CdM is in love!

[alfred russel]

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome, but rather the action itself, particularly when the outcome is affected by the improper actions of another.  Stopping in the middle of a highway is endangering people and should be punished.  Why should the severity of that punishment change depending on whether or not someone else is independently driving recklessly?

That isn't the way the law works though. Attempted murder is not punished as severely as successful murder.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Why does it have to be an either / or situation? Had motorcycle driver been driving recklessly, and survived the accident, why not charge both of them?

I think was language was imprecise; my reply to CC is more clear.  I was not suggesting an either-or situation.  I was questioning why the punishment of one should change drastically based on the actions of the other.

[Malthus]

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome, but rather the action itself, particularly when the outcome is affected by the improper actions of another.  Stopping in the middle of a highway is endangering people and should be punished.  Why should the severity of that punishment change depending on whether or not someone else is independently driving recklessly?

The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

That isn't the way the law works though. Attempted murder is not punished as severely as successful murder.

I know that.  I think it should be, though.  If I shoot you because I want you dead, my punishment should not depend on how good a shot I am or how good a trauma center the area has.

Edit: fixed a negation

[Barrister]

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome, but rather the action itself, particularly when the outcome is affected by the improper actions of another.  Stopping in the middle of a highway is endangering people and should be punished.  Why should the severity of that punishment change depending on whether or not someone else is independently driving recklessly?

Punishment is always based in part on outcome.  The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".

You might punch one person and they suffer no injury, while you punch another and they fall down, crack their skull and die.  The action was the same in both cases, but the outcomes couldn't be more different, and as a result so are the sentences.

[DGuller]

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome, but rather the action itself, particularly when the outcome is affected by the improper actions of another.  Stopping in the middle of a highway is endangering people and should be punished.  Why should the severity of that punishment change depending on whether or not someone else is independently driving recklessly?

The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.

Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, at least if you view criminal punishment as a disincentive rather than as an act of vengeance.

[crazy canuck]

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome

The law views it differently.  If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her.  But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die.  For that the law creates significant legal sanctions.  It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise.  The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred.  That would be a dangerous path indeed.

[crazy canuck]

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome, but rather the action itself, particularly when the outcome is affected by the improper actions of another.  Stopping in the middle of a highway is endangering people and should be punished.  Why should the severity of that punishment change depending on whether or not someone else is independently driving recklessly?

The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.

Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, at least if you view criminal punishment as a disincentive rather than as an act of vengeance.

Really?  You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?

[DGuller]

Punishment is always based in part on outcome.  The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".

The first doesn't follow from the second.  The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.

[crazy canuck]

Punishment is always based in part on outcome.  The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".

The first doesn't follow from the second.  The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.

How is your actions causing someone to die the same as your actions which cause someone to skin their knee? The outcome is significant.

[Barrister]

Punishment is always based in part on outcome.  The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".

The first doesn't follow from the second.  The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.

No.  The first example the offence would be simple assault.  The second example is manslaughter.

[DGuller]

Really?  You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?

No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them.  That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.

[Malthus]

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome, but rather the action itself, particularly when the outcome is affected by the improper actions of another.  Stopping in the middle of a highway is endangering people and should be punished.  Why should the severity of that punishment change depending on whether or not someone else is independently driving recklessly?

The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.

Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, at least if you view criminal punishment as a disincentive rather than as an act of vengeance.

"Disincentive" is only one of the functions of a criminal sentence. Another is, indeed, punishment.

[DGuller]

Punishment is always based in part on outcome.  The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".

The first doesn't follow from the second.  The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.

No.  The first example the offence would be simple assault.  The second example is manslaughter.

Well, it's tautological.  The legal offences are different because the legal system ensures that same actions with different outcomes are treated differently.  The actual wrong acts are the same.

[Malthus]

Really?  You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?

No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them.  That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.

So, I shoot a gun at you and you die. The expected outcome, on average, of me shooting a gun at someone is that I miss - I'm a lousy shot. So my sentence, to properly deter gun-shooters like me, should be a short sentence for reckless gun-shooting.