Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

Is it fair?

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
Tom
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The Hundred Acre Wood
Contact:

Is it fair?

Post by Tom »

A man is driving down the motor way. He had no sleep at all the night before so he falls asleep at the wheel. He veers into a car with a family of five, mother, father three children, the car crashes and they are all killed. The whole thing is seen by an off duty police officer and the court finds him guilty of gross negligence and dangerous driving etc. the judge sentences him to six years.

Imagine now that that the family was delayed a few minutes and that therefore the man doesn’t hit them. Instead he hits the barrier and eventually comes to a stop. He gets a six months suspended, points of his license and a fine.

Same man, same actions - but because of circumstances beyond his control he is punished much harder.

Most countries legal systems work like this (I think). But why, whats the rational behind it.

Is it right that pepol are punished for things they have no control over?

Care to comment? Do you think the law’s got right or is there something wrong with the justice system?
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."

Tigger
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

Accidents happen. Sometimes people are hurt; most often the only thing wounded is pride. However, when people are seriously injured or killed, I think we have a need to punish the perpetrator, even if everyone agrees that there is no malice or willful negligence. Partly it's because we need someone to blame, and partly it's because I think we want to send a message out to people to be careful.

Also, in your example, the driver of the car which struck the family was not totally enmeshed in "circumstances beyond his control"; he could have pulled over an taken a power-nap rather than drive all night, stayed in a hotel somewhere, drank a gallon of coffee or taken some other measure to ensure that he wasn't so tired that he would fall asleep behind the wheel of his car.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
Yshania
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
Contact:

Post by Yshania »

I agree with HLD - you should be held accountable for your actions dependent on the severity of the consequences. If you get behind the wheel of a car after taking drink or drugs - it could be argued that you are driving with intent to endanger lives, and is argued this way in the UK. IMO the same could be said if you get behind the wheel of a car when you are tired - your reaction times are greatly affected as with drugs and alcohol. A car is a potentially lethal weapon.

A similar case happened here in the UK. A man fell asleep at the wheel of his landrover (which was towing a trailer carrying another vehicle). He left the road on a bridge and landed on a railway track. A high speed intercity train hit the crashed vehicles at 80 miles an hour, there was carnage and many lives lost. Meanwhile, he was out of his vehicle and sitting up the bank side calling 999. Too late. He has gone down. Maybe had the train not hit, maybe had he stayed another fifty yards on the road and hit a lamp post instead, he would have received a lesser sentence. The fact is, many families were bereaved as a result of his negligence, and he should be held accountable...
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
User avatar
KidD01
Posts: 5699
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: In the bunker underneath your house
Contact:

Post by KidD01 »

As stated :
A man is driving down the motor way. He had no sleep at all the night before so he falls asleep at the wheel.
As human being we all know our limits. Especially when you had no sleep all nite. It's clear that the man in the story neglected certain factors especially safety, his safety not to mention others. He's lucky to get only 6 yrs only. The person who involved in that accident should have his DMV license removed and never got any opportunity to get one again :mad:
I'm not dead yet :D :p :cool:
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

With apologies to Tom, let's put forth another hypothetical situation: A man is driving down the highway and it starts raining. Turns his lights and windshield wipers on. He has new all-weather tires and slows down to 5 mph under the posted legal speed limit. While driving along, the wind and rain catch his car just right and he begins to hydroplane. He slides across the freeway and strikes another car, killing a man and his four children.

Should this man be charged with vehicular homicide? Remember that the burden of proof is on the state to show that the man had a willful disregard for his own and other's safety in order to convict him.

What's the difference between this scenario and the one our friend Tom put forth? Should they be prosecuted differently even though the result is the same (five people dead)? Why or why not?
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
KidD01
Posts: 5699
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: In the bunker underneath your house
Contact:

Post by KidD01 »

HLD, I doubt a side wind effect on 5mph speed car could cause such accident.
I'm not dead yet :D :p :cool:
User avatar
Yshania
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
Contact:

Post by Yshania »

@HLD, I don't think he should. What we are talking about is accepting responsibility for your actions. If this man took all necessary precautions then this would be an accident, surely... :)
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
User avatar
Alienbob
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Alienbob »

A man kills five people and he gets six years??? that guy is one lucky bastard. those five people are dead and never coming back because of his lack of responsibility, all he has to do is finish a six year prison term. i think he should have gotten at the very least 25 years, so to answer your question, no it isnt fair. not fair for the dead adults. not fair for their friends and family. and especially not fair for those dead kids. they dont get a chance to grow up or experience life because this punk is to tired to dirve. :(

and you cant say that it wasnt his fault. thats like firing a gun in a crowded area. when someone gets hit and killed you say "but it was his fault for stepping in front of the bullet! if he had bent over to tie his shoe at just the right second then he would still be a live!" :rolleyes:
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

@KidD01:
In my example, the guy is driving 5 mph under the speed limit (so he would be driving 60 mph on most insterstates), not 5 mph. Hydroplaning is an odd phenomenon in that it can happen at any time under seemingly random circumstances. 500 cars can pass a single point and not lose their traction, but the 501st car can have the right combination of wind, weight and traction and begin to hydroplane; there are certain behaviours which contribute to hydroplaning (ie-speed), but it is generally something which strikes at random.

@Alienbob:
So is it the criminal justice system's place to punish the man in Tom's scenario? The guy obviously didn't wake up and say to himself, "Self, I think I'm going to fall asleep behind the wheel of my car today and kill five people." He's neither psychotic nor homicidal. We're not talking about an assassination nor anything premeditated; he was involved in an accident.

He must be held accountable for his actions, but wouldn't a harsher punishment be more appropriate coming from a wrongful death civil lawsuit rather than a criminal prosecution?
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
Mr Snow
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth
Contact:

Post by Mr Snow »

How about another:

A Truck Driver, having been on the job and awake for nearly 24hrs is sent by his boss to delivery more goods, because he is tired, he falls asleep and hits an oncoming vehicle, killing the occupants...

Is he quity?

According to Australian Law he was, and got years in prison.
Plus the Transport Union blockades and causes the transport company to go broke.

Who is negligent?
The Driver or the Boss?

This is a very big issue here, because the large transport companies use small independant operators to do their overnight/long haul trips, and if the goods arn't there they get someone else. Now alot of truckies are using speed (the drug) etc to stay awake.
Who is negligent, the truck drivers for taking risks to keep themselves afloat or the companies for putting excessive and unrealistic timetables on the drivers?
The Present is an Illusion, The Future is a Dream and The Past is A Lie!
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post 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 this sometimes causes travel and transport delays, the idea is to ensure that drivers/pilots/operators are rested enough to perform their jobs safely. If you think that it's the drivers who want this, you're wrong (they're paid by the mile driven or pound delivered); it's the companies who want these regulations so they are protected from lawsuits alleging that they over-work their employees or cause unsafe working conditions. Factory workers and heavy machine operators have similar limits on the number of hours per day they can work for the same reasons.

In a related case, Domino's pizza was found liable in the traffic death of a woman who was struck and killed by a pizza delivery driver trying to beat Domino's "30 minutes or it's free" deal. In that instance, the cost of pizzas delivered past the 30 minute deadline was deducted from the driver's paycheck prompting the driver to exceed the posted legal speed limit and drive unsafely. Since pizza delivery drivers are usually poor (I was when I delivered pizza), the woman's family sued Domino's and won, on the grounds that the company policy induced gross negligence and encouraged their drivers to be unsafe on the road.

Why a late pizza is always the driver's fault (as this Domino's policy implies) is beyond me; most pizzas spend more time waiting to get made and cooking than they spend in transit. I worked for Pizza Hut and we didn't have any time-related incentives or penalties as a protection against this sort of liability suit. Domino's revised their policy after paying the settlement and now offers "30 minutes or $3 off" (I don't know if the $3 still comes out of the driver's check or not).
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
Sailor Saturn
Posts: 4288
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Titan Castle Throne Room
Contact:

Post by Sailor Saturn »

Originally posted by HighLordDave
@KidD01:
In my example, the guy is driving 5 mph under the speed limit (so he would be driving 60 mph on most insterstates), not 5 mph.
Not to nitpick, but on most interstates, 5mph under the speed limit would be 70mph, I believe. I know it would in New Mexico, Arizona, and I think California. For Texas it'd be 65mph, but I think they changed part of I10 to 75mph speed limit making -5mph become 70mph.

On the highways I've driven on, it'd be 55-65mph.

Hydroplaning is an odd phenomenon in that it can happen at any time under seemingly random circumstances. 500 cars can pass a single point and not lose their traction, but the 501st car can have the right combination of wind, weight and traction and begin to hydroplane; there are certain behaviours which contribute to hydroplaning (ie-speed), but it is generally something which strikes at random.
Aye, it is. I've hydroplaned at 40mph and at 70mph. Neither were much fun. :eek:
Protected by Saturn, Planet of Silence... I am the soldier of death and rebirth...I am Sailor Saturn.

I would also like you to meet my alternate personality, Mistress 9.

Mistress 9: You will be spammed. Your psychotic and spamming distinctiveness will be added to the board. Resistance is futile. *evil laugh*

Ain't she wonderful? ¬_¬

I knew I had moree in common with BS than was first apparent~Yshania

[color=sky blue]The male mind is nothing but a plaything of the woman's body.~My Variation on Nietzsche's Theme[/color]

Real men love Jesus. They live bold and holy lives, they're faithful to their wives, real men love Jesus.~Real Men Love Jesus; Herbie Shreve

Volo comparare nonnulla tegumembra.
User avatar
Yshania
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
Contact:

Post by Yshania »

@HLD, my dad is an HGV driver, they can be stopped at random by police and have their tachos read. If they are found to have driven for longer than 11 hours (IIRC) in any 24, they and the company they work for will be prosecuted, accident or no accident.
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by Yshania
I agree with HLD - you should be held accountable for your actions dependent on the severity of the consequences. If you get behind the wheel of a car after taking drink or drugs - it could be argued that you are driving with intent to endanger lives, and is argued this way in the UK. IMO the same could be said if you get behind the wheel of a car when you are tired - your reaction times are greatly affected as with drugs and alcohol. A car is a potentially lethal weapon.
It is actually illegal to sit in a car if you are over the limit, whether you are going to drive it or not. The police claim it is intention, in fact as soon as you put your keys in the lock you are breaking the law.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Yshania
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
Contact:

Post by Yshania »

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


It is actually illegal to sit in a car if you are over the limit, whether you are going to drive it or not. The police claim it is intention, in fact as soon as you put your keys in the lock you are breaking the law.
You only need to have the keys on you to be charged with intent ;)
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 4992
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Somewhere beyond the sea
Contact:

Post by Minerva »

Originally posted by Alienbob
A man kills five people and he gets six years??? that guy is one lucky bastard.
In the case Yshania stated above, the guilty driver got 10 years. I remember the widow of the train driver said, "He only got 6 months each for the every victim he killed. That's too short."
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."

A word to the wise is sufficient
Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
User avatar
Tom
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The Hundred Acre Wood
Contact:

Post by Tom »

Erm. it seems that i haven’t made my self very clear.

What I was worried about was not whether people that drive irresponsibly should be punished.

What I was thinking was that it seems strange that a man gets punished so much harder because of bad luck.

I imagined two situations. In both situations the man got behind the wheel knowing that he had no sleep. The same man, same action - everything the same - yet one man get 6 years and the other walks away.

So should people be punished for bad luck?
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."

Tigger
User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 4992
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Somewhere beyond the sea
Contact:

Post by Minerva »

What I was thinking was that it seems strange that a man gets punished so much harder because of bad luck.
I would rather think that the other guy escaped with much lighter punishment because of good luck.
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."

A word to the wise is sufficient
Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

Life is full of "what ifs . . ." and as I state before, accidents happen. However, in your scenario, the end result is that five people are dead. Whether or not the man is culpable due to negligence or bad luck doesn't change that he still must be accountable for what he has done and that nothing he can do will bring those folks back to life. I think that the justice system takes into account things like intent and willfully negligent behaviour (so he gets six years instead of the death penalty or life imprisonment). However, because of his actions, intentional or not, he must still pay the price for taking five lives.

If we considered all of the "what ifs" in our lives, we wouldn't be accountable for anything.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
Tom
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The Hundred Acre Wood
Contact:

Post by Tom »

Originally posted by Minerva


I would rather think that the other guy escaped with much lighter punishment because of good luck.
So do you think that the man that had the good luck should be punished to the same degree?
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."

Tigger
Post Reply