hand, what should a jury do to a guy who had driven in an absolutely law abiding fashion for 20 years, and because he had never sped or driven his car with attitude he may have also have developed a certain complacency in his driving skills, so much so that if for some reason a few unexpected changes occurred in the lanes around him causing him to become overwhelmed with the changes so that he reacts badly to cause a fatal accident, should that person face a jail sentence because the maneuver confronting him was not considered to be all that difficult in any absolute sense?
For instance :- you are in a lane approaching a cross walk and out of nowhere someone swop's lanes and cuts in right in front of you, shattering your peaceful drive and before you can even fully recover cuts back into the lane beside you almost running someone off the road, which absolutely freeks you out, and then suddenly you see someone on the crosswalk directly in front of you about 20 meters away. Ordinarily you would have stopped because doing the speed limit and not having your view obscured so suddenly you would easily have stopped. But now, with your feathers ruffled, instead of slamming on the brakes, you react badly and slam your foot on the accelerator, or alternatively simply freeze and do nothing as you witness yourself knocking over the pedestrian like a ten pin.
How in this scenario should this otherwise law abiding citizen with an exemplary record be judged?