What difference does the "why" make?

[cpacini]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: cpacini

Originally posted by: Chiropteran


Wild animals- most likely driver error, if you swerve to avoid an animal and cause an accident it's your fault, the correct thing to do is break gently if possible but you shouldn't swerve and it's better to hit the animal than it is to hit another vehicle or lose control.

What if the animal is large enough to potentially injure/kill the driver or a passenger?

What animals are larger than an SUV or semi-trailer? I can't think of any animal that would cause more damage than a head-on collision.

The point was that the driver would be forced to make a decision to swerve before he is able to fully assess the situation, and thus lose control of the vehicle or cause a collision.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: cpacini
The point was that the driver would be forced to make a decision to swerve before he is able to fully assess the situation, and thus lose control of the vehicle or cause a collision.

That is why you aren't supposed to "make a decision".


You are never supposed to swerve out of your lane, even if an animal jumps in front of you.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: jonks
There's a difference between honestly questioning popular opinion and being purposefully obtuse.

Obtuse?

I thought I was making a point.

Everything that is considered an accident can be turned into a case where someone is responsible, if you try hard enough. Just like an accident involving alcohol isn't really considered an accident, sometimes regardless of the normal measures of fault. I recall an article a year or so ago about some kids street racing who hit a couple, but the kids got off because the driver in the other car was legally DUI, even though it had nothing to do with the cause of the accident.

My point is this: if you try hard enough, you can find someone to blame for any accident. So what really is the difference between intentional crime or accidental crime?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

We prosecute criminals, NOT TO PUNISH THEM, but to keep the rest of us safe. This is why we don't torture torture-murderers. Eye for an eye is not the basis of law.

I get that.

But really, would you would feel safe around someone who killed his wife accidentally?

Would you feel safe driving in the car with an epileptic who previously killed 3 of his passengers when he had a fit while driving?

A killer is a killer, accident or not they should be removed from society for the safety of the rest of us.

Good lord. You've got some serious issues if you can't recognize that grey areas exist in real life, including tragic accidents versus unspeakable acts, as well as varying degrees of corrective action (like taking away an epileptic's drivers license as opposed to 25-to-life).

I think you might be a sociopath.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Good lord. You've got some serious issues if you can't recognize that grey areas exist in real life, including tragic accidents versus unspeakable acts, as well as varying degrees of corrective action (like taking away an epileptic's drivers license as opposed to 25-to-life).

I think you have some serious issues if you can't understand the difference between arguing a point of view and believing or condoning it. Haven't you heard of playing the devil's advocate? I want to hear justification for the things people are claiming in this thread, so I make examples. Some of those examples may seem ridiculous, but they are plausible and probably occur more often than you think.

I don't get why people get so worked up they have to start with the personal attacks and name calling. If you don't want to discuss the subject, stay out of the damn thread, it really is that easy.

I think you might be a sociopath.

Life would certainly be easier if I was.

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks
There's a difference between honestly questioning popular opinion and being purposefully obtuse.

Obtuse?

I thought I was making a point.

Everything that is considered an accident can be turned into a case where someone is responsible, if you try hard enough. Just like an accident involving alcohol isn't really considered an accident, sometimes regardless of the normal measures of fault. I recall an article a year or so ago about some kids street racing who hit a couple, but the kids got off because the driver in the other car was legally DUI, even though it had nothing to do with the cause of the accident.

My point is this: if you try hard enough, you can find someone to blame for any accident. So what really is the difference between intentional crime or accidental crime?

Oh really! Have you ever heard of something called rogue lightning? Or earthquakes wait, wait I suppose someone should be able to predict an earthquake and not be on the road driving when it happens huh. Or maybe the manufactures should make cars earthquake proof. What about lightning, it can come out of sky that is clear?..kill the driver of a car and that car could cross into incoming traffic. Who are you going to blame? God? Good luck with that.

True accidents happen where no one can be clearly blamed being able to accept that is a sign of maturity. Even accidents where people can be blamed, your method of dealing with things is to hate, hurt, and cause more fear. What if you chose to forgive, it takes an amazing human to do that, forgive and reach out to the person who hurt you.

Even if we did do what you are saying, as I said before, it would change very little you should know that from looking at history. So it?s obviously not the answer.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Oh really! Have you ever heard of something called rogue lightning? Or earthquakes wait, wait I suppose someone should be able to predict an earthquake and not be on the road driving when it happens huh.

Good point. I did ignore those possibilities. Those would be true accidents, I suppose.

The thing is, those are incredibly rare events. The majority of accidents are of the examples discussed earlier, which ultimately can be blamed on somebody.

I admit I made a mistake when I ignored the possibility of "true" accidents, but it doesn't really change anything. The majority of accidents are caused by the fault of some human.

And while sometimes the person responsible is held responsible legally and punished (example drunk driving), if the cause is something else such as talking on a cellphone, putting on makeup, or driving with insufficient sleep, the punishment is much less severe or even non-existent even though the danger and damage to society is the same or worse.

 

[paulxcook]

I think there's an easy distinction to make here. A racist murderer and a psychotic (but non-racist) murderer are both malicious and harmful people with the intent to kill. A drunk driver is often just an idiot who made a stupid decision. I am in favor of harsher punishments for drunk drivers, but motive cannot be completely discounted.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Good lord. You've got some serious issues if you can't recognize that grey areas exist in real life, including tragic accidents versus unspeakable acts, as well as varying degrees of corrective action (like taking away an epileptic's drivers license as opposed to 25-to-life).

I think you have some serious issues if you can't understand the difference between arguing a point of view and believing or condoning it. Haven't you heard of playing the devil's advocate? I want to hear justification for the things people are claiming in this thread, so I make examples. Some of those examples may seem ridiculous, but they are plausible and probably occur more often than you think.

I don't get why people get so worked up they have to start with the personal attacks and name calling. If you don't want to discuss the subject, stay out of the damn thread, it really is that easy.

I think you might be a sociopath.

Life would certainly be easier if I was.

Indeed, I have heard of the Devil's Advocate, and judging by your posts you're not even remotely playing it....especially when you substantiate your position by using phrases like "IMHO" or "I don't agree..." or otherwise stating your arguments as absolutes and not hypotheticals.

But you're right, there is no real reason to get worked up. I just hope you're never pulled for jury duty.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: paulxcook
I think there's an easy distinction to make here. A racist murderer and a psychotic (but non-racist) murderer are both malicious and harmful people with the intent to kill. A drunk driver is often just an idiot who made a stupid decision. I am in favor of harsher punishments for drunk drivers, but motive cannot be completely discounted.

That is what everyone is saying, but WHY?

The end result is someone died.

Why is it that gross incompetence required to accidentally kill someone is seen as an acceptable part of society but a killing done intentionally with forethought is viewed as some horrible thing that must be severely punished?

The thing about motive is that it's an unknown. You never really know. Cops make assumptions, lawyers build a case, but nobody really knows. Maybe it was just a coincidence that the dead woman's husband bought a life insurance policy in her name three weeks prior.

 

[imported_Baloo]

It matters. The "why" shows intent. That is important in both deciding guilt and sentencing.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: paulxcook
I think there's an easy distinction to make here. A racist murderer and a psychotic (but non-racist) murderer are both malicious and harmful people with the intent to kill. A drunk driver is often just an idiot who made a stupid decision. I am in favor of harsher punishments for drunk drivers, but motive cannot be completely discounted.

That is what everyone is saying, but WHY?

The end result is someone died.

Why is it that gross incompetence required to accidentally kill someone is seen as an acceptable part of society but a killing done intentionally with forethought is viewed as some horrible thing that must be severely punished?

The thing about motive is that it's an unknown. You never really know. Cops make assumptions, lawyers build a case, but nobody really knows. Maybe it was just a coincidence that the dead woman's husband bought a life insurance policy in her name three weeks prior.

Probably because we tend to be a compassionate community, until certain cultural barriers are breached. People don't want to think that they could wind up in the same harsh punishment for something that could have just as easily happened to them. It's sympathetic and self-serving at the same time.

Moreover, it does no good for community resources or morale to needlessly punish, nor does it rehabilitate someone who wasn't a threat for re-offense. More likely, putting a good person into a population of bad people has more chance of corrupting that person in the end.

True, motive or lack thereof can't really be guaranteed, and is not a factor in some cases. But when evidence points one way or another, it can help the appointed people (judge, jury, media, whoever) to make more informed decisions and judgements about that person and his/her character, and whether they feel that person is truly a threat to the community by re-offending or committing some other crime.