Doom Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 If someone texts while driving, loses control and crashes, but luckily there was nobody in the way, so nobody was hurt. What should the sentence be? If someone texts while driving, loses control and crashes, killing an innocent person who unfortunately happened to be in the way. What should the sentence be? Should the sentences be the same or different? If different, is it right that the sentence should be set purely on whether or not somebody happened to be killed, purely on the luck of the draw? How would that be justice? Such justice would be equivalent to basing the length of sentence on the toss of a coin. Exactly the point I'm making, you just make it better. Regards Doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harestone Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Anyone caught texting and driving should be given 3 years, those who kill should be euthanised. It's quite simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 If someone texts while driving, loses control and crashes, but luckily there was nobody in the way, so nobody was hurt. What should the sentence be? If someone texts while driving, loses control and crashes, killing an innocent person who unfortunately happened to be in the way. What should the sentence be? Should the sentences be the same or different? If different, is it right that the sentence should be set purely on whether or not somebody happened to be killed, purely on the luck of the draw? How would that be justice? Such justice would be equivalent to basing the length of sentence on the toss of a coin. The idea is the person texting/phoning chooses to toss the coin. Their choice, their punishment if the coin falls the wrong way. Vehicles are potential lethal weapons, time for people to realise this fact and start to actually concentrate while operating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Texting and driving should be treated the same as drink-driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harestone Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Texting and driving should be treated the same as drink-driving. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benggo Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 My last post on the subject,in all and I mean all sentences passed by the courts,people don't seem to feel as if the sentence is enough for the crime;people feel cheated by the criminal justice system. If prison was hell on earth,people would really think twice about doing crime or think about what their actions could result in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The idea is the person texting/phoning chooses to toss the coin. Their choice, their punishment if the coin falls the wrong way. Vehicles are potential lethal weapons, time for people to realise this fact and start to actually concentrate while operating them. I agree entirely, but as a society we only punish when death is caused. We do not punish bad driving to the same degree if they get away with it. Bad drivers don't expect to kill anyone, so they continue to drive badly. If we caught and punished the bad drivers more severely, regardless of whether anyone is killed, and people could expect to lose their licence if they are dangerous on the road, then the dangerous drivers might improve (or be banned if they dont). As it is now, they do not fear punisment, as it is unlikely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Do we sentence person by the crime or the potential consequence of the crime? I believe texting while driving is currenty a fine plus three points. Should we extend this to drink-driving? Drunk drivers kill people so should there be a difference in sentence between a drunk-driver who has caused mayhem and one who hasn't? They both commited the same crime. One stayed lucky, the other didn't. I read today that a man in Cameroon was sentenced to five years in jail because of a text. His crime was to text "I love you" to another man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 IMO, punishing "causing death by dangerous driving" more severely than "dangerous driving" is counter productive. Bad drivers do not expect to kill anyone, so are not frightened by the risk of a heavy sentence if they do. So why would they bother improving their driving. However, if they thought that they might be caught, and knew that they would be punished for dangerous driving alone, then they would either improve their driving to avoid being caught and punished, which is good, or they would actually be caught and banned, which is also good. We should be trying to solve the "dangerous driving" aspect. If we do, then the "causing death" aspect will also be improved. Concentrating on the "causing dearth" aspect, as we do now, does little or nothing for road safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panthera Leo Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Just think,sat in a cell,no bills to worry about.No meals to get ready,all food provided. Scum are treated better than a state pensioner. I hear this a lot, from disgruntled people. And I wonder why these people don't just go and make sure that they end up incarcerated. As it is of course the life of Riley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.