The Glade 4.0

Or, you could handle it like any other case, and determine if there's evidence of gross negligence. By your logic, we should just prosecute anyone who kills someone automatically, because, well, they might just say "it was self defense."



Statistically speaking, that is incorrect. Accidents are not preventable. So there will be accidents. What are the reasons for prosecuting a crime? 1) punishment, 2) deterrence.

Now, you can "deter" gross negligence, but you cannot deter accidents. By definition, the offender did not intend to commit the offense, therefore it is already deterred. As for punishment, what is the point of punishing someone for a mistake? What value does it add to society? What do you get out of seeing me saddled with a criminal record, or worse, placed in prison? What is the purpose?

I'm pretty sure we already only prosecute criminal cases where there is evidence of gross negligence, so that was assumed in my statements and I have to assume in DE's as well.

As for accidents, can you give me an example of an accident where you feel it would not be preventable? I started where you are and as I thought about it, really almost any scenario I could think of eventually lead back to someone or something that could have been addressed.

almost Anything can be prevented, sometimes by multiple parties, but the question comes back to is it reasonable and does the failure to prevent it equate to criminal action.

Almost any vehicle collision can be prevented by slower driving/paying more attention. If I was driving slower or paying more attention, i could have possibly avoided colliding with the driver who turned left in front of me last year. However I was going the legal speed and if I had been paying more attention, I may have still assumed he was going to stop as the law said he should. Thus the criminal onus shouldn't be on me. Also if i had gone a different route, but again i am free to go any legal route I wish.

In other examples you can throw in other factors such as ice, snow, and items falling off of a truck or out of the sky, but ultimately someone somewhere could have done something to prevent it. The nuances are pretty vast so we have investigators and juries to sort things out. Sometimes they screw up, but I think its the best system fallible humans can have.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

What would be beyond stupidity would be not prosecuting them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Any individual accident can be avoided, but "accidents" in general cannot be. There's already massive deterrent for accidents, and yet they happen constantly.

If it's beyond stupidity to not prosecute these, then you should be able to illustrate some substantial value.

The substantial value is in detering accidents by getting people to realize if they don't exercise care, they will not get off scot-free.

Furthermore, you just wanted to make a one-line post about "**** retarded hurf durf" and then try to claim you can't deter accidents because they're accidental. That's **** idiotic, and I'm not wasting my time on someone who takes a position that obviously contrary to reality just because he doesn't like it that people sometimes end up in jail.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think it's his point that the definition of "accident" means it isn't something that is caused by carelessness or negligence; it's just a mistake. Humans are imperfect. We cannot avoid making mistakes. Therefore, punishing them doesn't help, because you can't deter something that was not done willingly to begin with. So in many cases, criminal charges end up looking just like petty vindictiveness that serves no point other than satisfying some hypocritical, misguided sense of justice.

In other cases, though, it was carelessness or negligence, and in those cases, it's beyond a mistake, it's preventable, and someone's lack of proper care caused a death. In that case, it makes sense to throw the book at them.

Now, how do you tell the difference? That's a tough call.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Given that the crimes in questions are misdemeanors, its far from a serious miscarriage of justice to leave those questions in the hands of the jury.

The simple fact is that while you don't deter accidents per se, you can deter negligence which causes accidents. When people think there's no reprecussions if there's an accident, they simply won't take the same care. As it is, they aren't that careful; it would be far worse if people could know that killing someone would be something they could just say "Oh, sorry, my bad" to and get off. Claiming that you "can't deter accidents" is simply splitting semantic hairs.

Hypocrisy, by the way, is totally irrelevant in every way. Hypocrisy doesn't even enter into these questions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

Do you have any idea how farcical your posts are?

_________________

for sure. My bad. I think we do a decent job, if declining fatalities and those videos of drivers in Russia are any indication.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

What is contrary to reality and **** idiotic is the suggestion that you can deter accidents. You can deter recklessness, but that's about it.

So basically, you've outlined the only value in prosecuting accidents as deterrents for future accidents. This basically equates to a criminal record for "not seeing him". Ruining people's lives for the sake of feeling better about the inherent risk of driving. You can't deter accidents, so you're not gaining anything other than feeling better. The cost? Legal expenditures, potential jail housing costs, loss of production form otherwise law-abiding citizens.

/golf clap