4 ms·

> Like the article says, "Criminal law punishes bad intentions and bad acts, not traffic accidents.” To be clear, the defense attorney of someone who killed a

by Zak 9y ago

> Like the article says, "Criminal law punishes bad intentions and bad acts, not traffic accidents.” To be clear, the defense attorney of someone who killed a person with her car said that, not the author of the article. I think driving a car with reckless disregard to the safety of others is a bad act. There may be no malice, but it's not behavior that should be accepted in present day society. At best, it's more selfish than is safe to allow in an area with even modest population density. That said, I'm not usually a big fan of punishment and don't care so much about whether people who do it are punished harshly enough. More important is to keep them from doing it again. Someone who injures or kills another person with a car should, if their negligence was a significant factor, lose their driver's license for some time and have to take active steps to improve their driving ability before getting their license back.

rhino369 9y ago
Of course reckless driving is a bad act. But most accidents aren't the result of reckless driving. And we don't treat cell phone driving as reckless driving, at least typically not. It's just a 50 dollar fine. Based on empirical data, maybe we should punish all cell phone drives as reckless like we do drunk drivers. But it makes no sense to single people out only if there was an accident.
- Zak 9y ago
  > But it makes no sense to single people out only if there was an accident. A driver could reasonably argue that one distraction or another didn't significantly impair their ability to drive, but when it results in an accident, that question is answered. I do, however believe that distracted driving should result in something more than a $50 fine.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    But that's a bad argument, which is often used by drunk drivers to justify their behavior. "I'm fine, i've never gotten into an accident." And they do.
    - Zak 9y ago
      The legal system draws a distinction: DUI-homicide is classified as second degree murder in many states, while DUI by itself itself is a misdemeanor. Of course, this is a bad measure of the level of recklessness, but the legal system has taken the degree of bad result into account along with the degree of bad intent. Murder is worse than attempted murder, etc....

by Zak 9y ago

rhino369 9y ago

Of course reckless driving is a bad act. But most accidents aren't the result of reckless driving. And we don't treat cell phone driving as reckless driving, at least typically not. It's just a 50 dollar fine. Based on empirical data, maybe we should punish all cell phone drives as reckless like we do drunk drivers. But it makes no sense to single people out only if there was an accident.

Zak 9y ago
> But it makes no sense to single people out only if there was an accident. A driver could reasonably argue that one distraction or another didn't significantly impair their ability to drive, but when it results in an accident, that question is answered. I do, however believe that distracted driving should result in something more than a $50 fine.
- rhino369 9y ago
  But that's a bad argument, which is often used by drunk drivers to justify their behavior. "I'm fine, i've never gotten into an accident." And they do.
  - Zak 9y ago
    The legal system draws a distinction: DUI-homicide is classified as second degree murder in many states, while DUI by itself itself is a misdemeanor. Of course, this is a bad measure of the level of recklessness, but the legal system has taken the degree of bad result into account along with the degree of bad intent. Murder is worse than attempted murder, etc....