A Question of Morality [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

TheFifthElement

01-01-2009, 11:08 AM

Here, I have a question for Lit-net. I'd be interested in your responses to this.

This is something I did in college.

I'm going to give you two scenarios and I'd like you to decide who has committed the greater crime. If you like you can give your reasons why, and comment on what sort of sentence the crime should carry. There's a poll for your answer.

Scenario 1

A man drives home from work. He lives just over half way up a hill in a well populated surburban area. He's lived there for a long time, lets say 10 years. He doesn't have a driveway so he parks on the street. One night he comes home from work, he's tired; it's been a long day. He parks his car as normal and goes into the house. What he doesn't realise is that he hasn't applied his handbrake correctly. Whilst he is in the house his car rolls down the hill and into another car, damaging it and the a lamp post immediately behind the car. A neighbours wall is damaged.

Scenario 2

A man drives home from work. He lives just over half way up a hill in a well populated surburban area. He's lived there for a long time, lets say 10 years. He doesn't have a driveway so he parks on the street. One night he comes home from work, he's tired; it's been a long day. He parks his car as normal and goes into the house. What he doesn't realise is that he hasn't applied his handbrake correctly. Whilst he is in the house his car rolls down the hill and runs over a young girl playing in the street. The girl later dies from her injuries.

What say you Lit-net?

papayahed

01-01-2009, 11:17 AM

The original act was not setting the handbrake. The outcomes are unfortunate but I don't think a crime has been committed.

LostPrincess13

01-01-2009, 11:17 AM

Hello there, I'm new and I was just browsing through when this caught my eye. Well, it seems to me, the crimes are of equal magnitude. I mean, the guy did the same thing in both scenarios, but the only difference was the outcome. In the first, only a wall was damaged while in the second, a girl dies. It would seem that the second calls for a heavier punishment for a life has been taken, but the thing is, the outcomes were out of the man's hands. For me, it should be his actions that should determine the graveness of the crime.

maraki16

01-01-2009, 11:28 AM

well, i think the second scenario would be considered as the greater crime because of the outcome. the actions are indeed the same but the feelings of anger would be aroused greatly in the second one. so for this reason and only, because a human loss involves in it, i believe it would be considered as the greater one.

librarius_qui

01-01-2009, 11:36 AM

Right: a property can be recovered. Who's going to pay, that's the question? Can he pay, can't he? ... What will the judges decide? ...

Second situation. Girl's life can't be recovered. Is it his guilt or not? How are the parents feeling about it? Do they think he was guilty for having let the car loose. Did he do on purpose? Can you forgive such a thing, facing such a loss?

*

First case: material sacrifice is to be given to a man.

Second case: material sacrifice is to be given to the local gods.

The man has no guilt, but he is to grieve together with the parents, because he didn't wish such a thing to happen, and he will answer for it before the local gods ... As will the parents of the child, according to their wrath or forgiveness.

Dealing with men is easier than dealing with gods.

In this case, he didn't commit the act on purpose. (But how's he feeling? This shall be judged by the local judges and priests.)

If he grieves, it was "an accident".

Easy, very easy to make the theory. You never know how people will react. Or yourself (or myself).

That's what I think.~

So, once it's theoretical, answer to the poll cannot be given, not by me.
And I hope I'm never involved in such a horrible case!

Good to question, anyhow. It could be in the "philosophy reading" board.

Libri,

kandaurov

01-01-2009, 12:04 PM

Not sure why you think it's relevant that he had he been living there for 50 years or two weeks, but alright. There is negligence in the act, and if there is an accident he will have to pay for it, so it's a crime. The first case is property damage; the second, though not murder because there was no intent, is the result of negligence, and hence manslaught. The latter is, therefore, the greater crime.

kandaurov

01-01-2009, 12:36 PM

I sounded all sure of myself but I couldn't help but consult my dad afterwards (he's a judge, you see). He says that the first case may or may not be a crime, adding that not all ethically censurable actions are liable to be punished as crimes (according to the Portuguese law this instance wouldn't); however, the second case is always a crime (manslaughter due to gross negligence).

Shalot

01-01-2009, 12:53 PM

papayahed

01-01-2009, 12:54 PM

Why is the little girl playing in the street? Where are her parents?

:lol:I was wondering the same thing.

librarius_qui

01-01-2009, 01:12 PM

(the 5th element's profile says that "sometimes she's a mum" ...)

TheFifthElement

01-01-2009, 01:16 PM

Why is the little girl playing in the street? Where are her parents? The man could be found guilty of manslaughter due to gross negligence, but a little girl is playing in the street, where cars are driven. What if she had been playing in the street and someone who was driving carefully and under the speed limit hit her?

Hehehehe, everyone's a critic.

The little girl was playing just outside her house. She didn't see the car coming. Her Mum was watching her through the kitchen window and saw the car but there was nothing she could do. She stood in the window crying 'Noooooo' but the little girl didn't hear her.

Where do you live Shalot? Kids play on the streets quite commonly in housing estates in UK. Anyone entering a housing estate in UK expects them. It's the best place to play ball (ok, maybe not on a hill, but it does add an element of challenge ;) )

kandaurov

01-01-2009, 02:19 PM

Loved the dramatization of the scene, 5th! This is why I always played with Legos, you see.

Shalot, if he had been driving safely it wouldn't be manslaughter, seeing there was no negligence on the driver's part - it wouldn't be a crime at all.

Thespian1975

01-01-2009, 02:33 PM

Driving without due care and atttention, whatever the consequences is a crime.

I once skidded on ice and hit a wall. I had points put on my licence, but if I had hit a girl I would have gone to jail. The "crime" is the same yet on is punished more than the other.

This is as it should be though. The result of the crime is what matters to the police and court.

Shalot

01-01-2009, 04:39 PM

Yeah, kids here walk down the street (to the side) but actual playing in the road doesn't happen a lot. If there's the possibilty that cars are going to be coming at some point, whether they're being driven or out of control rolling, then I probably wouldn't allow my kids to play in the street at all.

When I was growing up, some older kids played street hockey, but they were older - preteens to teenagers. And they always got out of the road. But I don't know what it's like in the UK. If it were a cul de sac or something, I could see it, as long as the parent were supervising closely, as in outside with the child.

If I were the defense lawyer, I would probably try to plead it down and I would bring up the fact that a young child was playing in the street. I'm not trying to criticize anyone here, but if it were my child, she wouldn't be outside in the road while I watched from the kitchen.

My children, if I ever have any, will probably hate me because I will be overprotective in that way. If there are sharks in the water, I don't go swimming.

qimissung

01-01-2009, 08:06 PM

I chose scenario 2 as the greater crime.Initially I didn't think either was a crime, and I hadn't gotten around to thinking of manslaughter. But the death of a person as a reslult of negligence can certainly be considered a 'crime'. It had the worst outcome, therefore it was the worst crime, in mho.

Also, my kids played in the street when they were growing up-usually soccer or hockey. The yards in my neighborhood are minuscule so they weren't really an option. In a neighborhood one should expect to see children out and about and drive accordingly. Did you know that while driving down a street you can see under the cars parked on the side of the road ahead of you?

papayahed

01-01-2009, 08:24 PM

But shouldn't the regular brakes work on the car? I don't even know where my handbrake is let alone us it.

Virgil

01-01-2009, 09:03 PM

I think the crimes are equal, a gross negligence as Shalot called it. But the ramifications of the crime is much more serious in scenario two. I'm not sure how it works but i would think that he could be charged with manslaughter in that case. And there are different degrees of manslaughter here. I've never understood that, but of course I'm not lawyer.

We used to play in the side streets growing up in Brooklyn all the time, though were were teens or close to teen. But the car could have jumped the curb and hit anyone.

Virgil

01-01-2009, 09:05 PM

But shouldn't the regular brakes work on the car? I don't even know where my handbrake is let alone us it.

Papaya most people in Europe drive manuals, not automatics. They have to apply the hand brake to lock the car.

JacobF

01-01-2009, 10:03 PM

If you analyze it from the perspective of the man, the crimes are equal. He forgot to put his handbrake on. But, from a victim's point of view, taking a life is much greater a crime (even if it was accidental) than damaging someone's property. So now we need to choose whether the crime itself lies in the cause or in the effect.

Personally, I think the crime lies within the effect. George Bush invaded Iraq under the pretense that weapons of mass destruction were held there. As we all know, there weren't any. He committed a misdeed. But, he said that there were weapons of mass destruction, didn't he? If we say the crime lies in the cause then he would be completely innocent and his invasion of Iraq would have been just. Of course, I don't mean to compare these two scenarios to the military invasion of an entire country, but the logic remains the same. The crime lies in the effect.

But another side note -- while the crime lies in the effect, how do we determine the consequences? Should each consequence be attached to the crime with no exceptions? Of course not. Another scenario -- a man is driving down the street. He runs over a little girl. The girl ran right in front of his car and he couldn't possibly have seen her. A complete accident. Then, let's say a drunk man is driving down the street. He runs over a little girl. Should the former crime receive the same consequence as the latter? No. But, the original question was which scenario is a greater crime, not which one should receive more dire consequences. Once again, this paragraph was just a side note.

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 05:23 AM

Jacob, your third paragraph is not a side note at all - it is the necessary counter to the second paragraph. A crime doesn't lie in the effect at all. Consider these two scenarious: as I said earlier, if you observe every rule of safe driving and yet you run over a child it is not a crime, because it was not your fault and you could have done nothing to prevent it; whereas if you go for the kill and the girl luckily dogdes the car, this is a crime because there was intention of murder - this murderous intent is actually punished more harshly than manslaughter (fifth element's second example).

Pensive

01-02-2009, 06:53 AM

Both are equally criminal.

There are three main factors that can help determine the level at which a crime stands:
1. intention
2. cause
3. consequence

In the given case there is no argument of intention but we are provided with a 'cause' and a 'consequence'. Now in my humble opinion 'consequence' is largely dependant on 'cause' (cause isn't dependant on consequence) which gives cause more weightage in my eyes rather than the consequence. Now wouldn't you give more importance to the dependable value rather than the dependant one? There is a situation where a servant has mixed poison in the food of his master, there could be two consequences:
1. the master dies
2. the master being a paranoid person first shares his food with his pet and then eats it himself, this time while doing the same, he detects the whole thing and is saved by his paranoia.
In the both situations, the consequence of the crime of the servant is different but the nature of the crime is same.

This also tells us that not only the consequences of a crime are dependant on the cause but nature also is. Nature also means how great or small a crime is. And when the cause of one situation is the same as the other, the nature of the crime is obviously the same as the other.

Consider these two scenarious: as I said earlier, if you observe every rule of safe driving and yet you run over a child it is not a crime

A very good point! That also shows that cause isn't dependant on consequence...

(Very interesting thread, btw! :) )

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 07:23 AM

(dear me, I spelt it 'scenarious'! shame, shame)

Pensive, that is actually a very good reasoning. Initially I also thought they were equally criminal - that's common sense's verdict. However, there is one factor that must be taken into account but of which not many people know: that though the result doesn't singlehandedly determine the nature of the crime, legally the crime's nature is in fact dependent on the result as well. As you may have noticed (in TV shows, for example), attempt of murder is not the same (and not as severely punished) as actual murder.

In both 5th Element's scenarios and yours, the ones involving death are the greater crimes, for reasons which lie quite beyond the perpetrator's power over the events. The master's paranoia may actually not only spare his own life but also spare the killer from a couple of years more in prison.

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 07:31 AM

For those who voted for the 'none is crime' option: suppose a man accidently lets the oven gas on and leaves. There remains a man in the kitchen, bent over the table fast asleep. He dies in his sleep. Is there no crime? Should he not account for having had a most hazardous conduct which claimed a life? The same happens in the first instance: leaving the car without the handbreak applied properly in a hill, regardless of how tired or wired you are, is a dangerous negligence, and if it results in a tragedy renders the driver guilty of it.

TheFifthElement

01-02-2009, 07:38 AM

As you may have noticed (in TV shows, for example), attempt of murder is not the same (and not as severely punished) as actual murder.
That isn't the case in UK kandaurov, though it may be elsewhere. In UK attempted murder or, in fact, any 'attempted' crimes carry the same sentence as the actual crime. So if someone attempted murder in UK the penalty would be life imprisonment, just like actual murder.

Interesting discussion :D

SleepyWitch

01-02-2009, 07:58 AM

That isn't the case in UK kandaurov, though it may be elsewhere. In UK attempted murder or, in fact, any 'attempted' crimes carry the same sentence as the actual crime. So if someone attempted murder in UK the penalty would be life imprisonment, just like actual murder.

I like this. After all, the murderer did mean his attempt to be successful and did not plan to bungle it. In retrospect he might have been lucky that it didn't work out, but his intention was clear.

Anyways, I'm not sure about these two scenarios. I voted "no crime has been committed" because it was neither the man's intention to destroy the wall nor kill the girl. But there is the question of criminal negligence. On the other hand, doesn't criminal negligence imply that you do it on purpose (like starving your child or refusing to help someone) and that you are aware of the consequences and consciously invite them? Like the man would have to think "Hahha, if I don't put on the hand brakes my car could slide down the hill and cause material damage/ kill someone?"

What if the cute little girl was a fat, ugly, 50ish woman or better even: a brawny truck driver who smokes marijuana? Would that change our perception? (Hopefully not, but you never know).

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 08:13 AM

Sleepy Witch, if the man did think that it would be even worse to him; having contemplated the possibility and choosing not to take action to prevent it is one step away from wanting to kill someone.

Fifth Element, I am sure it can't be true that everyone who is proven to have attempted to murder someone in the UK gets life imprisonment. In Portugal they had to wait for a victim who was in a coma to either die or 'wake' from it to apply the sentence of either attempted or actual murder, because they carry different punishments.

Very interesting discussion indeed, thanks Fifth Element!

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 08:16 AM

SleepyWitch

01-02-2009, 08:18 AM

Sleepy Witch, if the man did think that it would be even worse to him; having contemplated the possibility and choosing not to take action to prevent it is one step away from wanting to kill someone.

yep, that's what I'm saying. He didn't purposefully neglect to pull the brakes. So would that be criminal negligence or not? It was a negligence that resulted in some undesirable events. I.e. the outcomes of the negligence were unfortunate or criminal. But was the 'execution of' the negligence, i.e. the not-braking, carried out with a criminal intention? I guess should read up about "criminal negligence".
E.g. if the man was tired, he wasn't even aware of not pulling the brakes. Over here, drunkenness can be a mitigating circumstance. E.g. if someone is drunk and commits manslaughter, he gets a more lenient sentence, as in: he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing. That he shouldn't have been drunk in the first place is not taken into consideration.
In this case the felon is clearly responsible for his own drunkenness, yet it is seen as a mitigating circumstance. Whereas it's harder to argue "The man shouldn't have been tired. He could have worked less". So if self-inflicted drunkenness can be seen as a mitigating circumstance, so should be involuntary tiredness???

SleepyWitch

01-02-2009, 08:36 AM

The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest

hum, it appears to be the other way round than I thought:
would it be criminal negligence in this case? The man fails to foresee avoidable dangers and thus allows them. But if he's not even aware of not putting on the brakes, can he be accused of negligently failing to foresee the dangers of not doing so?

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 08:42 AM

Tiredness as mitigating factor: interesting point! Indeed it could be, though I should think it mitigates very little, and, moreover, tiredness is not easy to prove in court. Drunkedness as mitigating? Well, it depends: it can be, but if, for example, you get in your car drunk and kill someone, it is actually aggravating.

As for your case: he is not accused of negligently failing to foresee the dangers of not putting on the brakes, he is simply accused of having done an action which may prove to be hazardous. Should something happen as a result, it is his fault, because he was not observing the rules of safety.

TheFifthElement

01-02-2009, 08:54 AM

By the way, as for actual/attempted crime: "In a case of attempted murder the maximum discount from the sentence that would have been imposed for murder should be 60 per cent, the paper said. Currently, the Court of Appeal suggests a reduction of 50 per cent in the most serious cases, it added. (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1994946.ece - unaware of the links policy, forgive me if this is a forum offence).

This illustrates my point, since apparently jail time is discounted off when murder was only attempted at and not actually perpetrated.

Hi kandaurov. Getting slightly off topic here but I think the article you've mentioned above is an advisory paper and not current law, and I think it refers to cases where sentencing is discretionery. Where sentencing is discretionery the judge will take into account all the circumstances of the crime whether attempted or not, for example he may give a lesser sentence to a man who has stolen a TV set than a man who attempted to steal £1m, but in both cases the minimum sentence and maximum sentence that he could dole out would be the same. In the case of murder, and again I speak for UK only here, there is only one sentence: life. So there's no discounting it for attempt and yes, everyone who attempts murder would receive a life sentence in UK. Now if it was manslaughter that's slightly different, as the sentence is discretionery but manslaughter is quite distinct from murder as an offence. It is similarly an offence to conspire to commit murder or solicit murder (i.e. pay someone else to do it - even if they fail). Extract of the law here, if you're not too bored already ;)

Conspiring or soliciting to commit murder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2 to [F3imprisonment for life].

and

4 Trial and penalties(1)A person guilty by virtue of section 1 above of attempting to commit an offence shall—
(a)if the offence attempted is murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law, be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life; and
(b)if the offence attempted is indictable but does not fall within paragraph (a) above, be liable on conviction on indictment to any penalty to which he would have been liable on conviction on indictment of that offence; and
(c)if the offence attempted is triable either way, be liable on summary conviction to any penalty to which he would have been liable on summary conviction of that offence

What if the cute little girl was a fat, ugly, 50ish woman or better even: a brawny truck driver who smokes marijuana? Would that change our perception? (Hopefully not, but you never know).

hehehe, yes I did consider whether the person killed should be a drunk meandering his way up the road. It'd be interesting to see whether that would change peoples views.

Yeah, kids here walk down the street (to the side) but actual playing in the road doesn't happen a lot. If there's the possibilty that cars are going to be coming at some point, whether they're being driven or out of control rolling, then I probably wouldn't allow my kids to play in the street at all.
You know, that's a tough one. You do have to let them grow up but at the same time you want to protect them. They learn pretty quick to get out of the way when a car is coming. That being said I live at the end of a pedestrianised cul-de- sac and we get the odd car coming through to get to some apartments via a small access road, so it's pretty safe. I wouldn't let my kids play on a busy road either :p

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 09:22 AM

Impressive retort! Unfortunately, there's a big hole in that argument. I'm no lawyer, you see, I'm a man of literature and linguistics, so I can only reply by resorting to what I know, and that is semantics. If there's life imprisonment in the UK, of course such a horrid thing as a murder is liable to incur it; yet being 'liable' doesn't mean it must, as a rule, always be so; "a murder is liable to life imprisonment" means that it is possible, but not necessarily obligatory, for murder to result in life imprisonment.

I'm sorry, but you won't find anywhere in the UK law, or in that of any other democratic country's, that murder is always punishable by life imprisonment. That would be utterly disasterous. There are always possible mitigating factors, you see. A man who thinks his wife is having an affair, looks for the man, shoots him but only wounds him, OR A man who has an argument with another, reaches for his gun, shoots, freezes for a couple of seconds and, realizing what he's done, tries to soccur him, DO NOT spend as much time in prison as a man who (as I understand this is an all-aged forum, so kids, stop reading now :)) kills a man he doesn't even know with premeditation, with malice, in cold blood, stabbing him 50 times, then dismembering him and storing his blood for an afternoon drink, and may God have mercy on us all should it be otherwise.

Pensive

01-02-2009, 09:44 AM

To all those who say 'no crime is committed' and the majority seems to be saying so, so far (according to the poll), I am interested in asking don't they think negligence itself is a sort of crime? Being irresponsible and careless, can't it itself be considered a crime? Let's take the example of a car driver who doesn't follow traffic rules (because he is tired? Because he is drunk? Well could be anything) and that results in his car hitting another car/a person/anything else. Maybe it's me who is a bit harsh on humanity which is supposed to be 'open to make mistakes' (afterall we all are human-beings, okay?) but I guess by the same token you would still not consider this act of negligence a crime as no ill intent has been hinted by the driver himself?

As I mentioned before, to determine how big or small a crime is all three factors 'intention', 'cause' and 'consequence' matter but in a different manner. Intention can be used to judge how big or small a crime is. So can be judged by the cause. And if intention isn't clear, we have to rely on cause while we can't do vice-versa e.g. depend on intention for cause. But consequence can't be used to judge between two crimes whose cause has been the same. as the nature of a crime is same as the cause. This all puts cause ahead of any other of the factors. (oops sorry for the repetition here) :p

TheFifthElement

01-02-2009, 10:50 AM

I'm sorry, but you won't find anywhere in the UK law, or in that of any other democratic country's, that murder is always punishable by life imprisonment. That would be utterly disasterous. There are always possible mitigating factors, you see. A man who thinks his wife is having an affair, looks for the man, shoots him but only wounds him, OR A man who has an argument with another, reaches for his gun, shoots, freezes for a couple of seconds and, realizing what he's done, tries to soccur him, DO NOT spend as much time in prison as a man who (as I understand this is an all-aged forum, so kids, stop reading now :)) kills a man he doesn't even know with premeditation, with malice, in cold blood, stabbing him 50 times, then dismembering him and storing his blood for an afternoon drink, and may God have mercy on us all should it be otherwise.

No worries kandaurov I don't mind semantics it's just that you picked up on the wrong one! In UK the term 'murder' has a very specific legal meaning. If someone is convicted of murder or attempted murder or conspiracy to murder or soliciting murder then the penalty is life imprisonment. If there are mitigating circumstances then the offence would be manslaughter which may carry a life sentence, but the actual sentence is discretionery. Mitigating circumstances could be 'diminished responsibility', 'insanity', 'intoxication', though defences of intoxication are hard to sustain, 'provocation' and certain types of death causing crime are not deemed murder but rather manslaughter occasioned by negligence, recklessness or 'other' criminal act. So, for example in your case of:

A man who thinks his wife is having an affair, looks for the man, shoots him but only wounds him,
This might be considered attempted murder according to UK law. But if the guy was lucky they might commute his crime to manslaughter occassioned by another criminal act (actual bodily harm). But if his intent was to cause grievous bodily harm then it is more likely to be murder. All depends on the case. He may argue 'diminished responsibility' i.e. he wasn't acting in his right mind and the defence may succeed or fail. Or he may argue 'provocation' but again this is difficult to sustain. If it succeeds he would be guilty of manslaughter by means of diminished responsibility and his sentence may be set by discretion of the judge. He could still receive life imprisonment.

In this example:

A man who has an argument with another, reaches for his gun, shoots, freezes for a couple of seconds and, realizing what he's done, tries to soccur him,
the exact same rule apply. If you shoot somebody and feel sorry for it later that doesn't detract from the fact that you shot them knowing that shooting them would cause 'grievous bodily harm'. Again, a defence of diminished responsibility may be raised, and its success or otherwise will depend on the jury. Provocation might be a defence raised and again it may or may not succeed.

In UK 'life' imprisonment generally means about 30 years. People can be imprisoned for absolute life but this is rare (cases like Myra Hindley, for example). Here, I found an article which explains better than I can: http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/minimun_terms.pdf

I'm not a lawyer either, but I have studied the UK law. It's very interesting! That's where the original question arose from.

And we're still off subject!

Virgil

01-02-2009, 11:00 AM

Personally, I think the crime lies within the effect. George Bush invaded Iraq under the pretense that weapons of mass destruction were held there. As we all know, there weren't any. He committed a misdeed. But, he said that there were weapons of mass destruction, didn't he? If we say the crime lies in the cause then he would be completely innocent and his invasion of Iraq would have been just. Of course, I don't mean to compare these two scenarios to the military invasion of an entire country, but the logic remains the same. The crime lies in the effect.

Oh give me a break. There were mutli facet reasons for invading Iraq, and I'm not going to get into the many reasons why. If you think it was a crime, then bring him up on charges. Sadam Hussien had lost the 1991 war when he invade Kuwait. He was able to stay in power only because he signed a conditional treaty placing restrictions on him and requiring him to reveal everything. He failed in living up to the terms of that treaty. He violated that treaty and so his stay in power waas voided. There were 17 United Nations sitations against Hussein in his violations. The United States had every right to remove him from power. Weapons of mass destruction was only a secondary justification. For some reason it became prominant in the media. Don't give me this selective reasons based on all your Liberal perceptions.

Plus there is no contemporary politcs to be discussed here. Get a life.

JBI

01-02-2009, 11:43 AM

The second is a greater crime, because his tort caused more harm. Call it uncontrolled, or whatever, but the point is, in one situation he damages property, in the other ends life. The effect is what is relevant, though neither of them are necessarily convictable offenses, perhaps failure to use a handbrake, and a suspension of license, but surely not even manslaughter could go through in court. The court cannot possibly prove a Mens Rea, necessary for criminal conviction.

So in truth, no crime will really be a "crime" by legal standards. By moral standards, that depends on the person, and if they can live with killing someone.

By law, and I speak on Canadian law, they probably could only pursue damages, and wouldn't even go to court for criminal charges. That being said, there is a penalty, but it isn't really a charge for criminal activity, but rather an assurance such results don't happen again, or that the effected bodies are taken care of.

Pensive

01-02-2009, 11:46 AM

The second is a greater crime, because his tort caused more harm. Call it uncontrolled, or whatever, but the point is, in one situation he damages property, in the other ends life. The effect is what is relevant, though neither of them are necessarily convictable offenses, perhaps failure to use a handbrake, and a suspension of license, but surely not even manslaughter could go through in court. The court cannot possibly prove a Mens Rea, necessary for criminal conviction.

So in truth, no crime will really be a "crime" by legal standards. By moral standards, that depends on the person, and if they can live with killing someone.

Here the question is that of morality.
But yeah the funny thing about morality is that you can say it differs from person to person...

TheFifthElement

01-02-2009, 11:48 AM

Oh give me a break. There were mutli facet reasons for invading Iraq, and I'm not going to get into the many reasons why. If you think it was a crime, then bring him up on charges. Sadam Hussien had lost the 1991 war when he invade Kuwait. He was able to stay in power only because he signed a conditional treaty placing restrictions on him and requiring him to reveal everything. He failed in living up to the terms of that treaty. He violated that treaty and so his stay in power waas voided. There were 17 United Nations sitations against Hussein in his violations. The United States had every right to remove him from power. Weapons of mass destruction was only a secondary justification. For some reason it became prominant in the media. Don't give me this selective reasons based on all your Liberal perceptions.

Plus there is no contemporary politcs to be discussed here. Get a life.

Chill Virgil. Deep breaths. Start again.

Jacob was using this example to differentiate action and consequence. Maybe he could have used a different example, but it was just an example. Jacob's statement implies a view, but I don't believe he was making a political statement.

I think telling someone to 'get a life' because they have differing views to you is unfair. Well, honestly I think it's a bit mean. Plenty of people didn't support the war. They're as entitled to their opinion as you are. I'd personally appreciate it if you didn't refer to Liberal views as though they were the poop on your shoe, it rubs when you scrape us on the pavement ;)

Virgil

01-02-2009, 01:07 PM

Chill Virgil. Deep breaths. Start again.

Jacob was using this example to differentiate action and consequence. Maybe he could have used a different example, but it was just an example. Jacob's statement implies a view, but I don't believe he was making a political statement.

I think telling someone to 'get a life' because they have differing views to you is unfair. Well, honestly I think it's a bit mean. Plenty of people didn't support the war. They're as entitled to their opinion as you are. I'd personally appreciate it if you didn't refer to Liberal views as though they were the poop on your shoe, it rubs when you scrape us on the pavement ;)

Jacob is one of many that continues to spread misinformation. He is dead, dead, dead wrong. And it is current politics and I'm sure will be taken off.

TheFifthElement

01-02-2009, 02:54 PM

Jacob is one of many that continues to spread misinformation. He is dead, dead, dead wrong. And it is current politics and I'm sure will be taken off.

One might say the same about your own comments. Again, Virgil, it depends on your point of view. Like I said, plenty of people didn't support the war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

And I think you missed my point. I'll make it again:

1. It was used as an example of action as opposed to consequence or if you prefer cause as opposed to effect, and
2. You may disagree with the opinion inferred but making the statement 'get a life' takes it a step beyond disagreement into personal abuse.

Rise above it. Click 'report'.

JacobF

01-02-2009, 04:26 PM

I had just watched political interviews before making that post, so I'm sorry for dragging politics into this. I didn't want to do that. That was just the first situation that came to mind. I used the example merely to display my main point, and it was more of a prop than anything else. I did not wish to start a political discussion by any means. As you can tell, I'm not really a seasoned poster here, and I suppose that one rule of 'no politics' slipped my mind.

Virgil, I hope you can accept my apology, because I don't want to be portrayed as someone who feels it necessary to shove their views in everyone's faces at all times, since I don't (well, at least I try not to). Nor do I want to branch out into a discussion that is seen as taboo on this board. However, I don't think I went as far as spreading misinformation. That was just my viewpoint. I guess we should just agree to disagree, since this discussion isn't going to go much further.

kandaurov

01-02-2009, 04:32 PM

Fifth Element, I think our discussion was entirely due to my understanding of 'life imprisonment' as 'prison for life'. All clear now! Still think attempt of murder is not the same that actual murder. Otherwise, why should they make the distinction? Good handling of the political problem, by the way.

JBI, surely not manslaughter? A person died as a consequence of an act of negligence - this is the very definition of manslaughter!

Legally speaking, the second crime is the greatest (property damage < manslaughter); morally speaking, the crimes are equal (morality has to do with ethics, conduct, intentions, all of which are exactly the same in the two cases).

librarius_qui

01-02-2009, 11:26 PM

Here the question is that of morality.
But yeah the funny thing about morality is that you can say it differs from person to person...

Perhaps in this "modern" (?) day. "Moral" comes from mos, moris, which is habit, custom, civil use ... (Greeks used (still use? -- don't know) the word ethos.) Law is based on civil use and concensus ...

What's the habit for a man who lets his bull walking around (because he forgot to tie it somewhere, after a day of hard work ... first day it ever happened!), and the bull gets scared for some reason, goes running around, and trumples a young girl playing in the nearby?, who ends up dead ... Same case, aye? What's the local habit? Will parents say ... "aw, it's all right, it wasn't his fault anyway ...".

Absolutely not!: judges, and priests, and possibly all the local community (or at least those who care ...) will have to get involved ... Parents will wish revenge!

If the bull only destroys a wall of a house, however, maybe the neighbours can settle the things down with a talk, and settling down who's going to pay the damage. Maybe noone else will have to get involved. Even so, it'll be easier to settle things down.

Morally speaking, it's a human case, of common reactions anywhere. When we talk of crime, it's a matter of local laws.

The poll makes a question on crime. This is why I can't dare answer this poll. Theory is theory. Where did it happen?, when? ... This makes the situation able to be judged and answered.~

Themis

01-03-2009, 08:22 AM

@Topic: Let's pretend I didn't just vote for "both are equally criminal' and put that I did down to "spent the last days in bed and isn't really in her right mind right now“ or.. something like that.

Ahem.

Why is this topic titled "A Question of Morality"? Because either you want us to say "this is morally wrong" or try and decide if the man should be convicted in a court of law.

kandaurov

01-03-2009, 08:26 AM

I was wondering about the title choice as well. After all, it isn't at all a question of morality, since there was no choice.

hoope

01-03-2009, 08:33 AM

Destiny.. this is my theory.
Everything was written to happen.. Yet we have to be careful.
However no one knows when or how they will die..
LIFE GOES ON...

There is no crime.. accidents happen all the time.. that man was careless & i believe he never knew that out of that action a soul will be taken . His not a criminal

TheFifthElement

01-03-2009, 08:33 AM

It is a question of your morality.

kandaurov

01-03-2009, 08:44 AM

Oh. Well I don't think I understand then... if I say that the second is the greatest crime, having based my decision on the law, what does that say about my morality?

Themis

01-03-2009, 03:54 PM

@kandaurov: Probably that you based your decision on the wrong basis because you can't mix morals and the law.

learntodiscover

01-03-2009, 08:38 PM

personaly I don't think that any crime has been committed. Legaly though, that it is probably a very different question.

"Why is the little girl playing in the street? Where are her parents?"

Good point, would her parents then be charged with negligence?

TheFifthElement

01-04-2009, 05:43 AM

Oh. Well I don't think I understand then... if I say that the second is the greatest crime, having based my decision on the law, what does that say about my morality?

Maybe it says that you allow your decisions to be made by others ;)

But being serious now, it would be impossible to deal with the question on the basis of the 'law' as Lit-net is a global community. Doubtless the law on this matter varies from country to country, and we don't always agree with the law.

Answer the question according to your judgement and values as if you were the law maker in your own land. Do you want to change your answer?

@kandaurov: Probably that you based your decision on the wrong basis because you can't mix morals and the law.

This is incorrect Themis - the law is a formal representation of morality. Definition of 'moral' from the dictionary below:

moral :of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

The law formalises and codifies what a society deems to be right or wrong conduct. My question to you is, based on your own moral judgement what would you deem to be a crime.

kandaurov

01-04-2009, 06:20 AM

Now I see the light, Fifth! That being the case, I stand by my aforementioned decision: I still think both are crimes because people have to pay for their negligence; and I still think the second is the greater crime because there's a big difference between a brick wall and a human life, and since the death was the result of carelessness yeah, I think he should have to pay for it.

Now going offtopic, I quite trust the law, it's been around for so many years and all. But still, taking the OJ Simpson trial as an example, there are two appalling things about the law: in general, the double jeapordy rule (there should be a retrial if irrefutable evidence is found); in particular (to the USA), the jury system. It's ridiculous. What do they know? They're not legally trained, so they follow their instincts, and the lawyers take advantage of that, so instead of being a serious trial it's a circus of bathos. If anyone disagrees with this please let me know, because there must be a reason for the existence of these laws which, I must say, are quite beyond my comprehension.

Themis

01-04-2009, 09:36 AM

This is incorrect Themis - the law is a formal representation of morality. .

Uhm, no. Morality and law are two different things. What's considered to be morally wrong isn't necessarily forbidden by law and vice versa.

And I'm a law student, so I do know my stuff, thank you.

@kandaurov: Oh, please, not that again! As far as I know, one thing is what was decided based on criminal law, the other on civil law. I'm not too well acqainted with the case but legally speaking, you have, say, civil law. It is not absolutely congurent with criminal law. You've got different elements of a crime to work with, you may need less or just other conditions to say which crime has been committed.

kandaurov

01-04-2009, 10:12 AM

Themis, I'm afraid your retort comes late. In the last post, this is what I was answering to:

Answer the question according to your judgement and values as if you were the law maker in your own land.

Here, unlike what happened in my first posts, I didn't take criminal and civil law into account, only my judgement. And there's no contesting my morals and values, just like I won't yours: if we talk in legal terms, however, everything is debatable. But I expect that you, being a law student, will think that in the second instance the man is more heavily punished than in the first - just trying to find some common ground here!

So: I agree that other circumstances should be taken into account, but I work with what I've got. And I agree that it may even be a matter of civil law, but the first instance only - the second is manslaughter and must therefore be a crime.

And I think I detect a straw man: the point Fifth Element is trying to make is that morality and law are indissoluble (which is naturally true), not that they are one and the same thing (a view no one is willing to defend).

TheFifthElement

01-04-2009, 11:26 AM

No need to get testy Themis.

Uhm, no. Morality and law are two different things. What's considered to be morally wrong isn't necessarily forbidden by law and vice versa.

And I'm a law student, so I do know my stuff, thank you.

What is the law if not an expression of collective morality? or as kandaurov stated much more clearly:

the point Fifth Element is trying to make is that morality and law are indissoluble (which is naturally true), not that they are one and the same thing (a view no one is willing to defend).

kilted exile

01-04-2009, 01:04 PM

I am going with no crime. There is only forgetfullness brought on by tiredness, which I do not think I can put down as gross negligence.

Of course there is pity, but nothing more...

Zoe_11

01-04-2009, 01:37 PM

An accident is an accident. I chose no crime. The causes were the same, the effects were different, yet I say that neither could really be seen as a crime.

Themis

01-04-2009, 01:37 PM

But I expect that you, being a law student, will think that in the second instance the man is more heavily punished than in the first - just trying to find some common ground here!

I think, me being a law student and all, since the man didn't actually kill the girl or demolish the wall he won't be punished for either. By not parking the car correctly he committed an administrative offense, so he'll probably have to pay for that. (That's Austrian law, mind you, I'm not sure there is such a thing as an 'administrative offense' anywhere else.)

"kandaurov"
the point Fifth Element is trying to make is that morality and law are indissoluble (which is naturally true), not that they are one and the same thing (a view no one is willing to defend)"

I still don't entirely agree, but I see your point.