A Hypothetical
| Author | Topic: A Hypothetical |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 01:27
Profile
Homepage
Suppose two people of similar physical and mental characteristics drive away from the same bar on the same night, both having consumed the same amount of alcohol. Both crash into different parked cars on the way home. One of the parked cars is occupied; the occupant dies on impact. The other parked car is unoccupied. Both drivers remain at the scene of their accidents, and are arrested once police arrive. Should the two drivers receive different sentences? If so, why? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 01:30
Profile
Homepage
Why shouldn't they? One of them killed someone, the other didn't. [ Sunday, December 26, 2004 01:37: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 01:38
Profile
If the primary purpose of the penal system is rehabilitation or protection, it's not really significant what the result of their actions were -- only their actions and intentions. The unoccupied car could have been occupied. Both drivers were equally negligent, and assuming a similar and appropriate reaction (i.e., turning oneself in, not running away), I say they should be equally punished. Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 01:54
Profile
Homepage
That's completely absurd and you know it. Laws trend towards non-arbitrary boundaries over time, and there is absolutely no non-arbitrary boundary separating charging someone who could have killed someone in a particularly nasty car crash but didn't with the crime of someone who did and pulling someone who takes a shot of tequila out back and shooting them in the back of the head for treason -- I mean, they could hypothetically drink quite a bit more, and they could hypothetically own a car, and they could hypothetically hit another car due to being drunk, and that car could have hypothetically contained the President of the United States. There is a definite non-arbitrary boundary between prosecuting real crimes and prosecuting any hypothetical crimes, whereas there is no definite non-arbitrary boundary between prosecuting certain hypothetical crimes and prosecuting any other hypothetical crimes, and by extension punishing anyone to any degree at any time for any reason. [ Sunday, December 26, 2004 01:56: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 02:00
Profile
The non-arbitrary boundary is insignificant, since I would argue that hitting the POTUS should be punished the same as well. The victim's identity is completely meaningless. The only justification for punishing the killer more than the non-killer is retribution, as far as I can see. If you can present an argument why punishing them unequally provides protection, rehabilitation, or deterrence, I'd love to hear it. EDIT: I think crimes should be based on conscious actions, not the result of those actions. Thus, both drivers would be guilty of driving under the influence, not manslaughter. It has nothing to do with punishing potential crime and everything to do with punishing malicious or negligent acts. There's your non-arbitrary boundary. [ Sunday, December 26, 2004 02:02: Message edited by: The Dog And Pony Show ] Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 02:07
Profile
Homepage
I agree that the only factor is retribution. However, in this case (as opposed to, say, a death penalty debate), you're not dealing with retribution directly conflicting with any of the other priorities of the criminal system. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 02:10
Profile
I'm working off the personal belief that retribution has nil value. Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 02:14
Profile
Homepage
Good for you. Seems pretty contrarian and kneejerkish to me, but hey, whatever does it for you. Potential problem: killing someone and making it look like an accident. Unless we prosecute both a real and a hypothetical 'accident' as murders, someone who has actually committed a crime will get away with it. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 02:19
Profile
Homepage
Accidentally killing someone isn't even a crime at all (except in specific circumstances such as driving under the influence). [ Sunday, December 26, 2004 02:19: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 02:20
Profile
Retribution doesn't contribute to the greater good. Punishing a killer doesn't make the corpse any less dead. Only thing it serves is blood lust and the ideal of 'justice', which I do not ascribe to. And regarding punishing "accidents" as murder: we don't do that now. Accidental deaths are punished much more lightly than purposeful or malicious ones; non-negligent homicide isn't punished at all. Any penal system that punishes based on situation rather than result will be susceptible to that kind of ruse. You can only try. A penal system that punished solely on result, of course, would be ridiculous -- you'd be forced to punish a man who murdered his wife for life insurance money identically to a guy who accidentally dropped his typewriter out a window and squashed a mime (assuming the mime was his wife :-p). [ Sunday, December 26, 2004 02:23: Message edited by: The Dog And Pony Show ] Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 08:58
Profile
Homepage
I, like Djur, don't subscribe to the theory that punishment of criminals is a positive good in itself. I think that punishment is only useful when fear of it prevents people from committing crimes. Punishment is only useful as a deterrent. I tend to think, from what I understand of intoxication, that people are still somewhat aware when drunk. Unless there was reason to believe that the driver who accidentally killed someone was so drunk that he had absolutely no idea what he was doing (ie this car was parked across the street and he didn't even make it twenty feet before he hit something), he should still be partly responsible for that death. In that way, an imbalance in punishment makes sense to me, although it shouldn't be more than a little imbalanced. EDIT: Wrong word. It's already quoted, too. How embarrassing. [ Sunday, December 26, 2004 10:30: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 09:19
Profile
quote:The penalty itself also fuels the fear for being punished once again. Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 13:20
Profile
Homepage
Hence it is a deterrent. I agree that retributive punishment has no value. However, I would say that hitting a parked car is a lesser crime than hitting a person. One may drunkenly not care about smashing into parked vehicles while still maintaining the presence of mind to avoid hitting people in the same location. Thus, the circumstancial crime is one of property damage, not manslaughter. That, however, leaves the family of the person killed feeling cheated. It also means that one can get away with less likely manslaughter more easily than plausible manslaughter. As Alec said, it even makes a good cover for deliberate actions, as unlikely as they may be. —Alorael, who would conclude that someone who crashed into an empty parked car should be given a lesser sentence than someone who hit an occupied parked car, but that the former deserves a punishment more severe than someone who gets drunk and repeatedly bashes a parked car with a lead pipe while the latter deserves a punishment less severe than someone who hits a pedestrian not in any car. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 15:10
Profile
If you're going to base punishment on the outcome of actions rather than the intent or the negligence that caused them, it follows logically that accidentally killing someone should be a crime. That would deter people from doing things that might kill somebody, after all. In practice, of course, we would find this absurd and unjust. Of course, punishing an "accidental" murderer would probably satify the family to some extent. The problem there is that satisfying a victim's thirst for vengeance is not the justice system's job. Its purpose is (or, logically speaking, ought to be) to rehabilitate criminals, to isolate them from society until that rehabilitation occurs, and to deter potential criminals from acting. You can argue which of those is most important, and that's a seperate question. Purely retributive justice is barbaric and inhumane, and punishments that don't serve as deterrants are a waste of the taxpayers' money. If you find yourself wronged in a way the courts can never truly fix, well, vigilantiism is due for a comeback and the private sector is ready to help. :P Anyway, getting back to Thuryl's question, punishing accidental consequences of a criminal action can't possibly be a deterrant. The actions of each posed an equal threat to society, and which one killed somebody is basically a matter of chance. Their sentences should be the same. Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 18:34
Profile
Homepage
The punishment should go to the state for not providing a more comprehensive public transportation system. In the meantime, punish them both equally. Alec's example of president-murdering is not a feasible one; inebriating one's self does intrinsically harm somebody, but while inebriated, the car can be used as a weapon. Similarly, I believe that it should be a crime to be armed while pissed, and wearing a blindfold while holding a firearm should be explicitly illegal, as should holding a firearm without a license. If somebody is capable of handling a potential weapon, then they should be allowed to have it; otherwise, they should be punished for wittingly handling a weapon with reduced powers of sentience. Basically, it boils down to how much your ability to chose is limited. When you take the Tequilla, you're fine. When you take the Tequilla and whip out a shiv, then there's a problem. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 19:19
Profile
Ideally, in a lawful and compassionate world, punishment is useful only as a deterrent for future crimes, since what has been done is in the past and creating more suffering in the world doesn't change a thing. If there must be a difference, then the drunk killer should be punished more severely. The one who didn't is presumably punished for being negligent and increasing his chances for killing or injuring somebody. The killer should be at least be charged to be accidentally accountable for the poor victim because he actually made the scenario for which is feared a real event. Increasing the chances of doing a "bad thing" should be reprimanded, but really doing it must carry a heavier sentence. But I am not saying that accidental deaths should be treated as badly as malicious murders. I only think it is fair for accidents to have minor consequences if these consequences will help prevent future accidents. -------------------- What do I put here? -Garrison Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 20:58
Profile
Homepage
I agree that the person who actually committed the murder should pay a heavy fine, but if you make a distinction between the two of them, then you will not sufficiently deter the person who only damaged the automobile from committing the same act again and endangering the people in occupied automobiles. Similarly, you will not deter people who are confident in their own abilities while inebriated. Being drunk can delude an individual into thinking that she or he is more capable than he or she had previously assumed. If an individual risks further punishment only based on their circumstances, she or he will factor in his or her skewed sense of prowess, resulting in more drunk driving. A bad thing all around. The point of laws is to keep people safe from one another (among other things). If you punish people differently, you jeopardize more lives. EDIT: And hey, if the mortally negligent person had to pay a price for killing the person, then make the other individual pay the same amount. More money from the state coming out of the pockets of morons is never a bad thing. [ Sunday, December 26, 2004 20:59: Message edited by: General Leon ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 21:44
Profile
Homepage
Both men are not guilty of driving; driving is not a crime. They are not guilty of drinking; drinking is also not a crime. Drinking and driving on an absolutely enclosed and private track is dangerous but should not be illegal, as the only victim is also the perpetrator. By the same reasoning, driving while drunk is not a crime except that it endangers others. Similarly, driving while sober an an area packed with pedetrians is criminal, because it risks the lives of the pedestrians. The greater the risk, the worse the crime. In theoretically identical circumstances, the two drivers are equally guilty and deserve equal punishment regardless of the outcome. However, because laws have to function in the real world, not a test laboratory, the results count for something. If person A crashed and killed someone while person B did not, the circumstances of person A's crash were riskier enough to result in fatality. Fair? Not always. But on probability, you're going to get people who caused more risk convicted for those risks more often. —Alorael, who knows that's a flawed system. The punitive aspect of the legal system is inherently flawed, because evidence and juries are imperfect. He also understands that conviction on probability is what lets Texas get away with its gung-ho attitude towards death sentences. Maybe his thought process needs revision. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, December 26 2004 22:28
Profile
Homepage
If you made the choice that purposefully and undeniably made it a bigger risk, you deserve to be punished for disregarding human life. By your argument, you could justify the death penalty because the people who are executed unfairly are merely part of the collateral price of it. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, December 27 2004 05:38
Profile
Homepage
Since the community seems to be divided about evenly on the question of criminal liability, what about civil liability? Should each driver be responsible for the damage they alone caused, or should all driving offenders contribute equally to a compensation fund for victims of road traffic accidents? One advantage of the latter approach is that if one particular offender lacks the funds to adequately compensate for the harm he caused, his victims aren't left out of pocket. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Monday, December 27 2004 11:08
Profile
With the latter approach, are we talking about all driving offenders or just drink driving offenders? The idea of forcing somebody with a few parking tickets to pay as much out as somebody guilty of drink driving. As for the initial premise, I'd like to agree with Djur, but I too sit uneasily with the idea that potential manslaughter is exactly the same crime as manslaughter. If I see a five pound note blowing in the street and pick it up, is that the same crime as pinching a fiver from somebody's purse? The first is potential theft, the latter real theft, should they both be treated the same way? When I think of it in a strictly logical way, I'd probably err on the side of treating them both the same way. Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Monday, December 27 2004 11:14
Profile
Homepage
With compulsory third-party motor insurance, we do effectively have a system where you pay for the accidents you might cause. Of course, different premiums, no-claim bonuses etc change this, but it's not far off. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net - Don't follow this link Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Monday, December 27 2004 12:03
Profile
quote:It's not about punishing a "potential" crime. It's about punishing malicious or negligent action. See, when you pinch the aforementioned fiver, your purpose is to steal. When you pick up a note off the street, it is not. Action and purpose are what's important in determining malfeasance, not the result of those actions. A better example would be two men trying to steal said fiver. One fails and is caught; the other succeeds and spends it before being caught. Should they be punished similarly? (In current law, attempted theft is usually treated identically to actual theft.) Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |