Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.

[singlecoil]

will_ said:

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.

Swinging an axe may be perfectly legal or murder depending on what you're swinging it at. Same action, different intention and consequence.

Your example is ill chosen, and in any case works against your position. Swinging an axe at a person is of course a crime, but the crime is in the swing and the intent, the effect on the target is something that becomes known after the crime has already happened.

[tenpenceshort]

singlecoil said:

Your example is ill chosen, and in any case works against your position. Swinging an axe at a person is of course a crime, but the crime is in the swing and the intent, the effect on the target is something that becomes known after the crime has already happened.

Swinging an axe around people is not necessarily a crime (albeit a stupid thing to do). Whether it becomes one depends on the intent/beliefs at the time and the outcome. In the event of a conviction the sentence would reflect both the culpability and the severity of the outcome.

[will_]

singlecoil said:

will_ said:

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.

Swinging an axe may be perfectly legal or murder depending on what you're swinging it at. Same action, different intention and consequence.

Your example is ill chosen, and in any case works against your position. Swinging an axe at a person is of course a crime, but the crime is in the swing and the intent, the effect on the target is something that becomes known after the crime has already happened.

Wrong - the crime is made up of a number of constituent parts, one of which is the impact of the action and the intent. It is not committed the moment that action meets intention - what crime has occurred can only be determined once the result of the action and intention (if mens rea is required for the crime to be made out) has occurred.

If you swing an axe, intend to hit someone, and hit someone else instead, in your position no crime has been committed (because you didn't intend to hit person B).

Again, I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to how ignoring the consequence of an action is fair to the victim harmed by such an action. Should the victim be invisible in determining whether a crime has occurred or the severity of that crime?

[singlecoil]

will_ said:

Wrong - the crime is made up of a number of constituent parts, one of which is the impact of the action and the intent. It is not committed the moment that action meets intention - what crime has occurred can only be determined once the result of the action and intention (if mens rea is required for the crime to be made out) has occurred.

If you swing an axe, intend to hit someone, and hit someone else instead, in your position no crime has been committed (because you didn't intend to hit person B).

Again, I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to how ignoring the consequence of an action is fair to the victim harmed by such an action. Should the victim be invisible in determining whether a crime has occurred or the severity of that crime?

It's not wrong, and again you use a flawed example. But taking your awkward example as a starting point- someone swings an axe intending to split a log, and at the last moment, out of nowhere, someone whose presence was unknown to the axeman falls across the target log and his head is cut off.

Now I am going to assume that you would agree that no crime had been committed?

Nevertheless, the person is now dead. He wasn't intentionally committing suicide, it was an unfortunate accident.

It could be argued by the family of the victim that the axeman should have been more careful, and made absolutely sure there was no-one within possible reach of the target log, and they are screaming for justice.

So the axe swing previous to the fatal blow was entirely legal, and the fatal swing was not and the only difference is in the outcome. Explain to me why that is fair and just.

[will_]

singlecoil said:

will_ said:

Wrong - the crime is made up of a number of constituent parts, one of which is the impact of the action and the intent. It is not committed the moment that action meets intention - what crime has occurred can only be determined once the result of the action and intention (if mens rea is required for the crime to be made out) has occurred.

If you swing an axe, intend to hit someone, and hit someone else instead, in your position no crime has been committed (because you didn't intend to hit person B).

Again, I'm yet to see a convincing argument as to how ignoring the consequence of an action is fair to the victim harmed by such an action. Should the victim be invisible in determining whether a crime has occurred or the severity of that crime?

It's not wrong, and again you use a flawed example. But taking your awkward example as a starting point- someone swings an axe intending to split a log, and at the last moment, out of nowhere, someone whose presence was unknown to the axeman falls across the target log and his head is cut off.

Now I am going to assume that you would agree that no crime had been committed?

Nevertheless, the person is now dead. He wasn't intentionally committing suicide, it was an unfortunate accident.

It could be argued by the family of the victim that the axeman should have been more careful, and made absolutely sure there was no-one within possible reach of the target log, and they are screaming for justice.

So the axe swing previous to the fatal blow was entirely legal, and the fatal swing was not and the only difference is in the outcome. Explain to me why that is fair and just.

I remember now (how could I forget!) that trying to debate with you is ultimately a pointless and frustrating exercise. You've provided a perfect strawman.

In your example, I would aver that no crime has been committed and nothing is required to be done to the axe man.

You have, however, failed to address the points I raised.

[singlecoil]

will_ said:

I remember now (how could I forget!) that trying to debate with you is ultimately a pointless and frustrating exercise. You've provided a perfect strawman.

In your example, I would aver that no crime has been committed and nothing is required to be done to the axe man.

You have, however, failed to address the points I raised.

It can indeed be frustrating (or it could be if I let it) to argue with someone like yourself who resorts to Ad Hominem attacks as soon as he runs out of cogent argument

You have similarly failed to respond to the points I raised, and in my example, according to you there isn't going to be any justice for the victim (which is what I thought you were trying to achieve).

Can we at least agree about just what it is we disagree about? Seems to me that the core of the dispute is whether or not what happens after the guilty act (or omission) should be included in deciding the punishment. I say no, you say yes. I acknowledge that current laws are leaning very much towards your position.

[heebeegeetee]

singlecoil said:

It can indeed be frustrating (or it could be if I let it) to argue with someone like yourself who resorts to Ad Hominem attacks as soon as he runs out of cogent argument

You have similarly failed to respond to the points I raised, and in my example, according to you there isn't going to be any justice for the victim (which is what I thought you were trying to achieve).

Can we at least agree about just what it is we disagree about? Seems to me that the core of the dispute is whether or not what happens after the guilty act (or omission) should be included in deciding the punishment. I say no, you say yes. I acknowledge that current laws are leaning very much towards your position.

I haven't read all of the thread, but tell me what you do regarding the law if you could. A car runs onto the pavement. What then?

[will_]

singlecoil said:

will_ said:

I remember now (how could I forget!) that trying to debate with you is ultimately a pointless and frustrating exercise. You've provided a perfect strawman.

In your example, I would aver that no crime has been committed and nothing is required to be done to the axe man.

You have, however, failed to address the points I raised.

It can indeed be frustrating (or it could be if I let it) to argue with someone like yourself who resorts to Ad Hominem attacks as soon as he runs out of cogent argument

You have similarly failed to respond to the points I raised, and in my example, according to you there isn't going to be any justice for the victim (which is what I thought you were trying to achieve).

Can we at least agree about just what it is we disagree about? Seems to me that the core of the dispute is whether or not what happens after the guilty act (or omission) should be included in deciding the punishment. I say no, you say yes. I acknowledge that current laws are leaning very much towards your position.

It's no Ad Homien to say that debating with you is frustrating, nor have I even nearly exhausted the cogent arguments in play.

You cannot have justice for the victim if you have no-one to blame - that is an unfortunate reality. In your example there is no-one to blame for an accident - it is just that, it is not as a result of an action which is criminal. I have therefore answered that already.

I know where we don't agree - it is simply that no-one has explained the rational basis for excluding the harm done when calculating the penalty. It seems to me that in doing so the victim fails to be taken into account at all - directly contrary to the very basic notion of having a criminal justice system at all (deterring and punishing behaviour which has a negative effect on others). I am trying to understand by way of raising the points which you avoid answering.

[singlecoil]

will_ said:

It's no Ad Homien to say that debating with you is frustrating, nor have I even nearly exhausted the cogent arguments in play.

You cannot have justice for the victim if you have no-one to blame - that is an unfortunate reality. In your example there is no-one to blame for an accident - it is just that, it is not as a result of an action which is criminal. I have therefore answered that already.

I know where we don't agree - it is simply that no-one has explained the rational basis for excluding the harm done when calculating the penalty. It seems to me that in doing so the victim fails to be taken into account at all - directly contrary to the very basic notion of having a criminal justice system at all (deterring and punishing behaviour which has a negative effect on others). I am trying to understand by way of raising the points which you avoid answering.

Equally, no-one has explained the rational basis for not excluding the outcome, and I am finding it equally frustrating that no-one has responded to the points raised by myself and others, (who have now given up, is seems) either.

Such responses as there have been simply state the current position (which is in some cases very victim centred) or that it is in some way self evident that the outcome should be considered.

That means that whether someone goes to prison or not will be down more to luck than culpability, and that's what I can't see as being right.

[heebeegeetee]

singlecoil said:

Equally, no-one has explained the rational basis for not excluding the outcome, and I am finding it equally frustrating that no-one has responded to the points raised by myself and others, (who have now given up, is seems) either.

Such responses as there have been simply state the current position (which is in some cases very victim centred) or that it is in some way self evident that the outcome should be considered.

That means that whether someone goes to prison or not will be down more to luck than culpability, and that's what I can't see as being right.

So what would you do?

[walm]

singlecoil said:

No-one has explained the rational basis for including the outcome.

(I removed the double negative for clarity)

It's pretty self evident.

Justice for the victim demands a harsher penalty than when there is no victim.

Your suggestion of taking some "average" penalty and applying it blanket to the action/intention "crime" and ignoring the outcome serves no regard to the victim in individual cases.

IMHO it is a better justice system that allows for more severe penalty when someone is hurt than when they aren't - EVEN if it is just bad luck.
The blame is clear - if you hadn't skidded or hadn't been speeding - you wouldn't have exposed the victim to the risks. But you did and hence you are at risk yourself of a severe punishment.

To ignore the victim isn't justice. And more practically, outcome-dependent punishment acts as a more severe deterrent than some bizarre average punishment that would inevitably be too harsh for zero outcome events and too soft when someone is killed.

[singlecoil]

walm said:

(I removed the double negative for clarity)

It's pretty self evident.

Justice for the victim demands a harsher penalty than when there is no victim.

Your suggestion of taking some "average" penalty and applying it blanket to the action/intention "crime" and ignoring the outcome serves no regard to the victim in individual cases.

IMHO it is a better justice system that allows for more severe penalty when someone is hurt than when they aren't - EVEN if it is just bad luck.
The blame is clear - if you hadn't skidded or hadn't been speeding - you wouldn't have exposed the victim to the risks. But you did and hence you are at risk yourself of a severe punishment.

To ignore the victim isn't justice. And more practically, outcome-dependent punishment acts as a more severe deterrent than some bizarre average punishment that would inevitably be too harsh for zero outcome events and too soft when someone is killed.

Self evident? That's one of the weakest arguments there is.

So am I to understand that there should be a harsh penalty if there is a victim, and a soft one if there is not? So you are arguing for a luck based system? really?

[heebeegeetee]

singlecoil said:

Self evident? That's one of the weakest arguments there is.

So am I to understand that there should be a harsh penalty if there is a victim, and a soft one if there is not? So you are arguing for a luck based system? really?

So system would you argue for?

[singlecoil]

heebeegeetee said:

singlecoil said:

Self evident? That's one of the weakest arguments there is.

So am I to understand that there should be a harsh penalty if there is a victim, and a soft one if there is not? So you are arguing for a luck based system? really?

So system would you argue for?

Pretty much the one I suggested earlier in the thread.

[will_]

singlecoil said:

Equally, no-one has explained the rational basis for not excluding the outcome, and I am finding it equally frustrating that no-one has responded to the points raised by myself and others, (who have now given up, is seems) either.

Such responses as there have been simply state the current position (which is in some cases very victim centred) or that it is in some way self evident that the outcome should be considered.

That means that whether someone goes to prison or not will be down more to luck than culpability, and that's what I can't see as being right.

I've responded to that a number of times in this thread already - even just up the page if you look.

Would you please now address the points I have raised, rather than avoiding them again?

[walm]

singlecoil said:

So you are arguing for a luck based system? really?

You are arguing for a system that treats speeding on an empty motorway at 3am as the same crime as killing an entire coach of children (someone please think of the children) because you couldn't stop in time. Really?

[will_]

singlecoil said:

Self evident? That's one of the weakest arguments there is.

So am I to understand that there should be a harsh penalty if there is a victim, and a soft one if there is not? So you are arguing for a luck based system? really?

So only the victim should suffer the consequences of the bad luck, even if it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an offender's action?

If it is a genuine accident, then there is indeed a lack of balance back in favour of the victim. But that is simply because there is no-one to blame and therefore punish.

If it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a criminal act (or even, for that matter, a non-criminal one), what justification is there for not reflecting the harm by way of the penalty?

[heebeegeetee]

singlecoil said:

Pretty much the one I suggested earlier in the thread.

Gawd's sake. You can never just answer a question, can you?

As I said, I have dipped in and out of the thread. I have not seen what you suggested earlier and I'm not going to read 12 pages to find what you said.

I am genuinely curious as to what you propose, but it's up to you whether you want to tell me.

[Mave]

tenpenceshort said:

singlecoil said:

Your example is ill chosen, and in any case works against your position. Swinging an axe at a person is of course a crime, but the crime is in the swing and the intent, the effect on the target is something that becomes known after the crime has already happened.

Swinging an axe around people is not necessarily a crime (albeit a stupid thing to do). Whether it becomes one depends on the intent/beliefs at the time and the outcome. In the event of a conviction the sentence would reflect both the culpability and the severity of the outcome.

Surely swinging an axe around people IS acrime if you analogise it to DWDCA. It's pretty obvious that someone could get hurt, if you don't take adequate precautions and care then you're behaving negligently. So IMHO you should be punished for swinging the axe around people, whether or not you hit someone.

[Mave]

singlecoil said:

will_ said:

I remember now (how could I forget!) that trying to debate with you is ultimately a pointless and frustrating exercise. You've provided a perfect strawman.

In your example, I would aver that no crime has been committed and nothing is required to be done to the axe man.

You have, however, failed to address the points I raised.

It can indeed be frustrating (or it could be if I let it) to argue with someone like yourself who resorts to Ad Hominem attacks as soon as he runs out of cogent argument

You have similarly failed to respond to the points I raised, and in my example, according to you there isn't going to be any justice for the victim (which is what I thought you were trying to achieve).

Surely there is no justice owed to the victim if the axeman has taken all reasonable precautions to keep things safe, and the axeee has jumped out of nowhere into the path of his axe?