General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCriminal sentences should reflect actions, not consequences.
If you drink-drive and kill someone you will probably be sent to jail for a long time.
If you drink-drive and get pulled over without hitting anyone you may well just get a caution or a slap on the wrist.
If you punch someone, knock them down and they get up again, you will get a light sentence.
If you punch someone, knock them down a few inches further to the left, and they hit their head and die, your sentence will be much heavier.
Attempted murder is often not treated as seriously as murder.
I think that this is wrong. I think that criminal sentences should only reflect the actions the accused took, not circumstances beyond their control. Those who take reckless gambles with other people's lives should, insofar as possible (which is obviously a severe limitation) be sentenced based on the likelihood that their actions would have killed someone, not one whether they got lucky or unlucky.
Whether that means stiffer sentences for the lucky, lighter ones for the unlucky, or both, is open to debate. But the only things it's fair to punish someone for - and the only things it's fair to treat as mitigating circumstances in their defence - are things under their control.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I swing a bat in a crowded area and get arrested. According to you, I should get the same punishment whether or not I killed anyone or did zero damage while so doing. After all, it is 'beyond my control' whether or not someone happened to step into the path of that bat at just the right moment.
So should my bat wielder who completely failed to hit anyone be sentenced exactly the same as a bat wielder who actually struck and killed a small child? After all, he was just 'lucky' he happened to miss everyone.
As per your last paragraph, should both men get a penalty that reflects swinging and missing, or swinging and killing?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If so then yes, both men should get the same sentence.
If not then it's not beyond your control whether you hit someone or not.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)If someone uses a gun, that, usually, is not a crime. If someone uses a gun and the bullet hits someone and that person dies, that, usually, is a crime. The result of the action of using the gun is the crime.
Unless you are advocating that using a gun becomes a crime with the punishment being the same as murder, your argument doesn't work.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)merely third-degree battery/assault?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In terms of punishment anyway.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But the practice would be to punish everyone much more harshly, or all the poor people anyway.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)based legal system. But in theory (and maybe at some time in the future), a system that judges an individual by what's in their control would be a lot more equitable and make more sense. The problem is, many people still see the legal system as a way of getting some sort of revenge.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)So you seem to be arguing that every DUI should result in an automatic prison sentence.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Because I'm arguing for some form of averaging of the sentences, not always imposing the higher or the lower.
Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Original post)
randome This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)It is complex - reducing criminal law sentencing to such simple media friendly terms is like reducing brain surgery to ditch digging.
Look up the "thin skull" principal in criminal law sentencing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not all drunk drivers are equally dangerous, for example. The fact that you actually kill someone means that most likely you were engaging in a more dangerous form of drunk driving. For example, driving drunk for a couple blocks on an isolated road is less dangerous than trying to drive drunk for 100 miles on the interstate.
So, in a sense, the current system makes the average or expected punishment for drunk driving commensurate with the expected damage. If you are a "relatively safe" drunk driver, you are causing less harm, and you are also less likely to serve a long prison term.
There's also the fact that when someone dies, there's a victim and their family who want justice.