CdM is in love!

[grumbler]

Then, what you want, is highways with 20mph speed limit.  That way, everyone has time to break when someone decides to stop in the middle of the road for no reasons.

For Canadians, that may be as fast as they can safely drive.  What I want is safe speeds, which, as you say, may be as low as 20 MPH for primitive folk.  All I know is that this guy, at from 119-129 kph, was going too fast to stop in time to save his daughter's life.

I remember a Canadian truck driver who rammed a line of cars stopped for a construction site.  The line was in excess of 3km, wich was the maximum the Transport department was required to advise drivers of a potential road block.

He never saw the line in time, couldn't break, killed 4 people, injured 11.  According to your rules, the guy should have been jailed for life, he was driving too fast since he couldn't stop in time.

Of course.  One is always at least partially responsible when one drives a vehicle into a stationary vehicle.

Yet, the department was blamed for insufficient warnings to drivers and rules have been changed since then.

Well, good for them.  But so what?  The responsibility for being able to control your vehicles remains, and that means being able to stop if you see a hazard like something in the road.  Maybe not total responsibility, depending on circumstances, but some.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

[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.

I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever.  I'm not talking about going down that path, however.  I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law.  If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't.  That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.

[DGuller]

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

Again your argument is tautological.  "It's different because it's different."  You have to be able to separate the deterministic wrongdoing part from the random chance part that is set in motion once you do something wrong.  If I play a game of Russian roulette with someone's head, the wrongfulness of my act is the same regardless of whether the live round is fired when I pull the trigger.

[Barrister]

[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.

I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever.  I'm not talking about going down that path, however.  I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law.  If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't.  That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.

Sounds like your putting the victim on trial.  No thanks.

[DGuller]

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. 

If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Lol, the expected outcome?  So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?

[Eddie Teach]

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. 

If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.

Maybe he was aiming at someone else.

[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.

Lol, the expected outcome?  So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?

Well, that's no surprise, comming from DG. 

[grumbler]

[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.

I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever.  I'm not talking about going down that path, however.  I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law.  If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't.  That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.

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?  Not that this was the case in Quebec; the woman there seemingly took no reasonable steps to ensure that other drivers would be in less danger from her reckless acts.  However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result.  I use CheapEEZ Brand brake pads on my cars brakes, and they fail and I knock someone down, give them a concussion, and send them to the hospital.  I am morally responsible for his actions, not the deaths of 300 million people because the guy I knocked down was rushing to tell the president of the US "Oops!  We made a mistake; this isn't a Russian nuclear strike after all!"

[crazy canuck]

[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.

I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever.  I'm not talking about going down that path, however.  I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law.  If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't.  That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.

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.

[DGuller]

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. 

If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.

Your example, though badly constructed, does bring up another point.  If you fire at someone and you miss, you face the reckless gun-shooting charges, you're not getting off.  So, in a sense, you do face the punishment for an action that had a worse expected outcome than actual outcome.  I assume reckless gun shooting is illegal because it may kill someone.  So the concept of figuring expected outcome into punishment isn't as alien as you make it sound, we're just disagreeing on whether its application should be biased.

[crazy canuck]

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?

[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.

Lol, the expected outcome?  So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?

I agree that this ideal is not practical, but it is nevertheless both more fair, and more effective at discouraging wrongful behavior.  And impractical ideals do have their uses, they can serve as something to shoot for to the extent possible.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Lol, the expected outcome?  So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?

I agree that this ideal is not practical, but it is nevertheless both more fair, and more effective at discouraging wrongful behavior.  And impractical ideals do have their uses, they can serve as something to shoot for to the extent possible.

You have gone mad in your lust for power 

[Malthus]

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. 

If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.

Your example, though badly constructed, does bring up another point.  If you fire at someone and you miss, you face the reckless gun-shooting charges, you're not getting off.  So, in a sense, you do face the punishment for an action that had a worse expected outcome than actual outcome.  I assume reckless gun shooting is illegal because it may kill someone.  So the concept of figuring expected outcome into punishment isn't as alien as you make it sound, we're just disagreeing on whether its application should be biased.

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.