CdM is in love!

[garbon]

There are less loaded terms. Besides, I think it is pretty obvious that most posters here do not know how Canadian sentencing works. We generally aren't even that informed about sentencing in our own countries.

If you are ignorant about a subject, it is a bad idea to work yourself into a tizzy over it. 

You think this is me worked up?

[grumbler]

I have no idea whether that is actually true or not; maybe it is. In any case, we both agree it is irrelevant.

  This whole board is irrelevant. Why should relevance even need to be considered?

[DGuller]

  This whole board is irrelevant.

Woah, hold on there. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?

Speaking for myself, and I believe I stated this already, I am arguing that contributory negligence should be a concept applied to criminal law.  At least it should be insofar as other parties' negligence was itself a violation of the law.  While I implied such earlier, I do not consider this "putting the victim on trial".

[Barrister]

Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?

Speaking for myself, and I believe I stated this already, I am arguing that contributory negligence should be a concept applied to criminal law.  At least it should be insofar as other parties' negligence was itself a violation of the law.  While I implied such earlier, I do not consider this "putting the victim on trial".

YOu can "consider" it whatever you want.  But I'm telling you that as an experienced prosecutor that would have the effect of putting the victim on trial.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?

Speaking for myself, and I believe I stated this already, I am arguing that contributory negligence should be a concept applied to criminal law.  At least it should be insofar as other parties' negligence was itself a violation of the law.  While I implied such earlier, I do not consider this "putting the victim on trial".

YOu can "consider" it whatever you want.  But I'm telling you that as an experienced prosecutor that would have the effect of putting the victim on trial.

OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent.  To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".

[Barrister]

OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent.  To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".

No, we punish people for their own actions.  When one person is on trial, we generally don't concern ourselves with what other people did.

[Ideologue]

Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.

I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact, has anyone said that this woman should get nothing?

I said that.  That's because I don't believe that torture brings people back to life.

[Ideologue]

OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent.  To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".

No, we punish people for their own actions.  When one person is on trial, we generally don't concern ourselves with what other people did.

Nonsense.  Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that depends crucially upon the actions of the victim, just like self-defense, which you litigate all the time.

[Malthus]

OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent.  To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".

No, we punish people for their own actions.  When one person is on trial, we generally don't concern ourselves with what other people did.

Nonsense.  Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that depends crucially upon the actions of the victim, just like self-defense, which you litigate all the time.

In tort law. Generally speaking, contributory negligence of the victim is not a defence in criminal law.

[Ideologue]

No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime.  And in any event, I'm referring narrowly to Beeb's statement that he never concerns himself with what other people did, which is a non sequitur unless SD is not a defense in Canada.

Which maybe it isn't.  You people deny human rights.

[Malthus]

No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime.

Because the purposes of criminal law and tort law are quite different, even though both are called "negligence".

For example, in my jurisdiction the purpose of contributory negligence is to determine the degree of fault for the purposes of assigning damages. If I harm you through my negligence, and the court finds you partly at fault, the amount I owe you in damages is less. The state is only involved as the referee between us, as it were. There is no "punsihment" involved, the point is to determine who should bear the costs of this event.

In criminal law, the relevant relationship is not between the victim and perp, but between perp and the state. The state is punishing the perp for falling below a recognized standard of care, in part to deter others from doing the same, in part because as a society we have determined that dumbasses should be punished if their dumbassery harms others. The state cares not that some other person was also negligent, as long as your individual negligence was actually the proximate cause of the harm.

[The Brain]

I think we can all agree that Canadian law is stupider.

[Malthus]

I think we can all agree that Canadian law is stupider.

Bork bork bork.

[The Brain]

I think we can all agree that Canadian law is stupider.

Bork bork bork.

Your language-shaming hurts me.