Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
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?
Pure chance (as is nearly always the case with accidents).
Johnnytheboy said:
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.
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?
What hole in my logic did it expose?! If you are seriously arguing that punishment should take no account of consequences then perhaps someone could answer my question as to what a suitable punishment is, punish on the basis of a best case or worst case?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:
People about both days. Nobody in the path of Mr Lucky's car. Somebody in the path of Mr Unlucky's car.
Pure chance (as is nearly always the case with accidents).
so mr unlucky lost control of his car on a roundabout on a winter's day with people around. The key question to me is whether he was actually driving with suitable care for the conditions bearing in mind the chance of killing someone? Is losing control on a slippery roundabout in the winter a something that could reasonably be anticipated?Pure chance (as is nearly always the case with accidents).
wolves_wanderer said:
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?
What hole in my logic did it expose?! If you are seriously arguing that punishment should take no account of consequences then perhaps someone could answer my question as to what a suitable punishment is, punish on the basis of a best case or worst case?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?
In response to the second question you pose, to be logical the punishment ought to be based on a balance between the best and worst possible cases.
Mave said:
singlecoil said:
People about both days. Nobody in the path of Mr Lucky's car. Somebody in the path of Mr Unlucky's car.
Pure chance (as is nearly always the case with accidents).
so mr unlucky lost control of his car on a roundabout on a winter's day with people around. The key question to me is whether he was actually driving with suitable care for the conditions bearing in mind the chance of killing someone? Is losing control on a slippery roundabout in the winter a something that could reasonably be anticipated?Pure chance (as is nearly always the case with accidents).
But the discussion we have been having is about whether or not the court should consider the consequences of the crime (which has already happened).
singlecoil said:
The scenario I posted earlier (have you had any thoughts about it yet?) was to show that the crime had already been committed before the consequences were known. That's the hole. You want to wait and see what the consequences will be before deciding how bad the crime was. But the crime has already happened!
The crime depends on the outcome.Hence attempted murder is a different crime to murder.
The crime hasn't "already happened".
Your scenario is a bad example because the driving is arguably fine.
Try again.
Any thoughts about justice for the victim?
singlecoil said:
The scenario I posted earlier (have you had any thoughts about it yet?) was to show that the crime had already been committed before the consequences were known. That's the hole. You want to wait and see what the consequences will be before deciding how bad the crime was. But the crime has already happened!
But it is a pointless scenario as nothing has happened. It is more like a game of "what am I thinking" It is like me asking "what should be the punishment for forgetting to shut a door?"singlecoil said:
In response to the second question you pose, to be logical the punishment ought to be based on a balance between the best and worst possible cases.
So taking phone use, given that punishment can range between 3 points and £100 fine and 5 years you are suggesting a blanket 2.5 year prison sentence would be logical?wolves_wanderer said:
singlecoil said:
The scenario I posted earlier (have you had any thoughts about it yet?) was to show that the crime had already been committed before the consequences were known. That's the hole. You want to wait and see what the consequences will be before deciding how bad the crime was. But the crime has already happened!
But it is a pointless scenario as nothing has happened. It is more like a game of "what am I thinking" It is like me asking "what should be the punishment for forgetting to shut a door?"wolves_wanderer said:
singlecoil said:
In response to the second question you pose, to be logical the punishment ought to be based on a balance between the best and worst possible cases.
So taking phone use, given that punishment can range between 3 points and £100 fine and 5 years you are suggesting a blanket 2.5 year prison sentence would be logical?singlecoil said:
wolves_wanderer said:
singlecoil said:
The scenario I posted earlier (have you had any thoughts about it yet?) was to show that the crime had already been committed before the consequences were known. That's the hole. You want to wait and see what the consequences will be before deciding how bad the crime was. But the crime has already happened!
But it is a pointless scenario as nothing has happened. It is more like a game of "what am I thinking" It is like me asking "what should be the punishment for forgetting to shut a door?"singlecoil said:
wolves_wanderer said:
singlecoil said:
In response to the second question you pose, to be logical the punishment ought to be based on a balance between the best and worst possible cases.
So taking phone use, given that punishment can range between 3 points and £100 fine and 5 years you are suggesting a blanket 2.5 year prison sentence would be logical?I find it strange that you accept the hypothetical sentence for phone use "if that is where society has decided to set the balance" but you don't accept the fact that society has already decided to set the balance of punishment with reference to the consequences of the offence.
Edited by wolves_wanderer on Monday 1st September 15:00
Indeed. Society has decided that outcomes matter (random or not).
The way we have it now works because when you do something wrong, you realise you have a significantly wide range of punishments - some of which are incredibly severe and often just bad luck (similar to the bad luck of the victim).
So you can have a system which offers a huge deterrent without having to lock up every single person found doing 37 in a 30.
The reason I never speed beyond 10%+2 in a built up 30 or 40 is because I know that I might go to prison or at least lose my license if someone runs out in front of me and I can't stop.
I don't care about the points and fine (much).
The way we have it now works because when you do something wrong, you realise you have a significantly wide range of punishments - some of which are incredibly severe and often just bad luck (similar to the bad luck of the victim).
So you can have a system which offers a huge deterrent without having to lock up every single person found doing 37 in a 30.
The reason I never speed beyond 10%+2 in a built up 30 or 40 is because I know that I might go to prison or at least lose my license if someone runs out in front of me and I can't stop.
I don't care about the points and fine (much).
singlecoil said:
That's a very fair question, and that is what the court should address.
But the discussion we have been having is about whether or not the court should consider the consequences of the crime (which has already happened).
I thought the question was how MUCH of the punishment should be based on the consequences- IMHO there should be more punishment for DWDCA, and then any escalation due to consequence is proportionally lessBut the discussion we have been having is about whether or not the court should consider the consequences of the crime (which has already happened).
wolves_wanderer said:
No it hasn't happened because the consequences are not yet known. Killing someone is a different crime to having a skid.
I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. AFAIAC the crime happened already, but AFAYAC it hasn't because the consequences are as yet unknown. So to me, a crime is in effect an event which happens within a particular part of time and space, but to you it's (in this case) two events.I don't see how we are going to get past this.
Mave said:
walm said:
Your scenario is a bad example because the driving is arguably fine.
Try again.
Any thoughts about justice for the victim?
How can it be arguably fine to skid off the road in the vicinity of pedestrians, when the conditions mean it is reasonably predictable?Try again.
Any thoughts about justice for the victim?
He never said the car skidded off the road.
He said "he starts to skid" - 1ft? 5ft? 10ft? In his lane? Through a crash-barrier and in front of the 7.15 Reading-London?
And then he repeats "the crime has already happened" several times despite the fact that his example is perfect for demonstrating that exactly what crime depends on the outcome.
singlecoil said:
I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. AFAIAC the crime happened already, but AFAYAC it hasn't because the consequences are as yet unknown. So to me, a crime is in effect an event which happens within a particular part of time and space, but to you it's (in this case) two events.
I don't see how we are going to get past this.
Fair one, and I doubt either of us will convince the other.I don't see how we are going to get past this.
walm said:
Mave said:
walm said:
Your scenario is a bad example because the driving is arguably fine.
Try again.
Any thoughts about justice for the victim?
How can it be arguably fine to skid off the road in the vicinity of pedestrians, when the conditions mean it is reasonably predictable?Try again.
Any thoughts about justice for the victim?
He never said the car skidded off the road.
He said "he starts to skid" - 1ft? 5ft? 10ft? In his lane? Through a crash-barrier and in front of the 7.15 Reading-London?
If he's killed a pedestrian by skidding sufficiently to come off the road onto a footpath, then that's not fine; especially if its on the outskirts of town but still within the limits of the town in a 30 or 40 limit. May be a bit different if it's in a 60 limit outside town.
If he's killed a pedestrian who steps onto the roundabout then I agree that's less predictable.
Johnnytheboy said:
Dear me, this is proving taxing.
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 have already stated my position earlier in the thread. And in any event, I asked first....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.
Nonetheless....
Who said anything about "majority influence" (except you)?
"Vengeance" is part of justice - however I would suggest that the more suitable word is "re-balance". Justice is about re-balancing the scales to reflect the harm done by the offender, such that the offender receives something which reflects the harm to the victim, whilst also reflecting the culpability of the offender.
It makes sense to take account of the consequence of an action so as to be able to measure the actual harm done, in order to redress the balance in favour of the victim. Therefore if the harm done is significant, the penalty needs to be significant for the balance to be restored.
In some crimes the intent (and not the consequence) is the core factor in determining the penalty - causing a death can have a range of actions and intentions, yet not all deaths are punished the same (and rightly so).
However some offences have no requirement for mens rea at all - so how would you punish those? Or do you need intention to cause harm? Or should penalties never be used to reflect harm at all?
And where would your punishment lie for someone who fails to see a red light (no intention to break the law), and kills a pedestrian? Do you consider that running a red light should be punished to reflect the possible harm (i.e. a death), and if so, what is the right punishment (in your view) for causing a death where there is no intention to do so? Bearing in mind, of course, that fairness to the victim is just as important as fairness to the offender, and also bearing in mind that "bad luck" should be reflected in the "harm" done to both parties (provided that the consequence of the action is reasonably foreseeable).
singlecoil said:
I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. AFAIAC the crime happened already, but AFAYAC it hasn't because the consequences are as yet unknown. So to me, a crime is in effect an event which happens within a particular part of time and space, but to you it's (in this case) two events.
I don't see how we are going to get past this.
But until you know the outcome of the action, you don't know what crime has occurred.I don't see how we are going to get past this.
Swinging an axe may be perfectly legal or murder depending on what you're swinging it at. Same action, different intention and consequence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff