Sorry chaps, but some of you are missing the point here. The rule of law is preferable to mob vengeance at least partly because it is less likely to kill or mutilate an innocent party by mistake. It was the fact that it still did so accidentally from time to time that caused us, perhaps squeamishly, to abandon torture and the death penalty.
Someone suspected of a heinous crime - not the mere theft of a well-paid person's car! - and fitted up by the police was given huge damages in court yesterday. If the sort of expeditious justice being recommended here prevailed in this country, he would probably be dead and the real miscreant (we hope this time) would not be awaiting trial.
Edited by Lud on 14/08/2008 at 16:36
|
|
You're right Lud - I would be truly scared of being brought up before a People's Court comprising of certain Backroom readers !
|
|
|
Sorry chaps but some of you are missing the point here. The rule of law is preferable to mob vengeance at least partly because it is less likely to kill or mutilate an innocent party by mistake.
Hardly partly. Unless you care about avoiding punishing an innocent person, there's no need for the rule of law or a justice system at all. It's only purpose is to protect the innocent.
I would give a nod to its supposed other purpose too - ensuring that all the guilty are treated equally (something else that mob vengeance doesn't achieve) - but with the "death by careless driving" nonsense coming into effect today it's clear that that objective is no longer considered important by our incompetent, muddle-headed leaders (or perhaps they are just too stupid to understand).
|
- but withthe "death by careless driving" nonsense coming into effect today it's clear that that objective is no longer considered important
I don't understand what is so controvertial about asking people to actually do what they are supposed to be doing when driving - ie concentrating on the road and their driving - and not doing other things such as reading maps, having a drink, etc....
If they want to act like they are sat in their armchair at home then they should go by train....
|
- but with >> the "death by careless driving" nonsense coming into effect today it's clear that that objective >> is no longer considered important I don't understand what is so controvertial about asking people to actually do what they are supposed to be doing when driving
Nothing at all. The nonsense is the "causing death by" part. The consequence is irrelevant. If I drive around town reading my map instead of looking where I am going, I am being stupid and irresponsible. Let's suppose you do the same. We both knock down a pedestrian we didn't see (because we weren't looking). Your pedestrian is elderly and frail and dies. My pedestrian is young and fit and doesn't die. I have been no less stupid than you, no less irresponsible than you, just a bit luckier. And yet the maximum punishment available for me is less than it is for you. The law (now) even regards us as having committed different offences. If you take consequences into account, the only basis on which to differentiate my offence and your offence is luck. That is not controversial, it is utterly nonsensical.
When I decided not to pay attention there was no way I could predict or control whether my victim would be young, fit and resilient or elderly and frial. Therefore, my luck in that regard should play no part in my treatment by law.
To be clear, I make no comment on whether jail is appropriate or not for such an offence. Before discussing the second question - what punishment is appropriate - you need to answer the first question - to whom will the punishment will apply. At the moment, the answer society has settled on for the first question is so preposterous that there is no point asking the second question.
|
Your pedestrian is elderly andfrail and dies. My pedestrian is young and fit and doesn't die. I have been no less stupid than you no less irresponsible than you just a bit luckier. And yet the maximum punishment available for me is less than it is for you. The law (now) even regards us as having committed different offences. If you take consequences into account the only basis on which to differentiate my offence and your offence is luck. That is not controversial it is utterly nonsensical.
So are you saying that we should be both treated the same way and punished the same.... I agree! We both knew what the consequenses were, so should be treated the same way regardless... so jail for both of us, then....
|
So are you saying that we should be both treated the same way and punished the same....
Yes. As should the person who didn't even hit a pedestrian but who drove around looking at the map instead of the road with no way to be sure that there wasn't a pedestrian there. It's still the same offence, just different in its outcome - and only different in ways that the driver had no ability to predict or control once the irresponsible act of not paying attention had been committed.
so jail for both of us then....
Well, as I said, what is an appropriate punishment is an entirely separate question, but if jail is deemed appropriate for you then it is appropriate for me too, and for the driver I just described, who is no different apart from having better luck than either of us. On the other hand, you could argue that being distracted by the map is an inevitable occasional consequence of using a car to get from A to an unfmailiar B and society should accept it as one of the risks of living with cars. So if a stern reprimand from a traffic plod is appropriate for the driver I just described, then it is also appropriate for me with my injured pedestrian and for you with your dead one. Either regime is fine by me.
Of course, it's not like this is a new problem. People fall asleep at the wheel because they are far too tired to drive safely quite regularly, but the punishment they receive, far from being determined by how bad their decision to drive in the first place was, can be based on factors as random and irrelevant as how close the nearest railway line happened to be.
|
is an inevitable occasional consequence of using a car to get from Ato an unfmailiar B and society should accept it as one of the risks of living with cars.
Interesting thought - so I wonder where the "personal responsibility for our actions" should come in.... suppose its all about minimising risk and by setting laws which limit speed, signs which dictate what we do (such as one way signs) and punishments we are doing just that... its then a question of setting the punishment at an appropriate level to deter people from breaking the law.... and I think from reading in the papers about people driving when banned I don't think we have got it right in some cases!
Edited by b308 on 15/08/2008 at 17:55
|
|
|
|
If I drive around town reading my map instead of looking where I am going I am being stupid and irresponsible. Let's suppose you do the same. We both knock down a pedestrian we didn't see (because we weren't looking). Your pedestrian is elderly and frail and dies. My pedestrian is young...
...and a third person drives through the same town, reading his map. The zebra crossing he drives across has nobody on it, so it doesn't matter that he didn't look.
Jail; fine; or scott free?
|
...and a third person drives through the same town reading his map. The zebra crossing he drives across has nobody on it so it doesn't matter that he didn't look. Jail; fine; or scott free?
Exactly the same as the first two drivers. But note that I didn't say anything about whether the first two drivers should get jail, a fine or go free. What I said was that it is nonsensical for the first two drivers not to get the same punishment. And by the same argument it is equally nonsensical for your third driver not to get the same punishment as the first two.
Whether any of these three drivers should be treated differently from each other is a question that can be answered entirly by logic (if you accept the premise that luck is not an appropriate metric for determining the severity of an offence).
What level of punishment is appropriate, once it is understood that it should apply to all careless drivers regardless of the consequeces of their actions, can not be determined by logic and should be debated by society.
|
>>Whether any of these three drivers should be treated differently from each other is a
>>question that can be answered entirly by logic (if you accept the premise that luck is
>>not an appropriate metric for determining the severity of an offence).
Or, in fact, by the thin skull rule which is a matter of law. If you hit an old man and kill him: jail; a young man and break his leg: fine; nobody: nothing.
|
Or in fact by the thin skull rule which is a matter of law.
So the thin skull rule (on which I am far from expert) would appear not to accept the premise that luck is not an appropriate metric for determining the severity of an offence. That's fine. If you don't accept a premise then any logic built on that premise is irrelevant. In my opinion intent is important and luck is irrelevant so I do accept the premise.
I am aware that I am describing what I think the law should be, not what it is. After all, away from the world of motoring, by my argument (and in my opinion) there should be no distinction between murder and attempted murder and the concept of (involuntary) manslaughter should not exist in law at all.
|
|
|
|
|
