>> Also IMHO I feel that punishing someone for killing
>> someone when there was absolutely no intent is not really
>> moral when taken in isolation[1]. I put it that he should
>> be punished for the danger that he caused, in the same
>> way that someone else that did exactly the same thing but
>> didn't cause a death should, IMO be punished.
>
> But to say that there is only a crime with intent to injur
> is to get rid of crimes such as manslaughter, negligence,
> etc. These are all based around events being reasonably
> foreseeable. It is reasonably forseeable that if you drive
> too fast you will cause an accident, just as it is
> reasonably forseeable that if you fail to tell somebody
> that you recently dipped the ends of their ladder in
> butter they will fall and be injured.
I think you misunderstand my point - it wouldn't get rid of
manslaughter exactly, just treat the actions the same
whether they resulted in death or not. Thus the butter on
the ladder would be treated as harshly if the person didn't
fall. (this whole thing is obviously theoretical). If the
/intent/ is there then morally it is just as wrong even if
there were no consequences. Similarly if there is no intent,
then why is it suddenly so much worse morally (or whatever)
if some poor sod comes to grief. The results are far worse,
but they were not intended. If a risk is forseen then the
actions are just as serious whatever the results.
Manslaughter is renamed because a persons death is not
necessary. The punishment would be the same whether or not
someone died (but see comments further down).
>> The great weakness of this argument is that we would all
>> have our goolies cut off (or whatever suitable
>> punishment you sadists like best) as we have all done
>> something that is dangerous, whether it was deliberate
>> or just the result of a moments innattention.
>> Fortunately for almost of us this has not resulted in an
>> accident let alone a death.
>
> Are you a Christian? That belief system explicitly talks
> about this sort of thing! But yes, I would say that doing
> something and 'getting away with it' or 'being lucky' is
> morally as bad as doing something and causing damage.
Agnostic*** but a Christian upbringing so I suppose it's
influenced me - anyone with a background that gives a
different take on this lot?
***(Despite being agnostic I'd actually like to be
atheist, it's just that I asked an atheist why he was so.
He told me the whole idea of God is stupid and ridiculous.
I asked a Christian. He had the more persuasive argument:
he'd met God)
>> Who was it that recently posted about the near SMIDSY he
>> had? Let us pretend that he did hit the cyclist. Why
>> would his innattention be less deserving of punishment if
>> there was no cyclist passing at that moment in time?
>
> It wouldn't, except inasmuch as punishment serves the
> other purposes we have discussed (i.e.,, retribution etc)
Sorry, it's late and my brain isn't working. You agree that
the action is equally desrving of punishment whether or not
a cyclist happened to disappear under the wheels?
If so then we probably agree on retribution. If there was no
intent then there should be no retribution. This doesn't
necessarily mean that the sentence would be light, it's just
that if there was no intent the punishment should presumably
be related to the degree of carelessness or recklessness or
whatever. If there was intent then the retribution should be
there whether or not what was intended actually happened.
Because of the intent it is morally worse than an identical
act with no intent, and the sanctions should reflect that.
In addition, in the event of loss of earnings the
person/people affected by this should be compensated (my gut
feeling is that it would be preferable for the person who
was at fault to do this whether or not there was intent). We
could thus see a difference in punishments for bad and
neutral outcomes. I am uneasy about the idea of monetary
compensation for the loss of someones life (as opposed to
compensation for the loss of income, which would affect the
dependents). The news tonight mentioned compensation for the
'suffering' of parents of children in the Alder Hey organ
retention scandal. The compensation in no way reduces their
suffering, unless it makes them, on balanced, rather pleased
that the organs were retained as it's given them a new car
or a nice holiday. I suppose the money could be given to
good causes, in which case I become less uneasy about the
whole thing.
In terms of deterrent, that is IMO clearly immoral but saved
by the fact that it is a means to an end. I agree with the
logic of that but not the morality of it. However, I
consider it to be ok to do something immoral to prevent
something worse. We can thus justify the deterrent.
But! whilst I have no problems with harsher sentences for
those that deliberately indulge in reckless (or whatever)
behaviour that increases the risk to others I do not believe
deterrent sentencing should be used for people that make
honest mistakes/a moments innattention/or whatever we want
to call it*. Basically where there is no intention to
increase the risk beyond whatever is socially accepted.
Anyway, sorry about wittering on for so long, but
hopefully people will understand why I'm not keen on the
lynching mentality that often rears its head in this n.g.
Hopefully if anyone replies to it I might come to
understand it a bit more.
Mark.
*I'm unhappy with that definition. Basically I mean
someone trying to be as safe as society demands, but who
cocks it up somehow. You know what I mean even if I'm
unable to say it
