Is it fair?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:16 am

Originally posted by Tom

So do you think that the man that had the good luck should be punished to the same degree?

Oh, yes. Not only him, but everyone who committed dangerous driving, including speeding and drink/drug driving. To me, 6 years for killing a whole family is too short.

People know car is not safe without due caution. Whether he/she killed or not is not the point. Driving without due care and his/her conscious should be punished. Weight of the punishment should differ in each cases, though most cases it's too light at the moment.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:32 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
Not to nitpick, but on most interstates, 5mph under the speed limit would be 70mph, I believe. [/color]

Actually, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety the most common speed limit for cars in the country is 65 mph on rural interstates (20 states). Most of the states with the 70 mph (18 states) and 75 mph (11 states) speed limits are western states, while the lower speed limits are along the eastern seaboard and in the midwest. The only state to retain the old 55 mph speed limit is Hawaii (how can they have interstates, though?).

@Minerva:
What if the driver was not engaging in any inherently dangerous (DUI, driving without rest, speeding, etc.) or aggressive behaviour (weaving in and out of traffic, making suicide passes, etc.) and still killed five people? I think that is our friend Tom's most basic question: Should people be prosecuted differently if all things are equal except for luck?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:56 am

@HLD: I think there is a basic difference between us. If you ask me whether the one's luck would affect on the punishment or not, I say yes, because the luck had effect on the accident.

The following part is different: Tom thinks the guy was punished heavier because of his bad luck. On the contrary, I think the other guy was punished lighter because of his good luck. It depends on which standards we choose, and that differs amongst everyone, depending on past experience, background culture, religion, etc. We can't say which is better.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:21 pm

This has been a good discussion to follow and I'll finally chime in with my two cents.

I'd have to agree with Minerva and say that one man was punished lighter due to his good luck.

One of the problems I feel that brings up these unfortuante circumstances (i'm getting off topic a bit so ignore me if you wish) on the road is that many have lost the identity of driving as a privlege. instead, it is treated as if it is a right. Personally, I feel there are too many people driving at least on the U.S. highways. I cannot speak for other areas of the globe.

Still, people think they are just allowed to drive instead of accepting it as a privlege or something earned. A car is a weapon. There should be some means of regulation for the amount of licenses a state can hand out. I'd be the first in line to sign up for mandatory road tests annually. The state has a certain number of licenses to hand out and if you score too low, try again next year. Enjoy the bus. Perhaps my viewpoint is way off base, unrealistic, and now, I realize, off topic (sorry). Still, I feel as if there are way too many folks driving out there that have not earned it. I believe very strict measures would get a lot of those bad apples in the passenger seat instead of behind the wheel, which would save lives.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:34 pm

philosophy....sorry

bertrand russell summed up the solution to the problem perfectly. Sorry if the wording isn't right, (and the example is just a coincedence) but he said something like 'if a man has a motor car which won't run, he doesn't curse it and call it a wicked motor car and refuse to give it petrol until it will run, he takes it to a mechanic and does his best to have it fixed.'

What he means is, a criminal is like a defective car. It is a defective person (as far as civilised society's concerned). When someone breaks the law, we shouldn't lock them up and deny them all sorts of pleasure which keep a person sane and well balanced. We should try and 'fix' them (physchotherapy etc...).

Now, taking the sleeping man to our moral judge we realise that there is no need to punish him. He is not defective. If you say that we need to deter him from commiting the crime again, I would answer, 'He never wanted to commit the crime in the first place'. It's something which he didn't want to do anyway, and will no doubt be deterred from future carlessness by the guilt which he must have from doing harm to innocent people. Now, he is clearly an innocent man, so the guilt would be on us, the blood on our hands if we punished him.

The only 'punishment' he needs is to be told that driving when tired is dangerous (he obviously didn't know).

Remember, if someone does something bad, doing something bad to them isn't always the solution.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:37 pm

this discussion has finally made up my mind as to a signature =)

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:50 pm

Re: philosophy....sorry

Originally posted by frogus
What he means is, a criminal is like a defective car. It is a defective person (as far as civilised society's concerned). When someone breaks the law, we shouldn't lock them up and deny them all sorts of pleasure which keep a person sane and well balanced. We should try and 'fix' them (physchotherapy etc...).

Now, taking the sleeping man to our moral judge we realise that there is no need to punish him. He is not defective. If you say that we need to deter him from commiting the crime again, I would answer, 'He never wanted to commit the crime in the first place'. It's something which he didn't want to do anyway, and will no doubt be deterred from future carlessness by the guilt which he must have from doing harm to innocent people. Now, he is clearly an innocent man, so the guilt would be on us, the blood on our hands if we punished him.

Frogus, your solution is a bloodless theory that provides no justice to anyone, IMO. I am not of the opinion that you'll say the same thing if your parents or someone close to you is killed while walking across the street by a drunk driver who was previously let off the hook after a similar incident with only a year's suspended license.

Although therapy may provide part of an answer for people suffering from alcoholism (and may not, since therapy has to be personally accepted), statistics show that nearly all drunk drivers are not alcoholics. They are simply people without a sense of responsibility; and in the past, those who killed via DOA often got on the road and shockingly did it again. The only way for society to deal with these people is to punish them for the lives they take, and make sure they never, ever get the chance to take other lives, and ruin the lives of those who lost their relatives and friends, again. A second chance just isn't morally conceivable in such a situation.

And ten years is far too short a period behind bars, IMO.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 2:01 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave

Actually, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety the most common speed limit for cars in the country is 65 mph on rural interstates (20 states). Most of the states with the 70 mph (18 states) and 75 mph (11 states) speed limits are western states, while the lower speed limits are along the eastern seaboard and in the midwest. The only state to retain the old 55 mph speed limit is Hawaii (how can they have interstates, though?).

Okay. I was going on experience. Texas interstates are 70mph, rural highways are generally 60-70mph(though a few are 55mph). In New Mexico, I10 is 75mph. In Arizona, I10 is 75mph; but on most the rural highways and such the speed limit(from what I've seen) is about 50-60mph(almost always 10-20 lower than what it would be in Texas).

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 2:31 pm

I am not of the opinion that you'll say the same thing if your parents or someone close to you is killed while walking across the street by a drunk driver who was previously let off the hook after a similar incident with only a year's suspended license

it's the same thing...now imagine that my parents were killed by a drunk driver who has commited the crime before. He is still defective. My point is (I'm sorry to ignore your main point on this one and concerntrate on background detail) that the guy must not be allowed to drive a car....but that isn't the end of the sentence (if you'll excuse the pun): he must not be allowed to drive a car until he can do it safely. After all, you could say 'lock him up forever, that way he can't hurt anyone', but at that rate you might aswell say 'fire him into deep space' or at that rate just 'kill him' the fact remains however that this solves nothing.
If we follow through the logic of your arguament, then it would seem that having someone disposed of is preferable to having the risk of them commit a crime in the future. So where can we draw the line?

The only way for society to deal with these people is to punish them for the lives they take, and make sure they never, ever get the chance to take other lives

This statements seem to me to sugest that your idea of a morally perfect society could be a dessert. A world completely devoid of any form of life would have a crime rate of 0, right?
but it would NOT be morally perfect.

Good society is not made by having every conceivable negative element removed, but by having every concievable positive element imposed.

we mustn't remove this guy because he's a negative element, we must transform him into a positive element, or one conceivable positive element is wasted already. We have wasted a life.

In light of this I believe that your comment

I am not of the opinion that you'll say the same thing if your parents or someone close to you is killed while walking across the street by a drunk driver

was irrelevent. If my parents were killed, then from a social point of view it DOESN'T MATTER what I say. If every crazy got to do whatever they wanted whenever they were wronged, think what a state we'd be in. The wishes of the society are more important than the views of the individual when it comes to law.

ps sorry for the long post

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 2:47 pm

@frogus- the only way we can transform these 'negative elements' into positive ones is if they themselves want to change. you can not force anyone to change. you can force them to stay in a mental hospital for years and still not change them.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 3:05 pm

ahh.. the old story of the frog and the scorpion....

I realise that what I'm saying is logical rather than practical, and that's why some of you don't agree with it (sorry when I say logical I mean as in formal logic, axioms, logical philosophy, rather than true). However, I believe that we can only get to the solution by extracting practical methods out of logical propositions, not by twisting logic around practical propositions.
While certainly certainly society cannot just change people into paragons of virtue, it cannot just lock them up and kill them until such a time as it can. I maintain that what I said is still true.

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 3:16 pm

in the ideal world there would be no reason to lock people up. however the world is far from ideal. it would be great if everyone could just get along and be 'logical' as you say but the truth is people are stupid. (present company excepted of course....well most of you anyway

) if there were only a few 'negative people' in the world than maybe your solution would work. unfortunatley there are far more than a few negative people. sometimes it seems to me that there are more negative people than positive people.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 3:21 pm

point taken

I accept your argument... sure there are loads of downright evil people out there, but what do you think we should do about it?

by all means tell me when I'm wrong, but don't leave it at that... tell me what's right too.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 3:26 pm

Originally posted by frogus
it's the same thing...now imagine that my parents were killed by a drunk driver who has commited the crime before. He is still defective.

Defective? What criteria are you using to define that, as opposed to acknowledging a competent individual acting in an irresponsible fashion?

My point is (I'm sorry to ignore your main point on this one and concerntrate on background detail) that the guy must not be allowed to drive a car....but that isn't the end of the sentence (if you'll excuse the pun): he must not be allowed to drive a car until he can do it safely.

He was already presumed to be a safe driver. What method would you use to guarantee his "safeness" on the road, given his earlier abrogation of responsibility? What happens if he kills again? You are aware that until recently, and the introduction of many drunk-while-driving laws, drunks who killed while behind the wheel and got off lightly sometimes committed the same crime, again?

After all, you could say 'lock him up forever, that way he can't hurt anyone', but at that rate you might aswell say 'fire him into deep space' or at that rate just 'kill him' the fact remains however that this solves nothing.

It does solve something: it removes from society a person who refuses to be held responsible for their own actions, and whose actions in turn have in the past, and very well could in the future, lead to the death of others. It also serves the extremely important function of giving a sense of justice and closure to the families of those who were killed by a drunk driver. Is that "nothing?"

If we follow through the logic of your arguament, then it would seem that having someone disposed of is preferable to having the risk of them commit a crime in the future. So where can we draw the line?

I draw it at the point where their actions do not endanger the lives and wellbeing of others. Thus, a person who defrauds millions of people through stock market manipulations deserves to go to prison, while the person who litters in the city park should do some community work.

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 3:35 pm

@frogus- truth be told i do not really know a solution to the problem. i think about it quite often though because the way most people act is really quite frustrating to me.

(im getting way off of the original topic here)

Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions, which is great, but the problem is most people dont know how to express themselves in a peaceful way. far too often in our society people resort to violence when there is a peacfeul solution. now dont get me wrong im not a peace loving hippie, im painfully aware that there are times when violence is the only possible solution. i just think that people need to think before thay act or react.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 3:27 am

What criteria are you using to define that, as opposed to acknowledging a competent individual acting in an irresponsible fashion?

although the word defective seems to be getting a bit too small for the meaning we're putting in it, it'll do for now.
I say anyone who acts in an irresponsibe fashion is defective.
You might answer 'but then you're defective and I'm defective: we all act irresponsibly sometimes but we need not all be punished for it'
That isn't true, but I urge you to think what 'punishment' a crime deserves when it is commited. Don't just look at the list of already established punishments and think well, what can we do to him (prison, exocution, hard labour...)...but think to the ROOT of the problem and see what really needs to happen.
This argument stands even if my suggestion for a punishment is wrong, but I believe that all he needs is education. This is the punishment which I have thought of in mind of his crime.
Remember, he wasn't drunk (everyone knows the dangers of drunk driving) he was just tired, and undoubtedly didn't know the dangers of tired driving. I say therefore that he wasn't even acting very irresponsibly.

I draw it at the point where their actions do not endanger the lives and wellbeing of others.

very good point. But, who is decide what the wellbeing of someone is? Outlandish claims could (and frequently are in America) be made that the litter in the city park is affecting my wellbeing. We can have no 'line' drawn. We mustn't let the situation arise where a backwoods lady gets the better of us by saying, I tripped on the can that guy chucked on the floor and broke my spine. In that case we will have to say, well we did promise to lock up anyone endangering peoples wellbeing, so away he goes, ten years for a coke can.
This is useless....we need to think of a way in which we can stopthe man dropping litter in the future via a punishment
relative to his actions. He just isn't a threat to society and will certainly not commit the crime again if we show him the inhabilitated woman whos life he has ruined by accident.

we have to think of punishments relative to the severity of the crime, not the severity of the results of the crime.

ps what do you think about my morally perfect dessert world?

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 4:00 am

Soo...

you wont discuss my original topic ehh.

well see if care. i will just have to go and be rude to someone in another thread. in fact im on my way...

Snif

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 4:12 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Over here (in the United States), OSHA and labour unions have stepped in and mandated that truck drivers, commercial airline pilots, etc. have a certain number of hours off for every hour spent on the job and that they cannot work more than 16 hours per day.

While that may insure that truck drivers are getting adequate sleep, that does nothing for the rest of U.S. society, and you can bet your bottom dollar there are loopholes in that regulation. I know of far too many work environments where people are required to put in an excess of hours, and on top of that must come home and tend to their families. I cannot express the intense anger I feel that friends and loved ones must constantly put themselves at risk by driving fatigued due to workplace mandates. Taking a powernap at the side of the road is often not an option when it means harrassment by police (loitering laws, and current anti-drug campaign) and/or victimization by those slimier elements of society.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 10:30 am

although the word defective seems to be getting a bit too small for the meaning we're putting in it, it'll do for now. I say anyone who acts in an irresponsibe fashion is defective.

With due respect, I'm afraid such a defintion is unacceptable. "Defective" is not identical to "irresponsible." Defective means faulty; irresponsible means not caring about the results of one's actions. It can be argued that an irresponsible person is defective, as you did elsewhere in your post, but that's word games. I think we all know that these two words refer to very different concepts. "Defective judgment" is a wrong action taken with all deliberation. "Irresponsible judgment" is a wrong action taken with no deliberation whatsoever.

So are drunk drivers who kill defective? Or are they irresponsible? And if the former, then I'd like to ask my original question: what criteria are you using to define that a drunk driver who kills is "defective," as opposed to acknowledging a competent individual acting in an irresponsible fashion?

But, who is decide what the wellbeing of someone is? Outlandish claims could (and frequently are in America) be made that the litter in the city park is affecting my wellbeing.

That, again, is tautology. You wanna play with Gordian knots, do it on your own time.

Throwing an ice cream wrapper out of a car window does not *directly* affect the wellbeing of anybody's existence, while raping them most certainly does. These crimes are qualitatively and quantitively distinctive. You asked where I would draw a line on putting people in prison, and imply that there can be no line, and we might as well give up. This is a recipe for social chaos.

Take a cold-blooded killer, who did it for money. Would you put that person behind bars? If not, what would you do with them?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 3:23 am

Certainly I don't mean a person is defective in the same sense as a PC or a toaster might be defective, but there's no word games involved... I maintain that as you say, 'defective' means faulty, and I think that, as we're talking from a perfectly just society's point of view, not caring about one's actions is a massive fault.
I don't just use the word 'careless' because I recognise that a person may be posessed of traits other than carelessness which will also stop them from being an effective member of a perfect society...but that's not important. I was not trying to define the word 'defective', I was just pointing out one of it's results.
(I could say that a person who is good is honest as well, but noone believes that good and honest mean the same thing).

sorry, I guess I can't answer your other questions untill we get to the bottom of this wording issue..

as for the other things...what's tautology? what's a Gordian knot?

Throwing an ice cream wrapper out of a car window does not *directly* affect the wellbeing of anybody

now I think we might be getting somewhere...so can I take from that that you agree with:

we have to think of punishments relative to the severity of the crime, not the severity of the results of the crime.

?

mmm...ah yes.. the competent individual acting in an irresponsible fashion. I think this is like saying 'my watch functions perfectly, it just doesn't tell the time'.

Take a cold-blooded killer, who did it for money. Would you put that person behind bars? If not, what would you do with them?

I can't say what to do with them, just as I wouldn't be able to fix a broken radio or cure a sick person.
Law is not a mug's game. Doctors can look at people, observe the fact that they are afflicted with the flu and prescribe medicines to cure them. Now I (or you) could look at the same person, see that they have a flu...but not know what to do.
Similarly, I can see when a radio is broken, I can tell when a car has broken down...but noone except for a doctor, an electrician and a mechanic (respectively) in these cases would claim knowledge of a solution. What makes you think that just anyone off the street knows what to do in a case of a dangerous criminal?