4 ms·

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The family should absolutely sue the driver for everything he's got, an avenue available beyond the paltry criminal pe

by zamfi 2y ago

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The family should absolutely sue the driver for everything he's got, an avenue available beyond the paltry criminal penalties applied here. Of course, that will not make the family whole. Additional punishment for the driver will also not make the family whole. The question is: what are our priorities as a society? This article is arguing that our priorities are terrible: as a society we create the conditions that allow and perpetuate this kind of tragedy on a daily basis, and then point fingers at the individuals when the tragedies inevitably happen. We can't do anything to make this family whole. Advocating for greater punishment will do approximately nothing to make the next family whole. This article is arguing: all we can do to make the next family whole is to stop treating traffic fatalities as unavoidable, and prevent the next tragedy by treating cars as the dangerous objects they really are, by supporting alternative modes of transportation.

deadbabe 2y ago
So because people can’t be made whole, we shouldn’t bother with greater punishments. Keep that same energy when a relative finds the driver and murders him in a rage.
- zamfi 2y ago
  No? Sounds like maybe you didn't actually read my post. In fact, I described the penalties here as "paltry" and it is totally reasonable to expect greater punishment in this case. I am also saying that this will do nothing for the next family, but you seem to have missed that point.
  - deadbabe 2y ago
    Why does it have to do anything for the next family to be worth doing?
    - zamfi 2y ago
      Why would it better to impose more severe punishment here, than to save the next family? We need to do more than just punishment, few here are saying punishment is not "worth doing".
      - deadbabe 2y ago
        What do you propose we do exactly? Because it sounds like you’re basically saying nothing. At the bare minimum, keeping this driver locked up behind bars prevents him from doing the same thing again someday.
        seoulmetro 2y ago
        He said nothing a lot in this thread. He basically wants to keep repeating the virtue signalling idea that all people are good and punishment is bad. He thinks you can cure bad actions by restricting freedom of actions in the first place. It's pretty sad and unfortunately terrible. But it is definitely "easier to feel good" with it.
        zamfi 2y ago
        Oof. You two seem to be arguing that you can cure bad actions with punishment, an idea that’s been debated ad nauseum for pretty much the entire recorded history of humanity. It’s fine, it provides a mild disincentive, in some cases it works a bit, but it overwhelmingly doesn’t solve the problems discussed in this thread: mistakes people make, sometimes innocently, and sometimes because of lapses of judgment. You can’t punish your way into better judgment, people will continue to make mistakes. We’re not talking about crimes with intent here. We’re talking about screwups that killed people. The approach that works is to fix systems so that mistakes are harder to make or their consequences are mitigated. This is sometimes called defense in depth: many overlapping protections mean that accidents are less likely. Extra defenses mean that when mistakes do happen their consequences are less severe. (None of this has anything to do with whether you punish people who act maliciously, and is actually independent of whether you also do that.) The FAA is a good example: mandated redundancies, the NTSB does a root cause analysis on every accident to figure out how it made it through defenses. As a result flying is one of the safest modes of transport, even despite Boeing’s recent attempts to undo that legacy. For the cases in question here, roads could be redesigned to reduce the likelihood and severity of vehicles impacting pedestrians. In another message in this thread I listed eight possible measures society could take to do this. Honestly it’s starting to feel like it’s the “more punishment!” crowd that’s virtue signaling at this point. Of course it’s easier to feel like you’ve solved the problem when you punish any person you can point a finger at, it’s much harder actually getting to the root of anything.

by zamfi 2y ago

deadbabe 2y ago

So because people can’t be made whole, we shouldn’t bother with greater punishments. Keep that same energy when a relative finds the driver and murders him in a rage.

zamfi 2y ago
No? Sounds like maybe you didn't actually read my post. In fact, I described the penalties here as "paltry" and it is totally reasonable to expect greater punishment in this case. I am also saying that this will do nothing for the next family, but you seem to have missed that point.
- deadbabe 2y ago
  Why does it have to do anything for the next family to be worth doing?
  - zamfi 2y ago
    Why would it better to impose more severe punishment here, than to save the next family? We need to do more than just punishment, few here are saying punishment is not "worth doing".
    - deadbabe 2y ago
      What do you propose we do exactly? Because it sounds like you’re basically saying nothing. At the bare minimum, keeping this driver locked up behind bars prevents him from doing the same thing again someday.
      - seoulmetro 2y ago
        He said nothing a lot in this thread. He basically wants to keep repeating the virtue signalling idea that all people are good and punishment is bad. He thinks you can cure bad actions by restricting freedom of actions in the first place. It's pretty sad and unfortunately terrible. But it is definitely "easier to feel good" with it.
        zamfi 2y ago
        Oof. You two seem to be arguing that you can cure bad actions with punishment, an idea that’s been debated ad nauseum for pretty much the entire recorded history of humanity. It’s fine, it provides a mild disincentive, in some cases it works a bit, but it overwhelmingly doesn’t solve the problems discussed in this thread: mistakes people make, sometimes innocently, and sometimes because of lapses of judgment. You can’t punish your way into better judgment, people will continue to make mistakes. We’re not talking about crimes with intent here. We’re talking about screwups that killed people. The approach that works is to fix systems so that mistakes are harder to make or their consequences are mitigated. This is sometimes called defense in depth: many overlapping protections mean that accidents are less likely. Extra defenses mean that when mistakes do happen their consequences are less severe. (None of this has anything to do with whether you punish people who act maliciously, and is actually independent of whether you also do that.) The FAA is a good example: mandated redundancies, the NTSB does a root cause analysis on every accident to figure out how it made it through defenses. As a result flying is one of the safest modes of transport, even despite Boeing’s recent attempts to undo that legacy. For the cases in question here, roads could be redesigned to reduce the likelihood and severity of vehicles impacting pedestrians. In another message in this thread I listed eight possible measures society could take to do this. Honestly it’s starting to feel like it’s the “more punishment!” crowd that’s virtue signaling at this point. Of course it’s easier to feel like you’ve solved the problem when you punish any person you can point a finger at, it’s much harder actually getting to the root of anything.