CdM is in love!

[Razgovory]

The strange thing is that he was "gesturing" at the woman.  I don't know exactly what that means, maybe he was waving or flipping the bird or something.  So he saw her, was doing something with her hands and focusing on the woman who was outside of the car and speeding all at once.  I'd say criminal guilt should lie with the motorcyclist.

[DGuller]

I think the part you are not understanding is that punishments for criminal behaviour are not merely intended to rationally regulate and deter socially incorrect behaviour, but also to punsh people for actually succeeding at doing bad things. That's why if I shoot at you and miss my punishment isn't as severe as if I shoot at you and hit.

No, I understand that vengeance is part of the criminal system.  My family will be out for your blood, and in civilized countries we have the courts handling that for them to keep the process from getting out of hand.  That doesn't mean that the thirst for vengeance results in a better society.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Someone made a joke a while back in this thread about the woman who dresses "provocatively" and so the rape is her fault.  I am not saying that is what you had in mind.  I am certain you didnt.  But that is the kind of logic that follows from your example.

Yes, there is a danger of taking this concept too far.  I would not extend it beyond actions that would receive civil or criminal citation.  Obviously some would argue for doing so, but I don't think that is a sufficient reason not to ever consider the actions of others.

Also, to answer Beeb's post above:

Yes, if the victim committed a citable offense that exacerbated the effects of the accused's offense, they absolutely should be on trial.  To not do so is an injustice to the accused and results in one person being punished for the actions of others.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I think the part you are not understanding is that punishments for criminal behaviour are not merely intended to rationally regulate and deter socially incorrect behaviour, but also to punsh people for actually succeeding at doing bad things. That's why if I shoot at you and miss my punishment isn't as severe as if I shoot at you and hit.

Can't speak of DGuller, but the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior.  Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.

Like I said earlier in this thread, the difference between attempted murder and first degree murder should not be the quality of the local trauma center.

[grumbler]

Yes, and it should be distributed based on what a reasonable person might have been able to assume about the consequences of their actions.  If a car is stopped on the road, even for bad reasons, does the person who stopped it have a reasonable assumption that the traffic which comes up on it will stop? 

So the idiot who did what nobody would expect her to do is not at fault.  It is the guy who didnt anticipate that she would do such a stupid thing?

I don't know why you are quoting me in this response; ask the person who is arguing she is not at fault.

[mongers]

My impression is there are two sets of fault and they don't have to be connect and could be 'dealt' with separately; the woman broke the Canadian road traffic laws and created a hazard to all users on that road and the motorcyclist was at fault for failing to drive his bike in a safe manner, that is driving slow enough that he can react to the diverse range of hazards you can encounter on a road. 

As Grumbler and others have said, keeping a safe stopping distance between you and other road uses is a key requirement. It's been 25 years since I passed our driving test, but knowning and driving 'within' the stopping distance of your speed was an important part of the test.

[CountDeMoney]

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored.

The motorcycle driver might have been able to avoid the vehicle, but that does nothing to absolve the guilt of the lady who essentially parked her vehicle in the middle of the highway.

I don't think anyone is trying to absolve the guilt of the lady.  A bunch of people seem to be trying to absolve the guilt of the motorcyclist, though.

The circumstances of which should be taken into consideration when, if not by the jury who are handcuffed by the specifics of whatever the charges are, at least it comes to sentencing. 

Motorcyclists must be a protected legal class up there, completely incapable of any behavior which could conceivably be considered as possibly contributory or even foreseeable.

[garbon]

I saw some ducks trying to cross highway in CT, today. Thankfully car scared them and they ran back towards woods.

CT also seemed all about unmarked police cars with radar guns.

[alfred russel]

the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior.  Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.

I don't agree with removing vengeance, but there are a lot of practical problems with what you suggest.

First, in practice it is difficult to determine to what extent you caused a risk. A truck driver isn't paying attention after staying up all night, barrels through a red light, and kills a family in a car. Another guy has also had a really long day, comes to an intersection in the middle of the night when no one is around, the light stays red for an abnormal sign, so he just goes, with no one in any danger. The violation seems the same--running a red light, not getting proper rest before driving, even though one caused a life threatening situation, and the other didn't put anyone at risk.

Second, it creates perverse incentives. Suppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone. I decide I'll park on a really busy interstate in or around Atlanta, and tell the cops I'm looking to rescue turtles or some bullshit. Maybe people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance won't be in danger, but I'm guessing there is a good chance someone is going to plow into my car almost right away (very possibly before I get out of the car ). Should I really just get a parking ticket?

[grumbler]

the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior.  Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.

I don't agree with removing vengeance, but there are a lot of practical problems with what you suggest.

First, in practice it is difficult to determine to what extent you caused a risk. A truck driver isn't paying attention after staying up all night, barrels through a red light, and kills a family in a car. Another guy has also had a really long day, comes to an intersection in the middle of the night when no one is around, the light stays red for an abnormal sign, so he just goes, with no one in any danger. The violation seems the same--running a red light, not getting proper rest before driving, even though one caused a life threatening situation, and the other didn't put anyone at risk.

Second, it creates perverse incentives. Suppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone. I decide I'll park on a really busy interstate in or around Atlanta, and tell the cops I'm looking to rescue turtles or some bullshit. Maybe people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance won't be in danger, but I'm guessing there is a good chance someone is going to plow into my car almost right away (very possibly before I get out of the car ). Should I really just get a parking ticket?

Since you foolishly mentioned me in you strawman argument, I'd just note that your intention to kill someone make the rest of you absurd hypothetical moot.  You don't get a parking ticket for intending to murder someone.

[alfred russel]

Since you foolishly mentioned me in you strawman argument, I'd just note that your intention to kill someone make the rest of you absurd hypothetical moot.  You don't get a parking ticket for intending to murder someone.

Your honor, I didn't get out of the car to kill anyone, I wanted to save the turtles or ducks or some other bullshit.

[Ideologue]

If you killed an Atlantan, I don't see why you should be punished.

[garbon]

If you killed an Atlantan, I don't see why you should be punished.

[DGuller]

the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior.  Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.

I don't agree with removing vengeance, but there are a lot of practical problems with what you suggest.

First, in practice it is difficult to determine to what extent you caused a risk. A truck driver isn't paying attention after staying up all night, barrels through a red light, and kills a family in a car. Another guy has also had a really long day, comes to an intersection in the middle of the night when no one is around, the light stays red for an abnormal sign, so he just goes, with no one in any danger. The violation seems the same--running a red light, not getting proper rest before driving, even though one caused a life threatening situation, and the other didn't put anyone at risk.

Second, it creates perverse incentives. Suppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone. I decide I'll park on a really busy interstate in or around Atlanta, and tell the cops I'm looking to rescue turtles or some bullshit. Maybe people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance won't be in danger, but I'm guessing there is a good chance someone is going to plow into my car almost right away (very possibly before I get out of the car ). Should I really just get a parking ticket?

How is that a perverse incentive?  Perverse incentive is when you get rewarded for doing something bad.  Here you're merely being punished insufficiently for the crime, presumably because the real crime (attempted murder) remains undetected.

[alfred russel]

If you killed an Atlantan, I don't see why you should be punished.

Be careful, I know the vague region where you live. I might look for turtles there. From what I know about your driving, you don't need any obstacles appearing on the roads.