Retribution, some part deterrence, but in large portion to give meaning to the death for those left behind who are forced to live without the people they love and to let them feel a sense of justice being served. In most cases as I have said over and over again it never comes to this. Morally though, at least to me, there is a difference in the 4 examples and it has to do with responsibility. The first link in the chain was the choice to do the activity which causes the death. I don't think sending reckless and drunk drivers to jail works in the long term. But there is no technology currently available which can keep them out of cars. Rather than give anymore theoreticals tell me how you would deal with this
. Should he have been given a ticket for reckless driving and DUI and released? Most people in the state believe justice was served.
You mean like sending murderers to jail works in the long term but there exists no technology which keeps them away from knives?
Anyway, then this is where we differ. I don't see retribution as a goal the justice system should be serving. Frankly, I think it's barbaric.
Yes, I do believe that he should have been punished exactly the same as other school bus drivers that DUI. I am not arguing they should be released, I think driving a school bus under the influence should get you in jail whether there's an accident or not.
I'll ask another question. Why is it important to you to speed? Why does it bother you so much that I feel speeding is a broach of the privilege that society allows you to exercise. I speed. I feel no special guilt about that. I suppose that I drive okay, at least I have only one running violation in my years behind the wheel and I haven't killed anyone yet. But I do accept that I am violating the agreement that I made, and expect a truck to fall on me if I kill somebody because of it. But I find the reason that I do it is simply because I'm impatient and in a hurry, not because it serves any purpose. I relax and slow down if I leave earlier and plan my trip.
Why do you assume that I'm trying to make it easier to speed? On the other hand, if my suggestions are ever implemented, it'll probably give higher penalties for speeding. Also, if you're knowingly violating that agreement, I assume you know that you're putting other people's lives in danger. My point is that you should be deterred from doing that. I expect that you speed because, for one reason or another, you don't think you're going to kill anyone, and thus there will be no significant consequence. A fine at most. This shows quite clearly that punishing the unlucky doesn't work as deterrence. Nobody thinks they'll be the guy that runs over the five-year old. Jailing them for ten years doesn't stop you speeding. But you wouldn't speed if speeding carried automatic jail time.
curtis95112 wrote:Just answer me this question. What purpose does applying the eggshell skull rule serve?
To keep you from killing your rich Uncle and then claiming he was about to die anyway of terminal cancer to escape the law.
Well this has been fun.
You're coming awfully close to a presumption of guilt. You are, in effect, assuming that the killer had foreknowledge of the victims condition. Of course, the rule gets past this by punishing even the ones for whom lack of foreknowledge can be established. I don't necessarily see that as a good thing.