Poll: Read OP.
Poll Options
View poll results: Read OP.
The first and second question: Yes
14 14%
The first and second question: No
37 36%
"Yes" for the first question, "No" for the second question
39 38%
"No" for the first question, "Yes" for the second question
10 10%
Other / Something I'm not thinking of
2 2%
Voters: 102.
#1
I sort of have two very similar topics for this thread, both regarding punishment.

The first is this: Do you think it's ever acceptable to punish someone for an accident. In other words, they didn't have any criminal intent?

Second topic regarding punishment: Should punishment ever go beyond trying preventing re offending from the offender, simply for the sake of trying to bring about some kind of vengeful pain or suffering (pain doesn't necessarily have to be physical)?

For both of these I vote no.
Last edited by The Madcap at Jun 29, 2010,
#2
1st one yes. Negligence is always criminal
2nd one no.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#3
first- yes, depending on the circumstances of the situation (eg. disregard for safety, etc.)

second - no
#5
If the punishment is teaching them how to do whatever correctly that caused them to make an error causing harm to someone else, I don't see why anyone would disagree to punishing them with that? Just let them go free and continue doing what they were doing that could kill another person? Or did I misunderstand?

#6
Quote by Jackal58
1st one yes. Negligence is always criminal
2nd one no.

This right here.

Also, is it just me or have you been making a good number of threads like this? Proposing moral questions, etc.
#7
First: Yes

Second: Yes.

Explanation: I didn't read the whole OP. My bad. I said yes to the second one because laws/punishment also goes beyond preventing re-offending, they also discourage the committing of the act in the first place. I don't think it should be for the way described in the OP.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
Last edited by rockingamer2 at Jun 29, 2010,
#8
Quote by Flying Couch
Also, is it just me or have you been making a good number of threads like this? Proposing moral questions, etc.
Yup, sure have.
#9
If we don't punish accidents no one will be careful. Now how we punish them is a bit different. And in regards to punishment as a means to something other than just preventing recidivism, well the victim deserves to know they're being punished at least a little bit. Plus it's a deterrent for others.
#10
I meant to click the Yes and No option but I clicked yes to both. haha my bad
Quote by Tyler Durden
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

Erowid
#11
1st question: No, under certain circunstances, and actions should be taken to prevent it from happening again (which might include punishment, so I kind of contradict myself)

2nd question: No, it doesn't help anybody.

So no for both.
#12
Quote by The Madcap
Yup, sure have.


After Craigo's crown, are we?

Anyway, I agree with Jackal. Negligence resulting in an accident is criminal.

"I didn't have any criminal intention when I had 10 beers, and I sure as hell didn't mean to kill that guy when I was driving home."

DON'T MAKE ME DESTROY YOU!


___________________________________________________


TURN OFF YOUR MIND RELAX AND FLOAT DOWNSTREAM

Quote by Scumbag1792
My God, this must be the smartest/greatest guy ever.
#15
Yes and No.


Someone might drink a whole lot of alcohol and drive. If this resulted in them crashing into someone else and killing them I'd still blame the guy who got drunk. He knew driving drunk was dangerous. He clearly had no intent to kill anyone, but it still happened because of a poor decision he made. I can't excuse someone for doing something like that.
#16
I sort of agree with what people are saying about the drunk thing, but if two guys are equally intoxicated, and get in a car, and one gets lucky and doesn't kill anyone, while the other one does, they should both get the same punishment. In my opinion....
#17
Quote by The Madcap
I sort of agree with what people are saying about the drunk thing, but if two guys are equally intoxicated, and get in a car, and one gets lucky and doesn't kill anyone, while the other one does, they should both get the same punishment. In my opinion....



I disagree. You can't punish someone for something they didn't do. That's like punishing someone for thinking about murdering someone else, but not actually doing it.
#18
Quote by The Madcap
I sort of agree with what people are saying about the drunk thing, but if two guys are equally intoxicated, and get in a car, and one gets lucky and doesn't kill anyone, while the other one does, they should both get the same punishment. In my opinion....

Should they? That makes you a deontologist.
#19
Quote by daytripper75
I disagree. You can't punish someone for something they didn't do. That's like punishing someone for thinking about murdering someone else, but not actually doing it.
Well, it's more me putting the guy who killed someone at the level of the guy who didn't. Not me pushing up the guy who didn't kill someone to the guy who did.
Quote by captaincrunk
Should they? That makes you a deontologist.
How so?

Although, I don't think I gave enough thought to my post. I think that the punishment for the guy who killed someone should really only go towards preventing him from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
#20
Quote by The Madcap
How so?

Although, I don't think I gave enough thought to my post. I think that the punishment for the guy who killed someone should really only go towards preventing him from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.

If intent is the same as the deed in your eyes, you're a deontologist. Then again it sounds to me you're really just trying to deter crime, not do any sort of justice. So maybe you're just a social welfare/utilitarian.
#21
Ah, discussing ethics and moral philosophy.

Just remember that no matter what you think, the law is still the law, and even though some illegal things are harmless (i.e. curfews), you can still get busted for it.
*A list of all my gear*

Varg/J Mascis/GG Allin are all the same person.

There are two types of people in this world: people who like Bolt Thrower, and people who suck.

Death by diamonds and pearls.
#22
Quote by ConeShred
Ah, discussing ethics and moral philosophy.

Just remember that no matter what you think, the law is still the law, and even though some illegal things are harmless (i.e. curfews), you can still get busted for it.

You're the only one who's mentioned law, really.
#23
Quote by captaincrunk
You're the only one who's mentioned law, really.


Well, punishment is brought about by law, official or unofficial, in one form or another. You can't talk punishment without talking crime or law.


As for the questions, pretty much what everyone else is saying.
*A list of all my gear*

Varg/J Mascis/GG Allin are all the same person.

There are two types of people in this world: people who like Bolt Thrower, and people who suck.

Death by diamonds and pearls.
#24
Quote by ConeShred
Well, punishment is brought about by law, official or unofficial, in one form or another. You can't talk punishment without talking crime or law.


As for the questions, pretty much what everyone else is saying.

I meant that it's really more about revenge and culpability for accidents than it is about law.
#25
Quote by captaincrunk
I meant that it's really more about revenge and culpability for accidents than it is about law.



I know. I was talking in terms of enforced law. I just wanted to say that things such as revenge are more individually-administered forms of law that one may create subconsciously.


Ah, forget what I'm saying. I have been functioning for 42 hours without sleep. Don't listen to me.
*A list of all my gear*

Varg/J Mascis/GG Allin are all the same person.

There are two types of people in this world: people who like Bolt Thrower, and people who suck.

Death by diamonds and pearls.
#26
No to both, excluding gross negligence. The judiciary's only purpose should be to protect, not to seek retribution
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
#27
Quote by daytripper75
I disagree. You can't punish someone for something they didn't do. That's like punishing someone for thinking about murdering someone else, but not actually doing it.

Should we outlaw speeding then? We do prosecute people on what they didn't do in one order of ways.
#28
1) Yes; some accidents are really just bad luck, but others are caused by negligence, and the negligent party should be punished.
2) No; that's rather pointless and, given the shortcomings of pretty much every legal system in existance, unjustifiable anyway.
#29
I don't think it's right to ever punish someone beyond preventing re-offending, and if someone does something accidentally I wouldn't think they would do it again, unless they were extremely clumsy.

There should be some non-criminal thing they can do to make up for what they did, but they certainly shouldn't be treated the same as people who commit planned crimes.

Also I would put drink driving in the box of criminality rather than an accident because you know you are breaking the law when you get in your car drunk, whether or not you have an accident doesn't change the fact you are driving illegally.

Quote by Craigo
Should we outlaw speeding then? We do prosecute people on what they didn't do in one order of ways.


We basically have.

And privately-owned companies do their own mobile speed testing along places motorists know there are no cameras so go maybe 45 instead of 40.
My boyfriend got a £60 fine for going 34 in a 30 zone because of them, which is technically illegal =/
Last edited by Mistress_Ibanez at Jun 29, 2010,
#30
Quote by Jackal58
1st one yes. Negligence is always criminal
2nd one no.

This.
PPPPPPPOSTFINDER
#31
Quote by Craigo
Should we outlaw speeding then? We do prosecute people on what they didn't do in one order of ways.



Speeding is against the law. How is punishing someone for it punishing them for something they didn't do? They have to do it to get punished for it.


I don't see how that's the same as punishing someone who drives drunk in the same manner as someone who drives drunk and kills someone. They aren't the same action, even if they began in the same manner.
#32
1. If you don't punish people for accidents then every slick defense lawyer would only have to prove that the defendant didn't mean to do it, rather than that they didn't do it. In fact, separate laws exist for 'accidents,' such as manslaughter as opposed to murder.
2. Isn't that the concept of Hell?

Quote by Craigo
Should we outlaw speeding then? We do prosecute people on what they didn't do in one order of ways.

How is speeding something the person didn't do? Do we have to wait for someone to die before taking action?
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
Last edited by rgrockr at Jun 29, 2010,
#33
Quote by Jackal58
1st one yes. Negligence is always criminal
2nd one no.


+1

If you're responsible for a dangerous activity and by neglecting reasonable procedures people come to harm, you've done something wrong.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#35
Yes to the first but only so far as to prevent them/others from doing it again.

No to the second.
Quote by Nosferatu Man

T-shirts are a sign of degeneration and decline.
#36
It's debatable for either, for me, really.

First one - shouldn't be punished as such, but made aware that there was an error so they can know that they did something wrong.

Second one - depends entirely on what they did. I mean it's morally wrong to cause them further pain than preventing them but one could debate our modern methods of preventing people from re-offending.
Quote by SteveHouse
Also you're off topic. This thread is about Reva eating snowmen.
#37
Yes and then no.
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...
Quote by Necrophagist777
I'm ORION, LORD OF EVIL, give me your soul and breathe in my darkness.

YOU WILL NOT ENJOY THIS......
╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮
#38
The first one is a definite yes, negligence should be punished.

The second one I voted no. The only possible exception to that, for me, is child molesters.One on hand, they should have the same chance at getting rehabilitated as anyone else, but I don't want them getting a second chance to assault children so I'm kinda torn.
#39
Yes to the first. Yes to the second but there are some exceptions.
ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by DespisedIcon at Jun 29, 2010,