3 ms·
What an awful way of looking at things. So anything you do in the car is irrelevant to the outcomes and shouldn't be punished? Would you have said the same abou
by m3rc 9y ago
What an awful way of looking at things. So anything you do in the car is irrelevant to the outcomes and shouldn't be punished? Would you have said the same about DUI?
- closeparen 9y agoDo we execute doctors for murder every time it's conceivably possible that a patient's death could have been avoided? The law is hardly ever consequentialist. In almost any position where you can kill someone by mistake in the course of a legitimate activity, punishing the killer requires evidence that they were unusually reckless.
- Filligree 9y ago> The law is hardly ever consequentialist. I would actually argue the opposite. The law is almost always consequentalist, it merely has a wider view of the consequences. Punishing someone for a mistake when they weren't unusually reckless would have negative consequences for society that outweigh the potential benefits of doing so, therefore we don't.
- m3rc 9y agoWe 100% hold doctors accountable for killing patients if it was through negligence.
- closeparen 9y agoCorrect. We punish doctors for negligence, not for the outcome alone.
- rhino369 9y agoNo, I'm saying the punishment for risktaking or negligence should be the same whether or not the results were bad. I'd harshly punish DUI but I wouldn't suddenly demand 20 years for a DUI fatality. The crime is causing the risk.
- m3rc 9y agoThat's not only a ridiculous way at looking at things but also not how the law works. Murder and attempted murder are different charges dude.
- closeparen 9y agoYes they are, and that is the ridiculous way of looking at things. Poor murder skills do not morally redeem homicidal intention.