How should we punish reckless, dangerous behaviour?

[nellie23]

2 cases in 2 yrs

[spindrift]

You are 263 times more likely to be killed by a car than a cyclist.

 

You are more likely to be killed by a bee or a golf ball than a cyclist.

 

More people are killed by police cars than cyclists.

[HeadingNorth]

However, the thread kept going off topic and was ultimately closed.

 

We aren't doing much better here!

 

 

I've always argued that the punishment for reckless and/or dangerous behaviour should be based on how likely that behaviour is to cause harm, not on whether the offender got lucky or not. Often, the courts do operate on exactly that basis, but whenever a case gets widespread media attention they tend not to. Consider Gary Hart, who was colossally unlucky in that his offence just happened to occur immediately before an express passenger train was due, which in turn was immediately before a freight train was due coming the other way. If he'd committed his offence two minutes earlier or two minutes later, nobody would have died; yet he was sentenced to ten years, because people did.

[HeadingNorth]

Are you saying he did not deliberately get on his bike and ride it?

 

Wilfully deciding to ride a bicycle is extremely unlikely to cause any harm to anybody. Wilfully deciding to drive a car is far more likely to do so - yet still, in the grand scheme of things, likely to be harmless. Wilfully deciding to explode a large bomb in a shopping centre, far more likely again.

 

If someone explodes a large bomb in a shopping centre and by an amazing miracle, nobody is killed, should they get a longer or shorter sentence than a cyclist who by a freak accident happens to kill someone?

[melthebell]

You have not considered intent have you. Hussein had no intent to cause injury to the passengers, unlike Mr Extinguisher who clearly did have intent to injure. You have to prove both actus reus and mens rea in criminal cases of these sorts.

no he didnt, or do you know better? he lobbed a fire extinguisher, he prolly didnt look where it was going, that DOESNT mean he set out to injure / kill somebody

 

ive said it before ill say it again

 

a lad of previously good standing has a rush of blood during a "riot" situation and does something HIGHLY stupid.

 

also as ive said before i think society wouldve done better with him getting a different sentence and a REAL scumbag getting his room in hmp. i really do think any sentence would jolt that lads sentences, as it stands it was 100% political that sentence.

[HeadingNorth]

he lobbed a fire extinguisher, he prolly didnt look where it was going, that DOESNT mean he set out to injure / kill somebody.

 

To all intents and purposes it does. Throwing a fire extinguisher off a building when there's a crowd of people below is extremely likely to cause a serious injury, and since the man in question is not insane, it must be accepted that he knew that when he chose to throw it.

[melthebell]

We aren't doing much better here!

 

 

I've always argued that the punishment for reckless and/or dangerous behaviour should be based on how likely that behaviour is to cause harm, not on whether the offender got lucky or not. Often, the courts do operate on exactly that basis, but whenever a case gets widespread media attention they tend not to. Consider Gary Hart, who was colossally unlucky in that his offence just happened to occur immediately before an express passenger train was due, which in turn was immediately before a freight train was due coming the other way. If he'd committed his offence two minutes earlier or two minutes later, nobody would have died; yet he was sentenced to ten years, because people did.

as well as the intent or behaviour i also like to add into the mix the persons character as well as the wider threat to society.

thats why i stick by extinguisher boy wasnt a threat to society any more and prison wasnt needed

[melthebell]

To all intents and purposes it does. Throwing a fire extinguisher off a building when there's a crowd of people below is extremely likely to cause a serious injury, and since the man in question is not insane, it must be accepted that he knew that when he chose to throw it.

as i said did he look before he threw it?

did he know there was a crowd exactly below it?

 

did he shout TAKE THIS COPPERS before launching it?

[HeadingNorth]

as i said did he look before he threw it?

did he know there was a crowd exactly below it?

 

Unless he was insane, then yes he must have known the crowd was there. Consequently it's not relevant whether he looked or not - except insofar as you might accuse him of targetting a specific person, rather than blatantly dangerous behaviour.

[melthebell]

Unless he was insane, then yes he must have known the crowd was there. Consequently it's not relevant whether he looked or not - except insofar as you might accuse him of targetting a specific person, rather than blatantly dangerous behaviour.

well if you run up a building to the roof, and knew there COULD be people outside, would you know which side they were around?

roofs generally have 4 sides??