switchlogic:
Well you missed my point entirely. The fact is he killed no one, didn’t even injure anyone. By your standards I should have my licence taken off me for my recent accident, because ‘I might have killed someone’. I actually had you down as a lot more intelligent than that. Possibly not. If the courts worked on the ‘what could have happened’ principle half of us wouldn’t have a licence.
I’ve never understood why they don’t. If you’re punishing someone for falling asleep whether he killed a busload of children (lol) or just ran into the barriers should make no difference.
You’re position is, to me, as illogical as his.
I’d have a system by which the consequences are immaterial - the action is punished and yes I’d have had your liecence off you.
Sorry that’s just idiotic. Thankfully people like you aren’t in control of our justice system. You know next to nothing about the circumstances of this accident, or for that matter mine, yet feel able to judge. Typical small-mindedness, quick to judge without any facts. I really hope you never make a mistake, must be hard work being perfect 100% of the time.
Let’s think of a hypothetical case.
A driver runs while tired and falls asleep at the wheel. He didn’t intend to do it (nobody does). It is his lucky day and he runs into a telegraph pole.
Now the same driver was driving down the same road a little later and runs into a group of children enjoying a walk.
The circumstances are identical. You are simply punishing the guys bad luck. In my system they’d both be punished for what they did - fall asleep.
Let’s think of a hypothetical case.
A driver runs while tired and falls asleep at the wheel. He didn’t intend to do it (nobody does). It is his lucky day and he runs into a telegraph pole.
Now the same driver was driving down the same road a little later and runs into a group of children enjoying a walk.
The circumstances are identical. You are simply punishing the guys bad luck. In my system they’d both be punished for what they did - fall asleep.
So you’d put a guy that hit a telegraph pole in prison for up to 10 years then? Yeah, really sensible.
Let’s think of a hypothetical case.
A driver runs while tired and falls asleep at the wheel. He didn’t intend to do it (nobody does). It is his lucky day and he runs into a telegraph pole.
Now the same driver was driving down the same road a little later and runs into a group of children enjoying a walk.
The circumstances are identical. You are simply punishing the guys bad luck. In my system they’d both be punished for what they did - fall asleep.
So you’d put a guy that hit a telegraph pole in prison for up to 10 years then? Yeah, really sensible.
The action is the same, just the consequences that are different
Falling asleep at the wheel / firing a gun into a crowd of people, the same end result could happen, so what if you don’t hit anybody
It’s a difficult one, but imagine you’re on the receiving end of a visit from plod telling you that your family has been wiped out by a driver that fell asleep, I bet you’d have a different perspective on it then
switchlogic:
I actually had you down as a lot more intelligent than that. Possibly not. If the courts worked on the ‘what could have happened’ principle half of us wouldn’t have a licence.
I like you Switchy, but please don’t try to insult my intelligence just because our opinions differ.
The courts do work on the ‘what could have happened’ principle. Look at driving under the influence of drink/drugs. If you’re caught doing that you can expect to lose your licence even if nothing happened and rightly so. By your reasoning, a drunk driver could crash into a tree, hurt nobody and the shock of the accident be punishment enough?
Falling asleep at the wheel is just as bad as downing a pint of vodka before you set off. If you choose to ignore the warnings your body is giving you and press on regardless, you are no better than a drunk driver and deserve to have your licence revoked.
No, they honestly don’t work on that principle, except maybe in your deluded little mind.
The courts work according to the legislation before them, and once a person is found guilty of an offence, to the sentencing guidelines issued.
In your example of drink driving, if you are found guilty you are sentenced accordingly.
Switchlogic can’t seem to come up with a decent argument to my points, though. I fully expect him to get in a huff and leave the thread just like he did with Orys and his buses. Just beacuse he has a degree doesn;t make him better than any of us and if he’s going to comment he should condescend to come up with a decent reply when challanged.
so, mr switcher, tell me why the guy who had the bad luck to run into the children should be any more punished for his actions than the same guy who runs into a pole?
i would have the punishment for the actions, not the consequences.
Let’s think of a hypothetical case.
A driver runs while tired and falls asleep at the wheel. He didn’t intend to do it (nobody does). It is his lucky day and he runs into a telegraph pole.
Now the same driver was driving down the same road a little later and runs into a group of children enjoying a walk.
The circumstances are identical. You are simply punishing the guys bad luck. In my system they’d both be punished for what they did - fall asleep.
So you’d put a guy that hit a telegraph pole in prison for up to 10 years then? Yeah, really sensible.
The action is the same, just the consequences that are different
Falling asleep at the wheel / firing a gun into a crowd of people, the same end result could happen, so what if you don’t hit anybody
It’s a difficult one, but imagine you’re on the receiving end of a visit from plod telling you that your family has been wiped out by a driver that fell asleep, I bet you’d have a different perspective on it then
I can see how it seems like a logical idea but it really isn’t. If this was how it worked our justice system would disintegrate. Not to mention a huge amount of the population being in prison.
Switchlogic can’t seem to come up with a decent argument to my points, though. I fully expect him to get in a huff and leave the thread just like he did with Orys and his buses. Just beacuse he has a degree doesn;t make him better than any of us and if he’s going to comment he should condescend to come up with a decent reply when challanged.
so, mr switcher, tell me why the guy who had the bad luck to run into the children should be any more punished for his actions than the same guy who runs into a pole?
i would have the punishment for the actions, not the consequences.
I don’t have a degree. And I don’t think I’m better than anyone. See my last post. The justice system would fail. The prisons wouldn’t have space. Their would be public uproar for people being put in prison for having accidents. It’s just not logical. Sorry. The way I’m arguing for is the way it works in justice systems across the world. Need any more reason?
who says they would be sent to prison? i never did. Just beacuse something is done in such a way doesn’t make it right - slavery was once common all over the world.
can you defend the logic behind your position? I just can’t see any.
Let’s think of a hypothetical case.
A driver runs while tired and falls asleep at the wheel. He didn’t intend to do it (nobody does). It is his lucky day and he runs into a telegraph pole.
Now the same driver was driving down the same road a little later and runs into a group of children enjoying a walk.
The circumstances are identical. You are simply punishing the guys bad luck. In my system they’d both be punished for what they did - fall asleep.
So you’d put a guy that hit a telegraph pole in prison for up to 10 years then? Yeah, really sensible.
The action is the same, just the consequences that are different
Falling asleep at the wheel / firing a gun into a crowd of people, the same end result could happen, so what if you don’t hit anybody
It’s a difficult one, but imagine you’re on the receiving end of a visit from plod telling you that your family has been wiped out by a driver that fell asleep, I bet you’d have a different perspective on it then
I can see how it seems like a logical idea but it really isn’t. If this was how it worked our justice system would disintegrate. Not to mention a huge amount of the population being in prison.
I’m wearing my Attilla the Hun head today the same ideaology would mean that drinking and driving would carry the same sentance as causing death by driving under the influence, just because you didn’t kill anybody doesn’t matter, you could have. The differences in each case are why we have Courts and Judges rather than fixed penalties for every crime
BUT…Anyone who falls asleep and crashes should not be behind the wheel, if it ends up in an accident, no matter the damage/body count, they should lose their licence, no excuses, if they have a medical condition, they shouldn’t be driving anyway
SmashedCrabFace:
The courts do work on the ‘what could have happened’ principle. Look at driving under the influence of drink/drugs. .
Ok. Think of another example…
And no the courts don’t. The law can and does. Hence handguns are illegal etc. But even then you’d only be prosecuted for owning an illegal handgun, not murder or attempted murder
mrx:
who says they would be sent to prison? i never did. Just beacuse something is done in such a way doesn’t make it right - slavery was once common all over the world.
can you defend the logic behind your position? I just can’t see any.
Ok so you wouldn’t send a man who crashed into a group of children and maybe killed them to prison?
And all the logic I need to back up my argument is that you punish someone for what actually happened. Not what could have. People are punished for drink driving, not death caused by dangerous driving while under the influence, which is what might have happened.
I seem to have trouble staying awake during mid morning for some reason. some days I have to turn the dance music right up and smash the ■■■■ out of the steering wheel to stay awake
switchlogic:
And all the logic I need to back up my argument is that you punish someone for what actually happened. Not what could have. People are punished for drink driving, not death caused by dangerous driving while under the influence, which is what might have happened.
SmashedCrabFace:
By your reasoning, a drunk driver could crash into a tree, hurt nobody and the shock of the accident be punishment enough?
And absolutely nowhere did I say people shouldn’t be prosecuted. He would quite rightly be prosecuted for drink driving, but not for killing someone, the worst case scenario. I actually said if you’ll read it that the shock combined with a driving without due care and attention conviction would probably shake him up sufficiently.
switchlogic:
And all the logic I need to back up my argument is that you punish someone for what actually happened. Not what could have. People are punished for drink driving, not death caused by dangerous driving while under the influence, which is what might have happened.
but why? the actions were EXACTLY the same.
So EVERY accident should be prosecuted as if a death had occurred regardless of if it did or not? Is that what your saying? Where do you draw the line? Does a rear end shunt count? How about if someone wasn’t wearing a seat belt? Do they then take responsibility for their own fictional death?
