Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.

[Mave]

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.

The way I see it is the penalty needs to be seen to fit the severity of the crime.

If there is no victim, then a harsh punishment can be seen to be inappropriate, even if there is potential for significant harm. It is also difficult to prove the crime if there is no consequence. (If someone were a really bad murderer, and shot themselves in the foot before they even set off to meet the murderee how do you prove intent?)

A reason for not excluding the outcome then is 1) there is more proof of the crime eg it's easier to prove DWDCA if someone has actually been killed, and 2) the punishment can be seen to be appropriate to the consequences of the crime.

[will_]

will_ said:

I remember now (how could I forget!) that trying to debate with you is ultimately a pointless and frustrating exercise.

I hate to be right again, but what a surprise - when faced with a point he can't adequately respond to, Singlcoil just disappears to avoid admitting he's wrong rather than argue it or simply accept that he doesn't have an answer (there's no shame in either position SC!).

I'll take that as an internet thread victory (again) - go me.

I should learn that it's a waste of time entering such "debates" when the tactic appears to be to avoid, avoid, avoid and then leave....(he's posting in other threads, just not this one).

Shame, as the topic is interesting - just need some better advocates for the "intent is the only relevant factor" to consider side......

True to form, Singlecoil will reply to this post, obviously, so as to attempt to have the last word....(you know you can't resist SC!).

[will_]

Mave said:

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?

If that is the case then indeed that is correct.

If by some freak of chance (SC doesn't explain how), the logman is in the way of the axe as it comes down, there is no criminal action on the part of the axe-man so no liability can attach to him, Therefore the "victim" can receive no justice as there is no-one liable for the harm.