Disparity between intentional & ignorant law breaking
Discussion
Can someone please shed some light on why we seem to live in a society where people are punished to more or less the same extent whether they are deliberately breaking the law beyond any doubt or whether there is the potential they are simply unaware of the seriousness of their actions?
It seems common to all walks of life but some good car related examples are the documentaries such as 'Police, Camera, Action' or 'Police Interceptors'. It's incredibly frustrating when you get to see first hand how someone running from the police in a borrowed car who barely seems to be fined (albeit sometimes accompanied with other pathetic token punishments) much more than someone caught speeding. To me, the fact the former person is being purposefully vindictive against society and poses a great danger to the public versus the latter person who could be devastated should they cause harm through their ignorance is worlds apart.
I am of course not condoning ignorantly breaking the law and do appreciate that often people are fully aware they're doing something that could also be perceived as ignorant. Also before anyone asks; I have not recently had any kind of run in with the law or criminals which I'm now bitter about. But I just can't fathom how purposeful law breaking (e.g. burglary, GBH etc) which cannot be anything other than an evil act can carry a similar punishment level to law breaking which could be down to someone being unaware of their actions (such as driving without a seatbelt, self-defence against a burglar etc) and could well be a fundamentally good person.
Another example of ignorant law breaking I heard about recently was a lady fined $1000 for bringing an apple through Australian customs which she'd been given on the plane over and wasn't hungry for at the time. Granted it has potentially serious consequences but $1000... REALLY? It's particularly ridiculous given how she couldn't possibly have had any ulterior motive for smuggling an apple through customs.
It seems common to all walks of life but some good car related examples are the documentaries such as 'Police, Camera, Action' or 'Police Interceptors'. It's incredibly frustrating when you get to see first hand how someone running from the police in a borrowed car who barely seems to be fined (albeit sometimes accompanied with other pathetic token punishments) much more than someone caught speeding. To me, the fact the former person is being purposefully vindictive against society and poses a great danger to the public versus the latter person who could be devastated should they cause harm through their ignorance is worlds apart.
I am of course not condoning ignorantly breaking the law and do appreciate that often people are fully aware they're doing something that could also be perceived as ignorant. Also before anyone asks; I have not recently had any kind of run in with the law or criminals which I'm now bitter about. But I just can't fathom how purposeful law breaking (e.g. burglary, GBH etc) which cannot be anything other than an evil act can carry a similar punishment level to law breaking which could be down to someone being unaware of their actions (such as driving without a seatbelt, self-defence against a burglar etc) and could well be a fundamentally good person.
Another example of ignorant law breaking I heard about recently was a lady fined $1000 for bringing an apple through Australian customs which she'd been given on the plane over and wasn't hungry for at the time. Granted it has potentially serious consequences but $1000... REALLY? It's particularly ridiculous given how she couldn't possibly have had any ulterior motive for smuggling an apple through customs.
VeeFource said:
Another example of ignorant law breaking I heard about recently was a lady fined $1000 for bringing an apple through Australian customs which she'd been given on the plane over and wasn't hungry for at the time. Granted it has potentially serious consequences but $1000... REALLY? It's particularly ridiculous given how she couldn't possibly have had any ulterior motive for smuggling an apple through customs.
She had to fill in a declaration form asking if she is bringing in fruit/veg explicitly (question #6) and sign that she understood that any sort of misdeclaration has serious consequcenes. Its not about smuggling its about protecting the existing vegetation from people not treating the subject as seriously as they should.Order66 said:
She had to fill in a declaration form asking if she is bringing in fruit/veg explicitly (question #6) and sign that she understood that any sort of misdeclaration has serious consequcenes. Its not about smuggling its about protecting the existing vegetation from people not treating the subject as seriously as they should.
Did she know the fruit she was served wasn't already Australian? It's not like she bought it at Asda in Basildon on her way to the airport.Was she returning from hoilday to her critically ill husband in hospital and rushed through the form? $200 hurts for something which she could buy for $4 down the road. $1000 still seems excessive for something that could have been a genuine mistake.
VeeFource said:
Did she know the fruit she was served wasn't already Australian? It's not like she bought it at Asda in Basildon on her way to the airport.
Was she returning from hoilday to her critically ill husband in hospital and rushed through the form? $200 hurts for something which she could buy for $4 down the road. $1000 still seems excessive for something that could have been a genuine mistake.
But on the flip side how many millions/billions of dollars of damage could introduction of an invasive species/disease introduce?Was she returning from hoilday to her critically ill husband in hospital and rushed through the form? $200 hurts for something which she could buy for $4 down the road. $1000 still seems excessive for something that could have been a genuine mistake.
It's difficult to balance it all up. Financial/corporate crimes can often have very severe sentences just for pocketing some extra money on the side. No-ones getting stabbed/murdered. But on the flip side when the company goes down the pan hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs/pension.
VeeFource said:
I see your point and it's certainly effective for getting the word around. But going back to the original point of the thread, it's probably more than someone would be fined for assaulting another passenger..
Should the punishment reflect the morality of the actions or the impact caused?Negligence things such as death by dangerous driving and involuntary manslaughter are two that can have big punishments but no malice or intent...
Bit of a tangent really though.
Because your normal person i.e Joe public has something to lose when prosecuted.
Potential loss of licence/time in clink leads to loss of transport, therefore cannot do their job, leading to being unable to pay for mortgage / bills which leads to losing their home and career.
Most of the reprobates you see on police interceptors couldn't give a toss whether they're caught as they don't usually have a licence or insurance to begin with and hardly a penny to rub together. They know that the courts can't punish them to the same degree as your Joe public as they have less to lose.
Its that simple
Potential loss of licence/time in clink leads to loss of transport, therefore cannot do their job, leading to being unable to pay for mortgage / bills which leads to losing their home and career.
Most of the reprobates you see on police interceptors couldn't give a toss whether they're caught as they don't usually have a licence or insurance to begin with and hardly a penny to rub together. They know that the courts can't punish them to the same degree as your Joe public as they have less to lose.
Its that simple
meatballs said:
Should the punishment reflect the morality of the actions or the impact caused?
Negligence things such as death by dangerous driving and involuntary manslaughter are two that can have big punishments but no malice or intent...
Bit of a tangent really though.
It's a good point. I'm sure every motorist dreads in the back of their mind a child running out between two parked vehicles at the wrong moment. Even at 30mph it could be fatal and resulting in the driver being locked up if it occurred in a 20mph zone. Yet driving whilst banned? If not the third time or more caught then probably just a fine and an extension to the ban. This does not seem right to me, there should be more of a weighting to the morality of the offence.Negligence things such as death by dangerous driving and involuntary manslaughter are two that can have big punishments but no malice or intent...
Bit of a tangent really though.
Edited by VeeFource on Thursday 28th November 22:06
VeeFource said:
It seems common to all walks of life but some good car related examples are the documentaries such as 'Police, Camera, Action' or 'Police Interceptors'. It's incredibly frustrating when you get to see first hand how someone running from the police in a borrowed car who barely seems to be fined (albeit sometimes accompanied with other pathetic token punishments) much more than someone caught speeding.
You're not exactly being specific, but I assume that what you're dismissing as a "pathetic token punishment" is actually the main punishment that the court handed down - and you're just assuming that it amounts to nothing because it doesn't have a pound sign in front of it. Specifically I'm going to guess a driving ban (which is self-evidently a harsher punishment than the 3 points you might get for speeding) and a community order (which is also a harsher punishment than a fine). You might disagree with the latter point, but if you were convicted of a crime and were given the choice of these three punishments, which would you choose?
(1) 300 house community service, ie 2 evenings or a Saturday every week for the best part of a year spent picking up litter in the local park with a bunch of lowlifes, or something equally dispiriting
(2) 7-7 curfew, no going out to the cinema/pub/restaurant/gym/for a walk in the park after work for a good few months or
(3) £100 to make it go away there and then
Personally, I'd choose (3). I suspect that you probably would as well.
You may also be making the assumption that the scrote will simply not turn up for his community service and will face no consequences as a result. This is something that happens more in the imagination of Daily Mail readers than in real life. OTOH if he was given a massive fine instead, as it seems you'd prefer, he would likely have no means of paying it - so that really would be a token sentence which was not actually enforced.
[quote]But I just can't fathom how purposeful law breaking (e.g. burglary, GBH etc) which cannot be anything other than an evil act can carry a similar punishment level to law breaking which could be down to someone being unaware of their actions (such as driving without a seatbelt, self-defence against a burglar etc) and could well be a fundamentally good person.
Edited by Aretnap on Saturday 30th November 20:52
VeeFource said:
I just can't fathom how purposeful law breaking (e.g. burglary, GBH etc) which cannot be anything other than an evil act can carry a similar punishment level to law breaking which could be down to someone being unaware of their actions (such as driving without a seatbelt, self-defence against a burglar etc) and could well be a fundamentally good person.
Who these days is unaware of the law regarding seatbelts? There's no excuse not to wear one, and the punishment if caught is unlikely to be worse than that for burglary or GBH.Likewise, when has self-defence against a burglar been punished?
VeeFource said:
...
But I just can't fathom how purposeful law breaking (e.g. burglary, GBH etc) which cannot be anything other than an evil act can carry a similar punishment level to law breaking which could be down to someone being unaware of their actions (such as driving without a seatbelt, self-defence against a burglar etc) and could well be a fundamentally good person.
...
Many issues But I just can't fathom how purposeful law breaking (e.g. burglary, GBH etc) which cannot be anything other than an evil act can carry a similar punishment level to law breaking which could be down to someone being unaware of their actions (such as driving without a seatbelt, self-defence against a burglar etc) and could well be a fundamentally good person.
...
1. GBH could arise from being drunk, not evil. Still reprehensible, but not evil.
2. A desperate homeless person might break into a house. Wrong, reprehensible, not necessarily evil. A stupid teenager might be egged on to break into a house by his idiot friends. Stupid, wrong, not necessarily evil.
3. As already noted, self defence is not an offence. Besides, a person defending him or herself against a burglar is usually aware of what he or she is doing.
4. Seat belt - not treated the same as doing evil stuff.
Your post appears to be based on a very whacky notion of what goes on.
VeeFource said:
Did she know the fruit she was served wasn't already Australian? It's not like she bought it at Asda in Basildon on her way to the airport.
Completely irrelevant. The question didn't ask where she acquired it, just if she is bringing it into the country. Its origin is not asked, just if she is carrying it. Making assumptions on what is a very straighforward question is stupidity not ignorance.VeeFource said:
Was she returning from hoilday to her critically ill husband in hospital and rushed through the form? $200 hurts for something which she could buy for $4 down the road. $1000 still seems excessive for something that could have been a genuine mistake.
Her circumstances, while unfortunate, don't change the law on her declaration. Unfortunate things happen in life but society still expects us to obey the law, and if we don't we have to face the consequences accordingly.Zetec-S said:
Likewise, when has self-defence against a burglar been punished?
One day, maybe, several generations from now, your post might be considered to be funny and those reading it will be able to laugh about it. They may even be able to comprehend the point that you imagine that you were making.
But today is not that day.
I imagine that you must be very proud of yourself?
Did you by any chance have some sort of sugar-based cereal for breakfast? With full-fat milk?
Now get back under your bridge or I'll fetch the hose. And neither of us wants that, now, do we?
Breadvan72 said:
As already noted, self defence is not an offence. Besides, a person defending him or herself against a burglar is usually aware of what he or she is doing.
The law, as you well know, is an ass and in these cases states that you may use "proportionate" force when dealing with someone who has **chosen** to illegally enter your property.If you use anything other than "proportionate" force in such circumstances then you will do jail time. It's that simple.
So at 3a.m when I'm awoken by some six foot skinhead stood at the foot of my bed telling me he's going to tie me up and then make me watch as he rapes my nine year old daughter.........the moment I get a chance, I am **not** going to use "proportionate" force, I am going to beat the miscreant repeatedly until he twitches, convulses and then breathes his final.
Please tell me that you don't support nine year old girls being raped in front of their parents because the law says they were only allowed to use "proportionate" force to protect themselves?
Personally, I'd OBE every single citizen who removed from circulation those who **choose** to live outside of the law.
Hey, what would I know?
What would you know? Not much, it seems. The law expressly allows disproportionate force when a householder defends him or herself against an intruder. Thus your firmly asserted legal contention is only 100% wrong. Well done!
There is no known case of a householder using self defence and being convicted.
But never let information get in the way of a pub blowhard ranty special, eh?
There is no known case of a householder using self defence and being convicted.
But never let information get in the way of a pub blowhard ranty special, eh?
Rasta Pickles said:
Zetec-S said:
Likewise, when has self-defence against a burglar been punished?
One day, maybe, several generations from now, your post might be considered to be funny and those reading it will be able to laugh about it. They may even be able to comprehend the point that you imagine that you were making.
But today is not that day.
I imagine that you must be very proud of yourself?
Did you by any chance have some sort of sugar-based cereal for breakfast? With full-fat milk?
Now get back under your bridge or I'll fetch the hose. And neither of us wants that, now, do we?
Zetec-S said:
Rasta Pickles said:
Zetec-S said:
Likewise, when has self-defence against a burglar been punished?
One day, maybe, several generations from now, your post might be considered to be funny and those reading it will be able to laugh about it. They may even be able to comprehend the point that you imagine that you were making.
But today is not that day.
I imagine that you must be very proud of yourself?
Did you by any chance have some sort of sugar-based cereal for breakfast? With full-fat milk?
Now get back under your bridge or I'll fetch the hose. And neither of us wants that, now, do we?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff