Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Quite. You said it!
The reason why we should not charge and punish based on outcome as a main decider is that the outcome can in some instances be randon, chance, out of the control of the person involved, or lacking intent, mens rea. See under 'murder' and 'manslaughter' where the outcome is the same but the charge and so on are different. Punching was covered earlier...a reasonable person should know that a punch can be fatal. There is clear intent when a punch is delivered.
There are events involving driving which we've also considered, where the outcomes from two drivers committing the same degree of lapse in standard can be either nothing worth speaking of, or a fatality - the different outcomes being nothing to do with any difference in the degree to which the driving fell short of the expected standard, nothing to do with intent, and everything to do with chance. In those circumstances, charging and then punishing one driver more severely than the other because of a random outcome is not just.
It's all up there in the thread already. So, either accept that for some bizarre and illogical reason we should charge and punish people in effect by the throw of some dice, or acknowledge that this approach had no place even in medieval witch-hunts (e.g. trial by ordeal) and certainly has no place in a modern justice system worthy of the name. Unfortunately for some motorists it's already here.
Hard to work out your motivation here - you are saying, in effect, that the an offence (not looking where you are going whilst in control of a vehicle) should have a fixed/defined punishment (five years in jail/10 years disqualification) with no regard to the outcome (minor shunt to multiple deaths).The reason why we should not charge and punish based on outcome as a main decider is that the outcome can in some instances be randon, chance, out of the control of the person involved, or lacking intent, mens rea. See under 'murder' and 'manslaughter' where the outcome is the same but the charge and so on are different. Punching was covered earlier...a reasonable person should know that a punch can be fatal. There is clear intent when a punch is delivered.
There are events involving driving which we've also considered, where the outcomes from two drivers committing the same degree of lapse in standard can be either nothing worth speaking of, or a fatality - the different outcomes being nothing to do with any difference in the degree to which the driving fell short of the expected standard, nothing to do with intent, and everything to do with chance. In those circumstances, charging and then punishing one driver more severely than the other because of a random outcome is not just.
It's all up there in the thread already. So, either accept that for some bizarre and illogical reason we should charge and punish people in effect by the throw of some dice, or acknowledge that this approach had no place even in medieval witch-hunts (e.g. trial by ordeal) and certainly has no place in a modern justice system worthy of the name. Unfortunately for some motorists it's already here.
The problem here is that the offence of not paying enough attention is always going to have a variable outcome, although their is always the potential for the worst to happen (glance at phone, take out 10 people queueing for a bus) it's an outlier.
So we would end up with the 5 years bird and 10 years disqualification for knocking over a bin as we would for killing the 10 people waiting for the number 36.
Is the act the same? Yep. Would any jury convict the bin-knocker? No.
There has to be some proportionality in the punishment, although I totally agree that it's very often far, far too lenient, so maybe some minimums should be set.
singlecoil said:
will_ said:
singlecoil said:
I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.
Why should only the victim suffer the bad luck if the outcome is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offender's action?I can see no reason why people should not be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Your position appears to be that "a person who has caused injury or death should be treated leniently" if based on "luck". When you say "luck" I can only presume that you mean consequence, given that the outcome of any event will, in part, depend on circumstances. Some of those factors are within the reasonable foreseeability of the offender when they commit the offence - I can see no reason why such circumstances shouldn't be taken into account when determining the penalty which reflects the outcome of an action. Some aren't, and of course should be ignored.
A system which ignores the consequence of an action is going to be a bad one. The damage which is reflected by way of a penalty is core to the scale of the penalty imposed - that is redressing the scales of justice back towards the victim. Otherwise only the victim would have suffered the bad luck - how would that be fair?
turbobloke said:
If you commit an act which a reasonable person could foresee as carrying the risk of serious injury or death to another person then indeed, the punishment should fit the crime, however where this could not be foreseen and there was no intent whatsoever then the charge and the punishment must be different for justice to mean anything.
It's not a case of all or nothing, but proportionality. Can you see why manslaughter exists when the outcome is the same as murder? Malign intent and being able to foresee likely outcomes do matter, and in fact that's the crucial aspect.
Isn't this precisely what happens now?It's not a case of all or nothing, but proportionality. Can you see why manslaughter exists when the outcome is the same as murder? Malign intent and being able to foresee likely outcomes do matter, and in fact that's the crucial aspect.
As I said earlier, the correct penalty is (and should be) determined by considering the action, the intent, and the consequence. That's why killing someone with your car doesn't give you a mandatory life sentence. But it also means that running a red light and killing someone doesn't just mean 3 points and £100 fine.
Johnnytheboy said:
will_ said:
Johnnytheboy said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?
On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?Should we punish intent or results?
Why should the consequences be ignored?
Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?
If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?
will_ said:
Your position appears to be ...
My position is that if an action (or inaction) is wrong then it should be punished on the basis of its potential to cause harm to others.There should be no waiting to see if any harm is actually caused, you might just as well toss a coin.
Your position, OTOH, seems to be that it is alright to do, or fail to do, things that could cause harm to others as long as no harm actually results. Therefore it doesn't matter what is in the mind of the potential harm-causer.
How can that possibly be right?
turbobloke said:
There are events involving driving which we've also considered, where the outcomes from two drivers committing the same degree of lapse in standard can be either nothing worth speaking of, or a fatality - the different outcomes being nothing to do with any difference in the degree to which the driving fell short of the expected standard, nothing to do with intent, and everything to do with chance. In those circumstances, charging and then punishing one driver more severely than the other because of a random outcome is not just.
It's all up there in the thread already. So, either accept that for some bizarre and illogical reason we should charge and punish people in effect by the throw of some dice, or acknowledge that this approach had no place even in medieval witch-hunts (e.g. trial by ordeal) and certainly has no place in a modern justice system worthy of the name. Unfortunately for some motorists it's already here.
It is obviously just to consider the harm that has been caused when determining the penalty, provided that it is reasonably foreseeable.It's all up there in the thread already. So, either accept that for some bizarre and illogical reason we should charge and punish people in effect by the throw of some dice, or acknowledge that this approach had no place even in medieval witch-hunts (e.g. trial by ordeal) and certainly has no place in a modern justice system worthy of the name. Unfortunately for some motorists it's already here.
It should not just not be the victim who suffers from the roll of the dice. That is neither bizarre, nor illogical.
I can see no reason why a motorist who causes a reasonably foreseeable death should not be punished more than one who does not.
Will is right, singlecoil is wrong. Plus ca change.
Singlecoil throws up a completely mis-leading strawman no one has even remotely suggested.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "intent"?
Singlecoil throws up a completely mis-leading strawman no one has even remotely suggested.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "intent"?
singlecoil said:
Your position, OTOH, seems to be that it is alright to do, or fail to do, things that could cause harm to others as long as no harm actually results. Therefore it doesn't matter what is in the mind of the potential harm-causer.
will_ said:
As I said earlier, the correct penalty is (and should be) determined by considering the action, the intent, and the consequence.
singlecoil said:
will_ said:
Your position appears to be ...
My position is that if an action (or inaction) is wrong then it should be punished on the basis of its potential to cause harm to others.There should be no waiting to see if any harm is actually caused, you might just as well toss a coin.
Your position, OTOH, seems to be that it is alright to do, or fail to do, things that could cause harm to others as long as no harm actually results. Therefore it doesn't matter what is in the mind of the potential harm-causer.
How can that possibly be right?
What changes to the current sentencing regimes would you impose which you would consider fair to reflect possible harm, where currently that does not occur? And presumably you'd make no changes to those who cause the actual harm i.e. to you that would be irrelevant? That is the difficulty in ignoring the consequence - you either fail to reflect the harm, or you disproportionately punish those who have, in fact, caused very little or no harm.
singlecoil said:
My position is that if an action (or inaction) is wrong then it should be punished on the basis of its potential to cause harm to others.
There should be no waiting to see if any harm is actually caused, you might just as well toss a coin.
Your position, OTOH, seems to be that it is alright to do, or fail to do, things that could cause harm to others as long as no harm actually results. Therefore it doesn't matter what is in the mind of the potential harm-causer.
How can that possibly be right?
A car weighs more than a ton and shares the road with other motorists, HGVs, cyclists and pedestrians. Any poor driving has capacity to end in serious injury or death.There should be no waiting to see if any harm is actually caused, you might just as well toss a coin.
Your position, OTOH, seems to be that it is alright to do, or fail to do, things that could cause harm to others as long as no harm actually results. Therefore it doesn't matter what is in the mind of the potential harm-causer.
How can that possibly be right?
Blindly charging and sentencing on potential is too broad a brush.
1. Look at the driving. Was it below the standard we should expect from a licence holder? If no, go no further (in criminal terms, at least).
2. How culpable is the driver for whatever the outcome was, and how serious was the outcome? Sentence accordingly.
Genuine question; is anybody arguing this principle is wrong?
tenpenceshort said:
Blindly charging and sentencing on potential is too broad a brush.
1. Look at the driving. Was it below the standard we should expect from a licence holder? If no, go no further (in criminal terms, at least).
2. How culpable is the driver for whatever the outcome was, and how serious was the outcome? Sentence accordingly.
Genuine question; is anybody arguing this principle is wrong?
Are drink drivers treated according to those principles, or are they blindly charged and sentenced very seriously even if they don't kill? I wouldn't argue that drink drivers should receive 3 points and a £100 fine - they know what they are doing carries risk and can cause serious injuries to others as a result. Why should careless driving as a result of a mobile phone usage be treated differently? Using a phone and wandering across a lane when nothing is coming the other way would attract 3 points at a maximum; having three pints and wandering across a lane when nothing is coming the way is IIRC a minimum of a 12 month ban? Both actions can and do result in serious crashes, and given how much air time both offences get, no one can reasonably claim not to be aware of the risks of their actions in either case. 1. Look at the driving. Was it below the standard we should expect from a licence holder? If no, go no further (in criminal terms, at least).
2. How culpable is the driver for whatever the outcome was, and how serious was the outcome? Sentence accordingly.
Genuine question; is anybody arguing this principle is wrong?
will_ said:
Johnnytheboy said:
will_ said:
Johnnytheboy said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?
On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?Should we punish intent or results?
Why should the consequences be ignored?
Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?
If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?
I'll do that if you explain (it seems beyond Wolves Wanderer) why the random outcomes of someone's behaviour should have the majority influence on their punishment.
I firmly believe that intent (or culpable negligence, or whatever is the root cause of something happening, when you take any random element out of it) is what should be punished.
I don't understand why, if two people punch two other people with equal force, and one of the punchees is more injured than the other, the puncher who did most damage gets punished more severely.
It strikes me as vengeance, rather than justice.
All the counter-arguments I've seen so far seem to boil down to "well it makes sense, doesn't it?" without explaining why.
Johnnytheboy said:
I firmly believe that intent (or culpable negligence, or whatever is the root cause of something happening, when you take any random element out of it) is what should be punished.
So if you deliberately perform an action that you have been warned significantly increases the risk of causing harm to others, such as sending a text message whilst driving, you should be punished according to that intent - I.e. Severely. Johnnytheboy said:
will_ said:
Johnnytheboy said:
will_ said:
Johnnytheboy said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?
On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?Should we punish intent or results?
Why should the consequences be ignored?
Why can't we punish to reflect the action and the consequence (indeed, this is what we do)?
If you take no account of the consequence, how would you (for example) punish a punch to the face to reflect the fact that this could have no effect or at all, or might lead to someone's death?
I'll do that if you explain (it seems beyond Wolves Wanderer) why the random outcomes of someone's behaviour should have the majority influence on their punishment.
I firmly believe that intent (or culpable negligence, or whatever is the root cause of something happening, when you take any random element out of it) is what should be punished.
I don't understand why, if two people punch two other people with equal force, and one of the punchees is more injured than the other, the puncher who did most damage gets punished more severely.
It strikes me as vengeance, rather than justice.
All the counter-arguments I've seen so far seem to boil down to "well it makes sense, doesn't it?" without explaining why.
I'm not sure that I can explain it any more clearly than making a mistake resulting in someone's death is clearly worse than the mistake not resulting in anyone's death. I note that you also make no explanation for your own position, merely stating it [again].
Retribution is a key element of justice and has been for thousands of years. I see nothing wrong with this, and nor does society in general.
What punishment would you prefer for [for example] texting on a mobile phone both in the case of no injury, serious life-changing injury or multiple fatalities? Are you suggesting one level of punishment for each act, as the initial cause was the same, and if so, would you punish for all at the level of nothing happening in consequence or would you punish at the level of a "worst case scenario" representing the maximum consequences?
Johnnytheboy said:
I don't understand why, if two people punch two other people with equal force, and one of the punchees is more injured than the other, the puncher who did most damage gets punished more severely.
That's a deliberate act, whereby a predetermined act to hurt somebody was involved. This is a different act to those of negligence which we're discussing here.There has to be a degree of practicality. A car mounts a pavement and kills a pedestrian - if you apply the same broad brush to everybody who drives on the pavement, then you'd treat people who park on pavements with the same punishment as those who kill, or those who kill with the same punishment as those who park on pavements.
Maybe the problem is that driving without due care and attention is very rarely punished considering the quantity of the lack of care and attention which goes on out roads; and when it is, unless there is a death involved the level of punishment is pretty minor considering the potential consequences.
Why should it only be a minor punishment of someone drives onto a pavement (at a speed capable of injuring or killing someone), even if no-one is actually hurt? Surely its not OK to go around driving on the pavement?
We regularly get the justification of poor driving on these forums "I haven't been killed to death by doing XXX therefore it can't be dangerous". People mistake luck with poor driving, and then when stuff goes wrong it was "just one of those things", or an "unavoidable accident".
Why should it only be a minor punishment of someone drives onto a pavement (at a speed capable of injuring or killing someone), even if no-one is actually hurt? Surely its not OK to go around driving on the pavement?
We regularly get the justification of poor driving on these forums "I haven't been killed to death by doing XXX therefore it can't be dangerous". People mistake luck with poor driving, and then when stuff goes wrong it was "just one of those things", or an "unavoidable accident".
wolves_wanderer said:
Apologies for having other things to do than repeat myself endlessly in circular arguments on Pistonheads.
I'm not sure that I can explain it any more clearly than making a mistake resulting in someone's death is clearly worse than the mistake not resulting in anyone's death. I note that you also make no explanation for your own position, merely stating it [again].
Retribution is a key element of justice and has been for thousands of years. I see nothing wrong with this, and nor does society in general.
It's a shame, though understandable, that you didn't respond to my fictional scenario posted earlier. It was, of course, deliberately posed to expose the hole in your logic.I'm not sure that I can explain it any more clearly than making a mistake resulting in someone's death is clearly worse than the mistake not resulting in anyone's death. I note that you also make no explanation for your own position, merely stating it [again].
Retribution is a key element of justice and has been for thousands of years. I see nothing wrong with this, and nor does society in general.
The point was, of course, that the crime, whatever it might be, had already happened before the consequences were known. Supposing two people had committed the same crime (had the same accident, on different days). Can you put forward a logical reason why one of them should get a small fine and the other go to prison?
singlecoil said:
It's a shame, though understandable, that you didn't respond to my fictional scenario posted earlier. It was, of course, deliberately posed to expose the hole in your logic.
The point was, of course, that the crime, whatever it might be, had already happened before the consequences were known. Supposing two people had committed the same crime (had the same accident, on different days). Can you put forward a logical reason why one of them should get a small fine and the other go to prison?
Because doing it when others are about is different to doing it when nobody is about? More care is needed if there are other people about. The point was, of course, that the crime, whatever it might be, had already happened before the consequences were known. Supposing two people had committed the same crime (had the same accident, on different days). Can you put forward a logical reason why one of them should get a small fine and the other go to prison?
wolves_wanderer said:
Apologies for having other things to do than repeat myself endlessly in circular arguments on Pistonheads.
I'm not sure that I can explain it any more clearly than making a mistake resulting in someone's death is clearly worse than the mistake not resulting in anyone's death. I note that you also make no explanation for your own position, merely stating it [again].
OK I'll explain my position again, as I apparently haven't done yet.I'm not sure that I can explain it any more clearly than making a mistake resulting in someone's death is clearly worse than the mistake not resulting in anyone's death. I note that you also make no explanation for your own position, merely stating it [again].
By punishing based on the workings of chance, you are punishing the unlucky, not the malicious or negligent.
I'm fully aware that this has going on for quite a while. So has crime, but it's still wrong. I still don't see why it is fair.
Heebeegeetee's point about mounting the kerb is the most valid counter-argument I have heard so far.
heebeegeetee said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I still don't see why it is fair.
Who said life is fair? Show me whoever it was that told you life was going to be fair. 
I agree with you entirely, but I feel like fairness is a goal our justice system should at least aspire to.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff