2 ms·
> The correct way to give people an incentive not to cause harm is to punish them if they cause harm. Not if they do something which you or the government think
by ilyt 4y ago
> The correct way to give people an incentive not to cause harm is to punish them if they cause harm. Not if they do something which you or the government thinks might cause harm if enough people did it. Actual events trump guesses.
Sooo let me get it straight, you're saying that someone should be allowed to drive in wrong lane or drive in middle of road and only get punished when they actually crash into someone? Because that's what you're saying.
> If I actually cause an accident, and I get penalized more because I exceeded the recommended limit, that's fine; that's what the law is for. But not until I actually cause harm.
Can't punish a corpse, can't resurrect whoever you killed.
- pdonis 4y ago>* you're saying that someone should be allowed to drive in wrong lane or drive in middle of road and only get punished when they actually crash into someone?* I'm saying that the law should not be able to punish them if they haven't caused actual harm. If they do cause actual harm, I have no problem at all with these things being treated as aggravating factors that increase the punishment. > Can't punish a corpse, can't resurrect whoever you killed. That's just as true under our current system as it would be under the kind of system I have been describing. But under our current system, as I have pointed out, people lose respect for the law in general when the law punishes them when they haven't caused actual harm. That doesn't seem to me like a good thing. Nor does it seem like a way to reduce the amount of actual harm people cause. Loss of respect for the law in general means people are less likely to pay attention even to laws that do relate to actual harms.