Actions and Consequences

[axel_knutt]

Consider the following four hypothetical scenarios:

A) I'm walking along the pavement and I trip, bumping into an old lady who falls into the road in front of a lorry. She dodges out of the way.
B) I'm walking along the pavement and I trip, bumping into an old lady who falls into the road in front of a lorry. She's run over and killed.
C) I'm walking along the pavement, and I deliberately push an old lady into the road in front of a lorry. She dodges out of the way.
D) I'm walking along the pavement, and I deliberately push an old lady into the road in front of a lorry. She's run over and killed.

In which of these four scenarios should I be punished, and why?

[Ivor Tingting]

What have you done!

[Mick F]

....... and why?

And why are you asking?
It sounds an odd scenario for a debate.

Obvious answer is D, as a deliberate act killed someone. Murder?
C had no consequences.

But why ask?

[axel_knutt]

:shock: What have you done!

Posted it on the wrong board for a start, can we consider this thread closed, and I'll re-post it on "Campaigning"

[Mick F]

I'll move it.

[Cavemud]

Presumably the answer you're looking for is the latter two, assuming that it can be proved that the push was deliberate.......

Personally, I believe that the punishment should fit the crime rather than the consequence. So for example, if you punch somebody in the face, the punishment should be the same wether they fall over and die or get a nose bleed.

Ditto for things like drink driving etc. To me it's irrevlevent if somebody is killed/injured etc, the crime commited is unchanged and hence the punishment should be the same.

PS: I hope the poor lady was ok...... and that no-one saw you do it!!!

[skrx]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if this is how things work. It's how I think things should work.

For C and D, because you intended to kill her, you should face a criminal penalty (fine, community service, prison). You can also be sued by the woman's next of kin in the case of D (they get compensation). I think the penalties should be similar for C and D, but with C being a little less harsh, and hopefully some effort made to check the offender won't reoffend.

For B, there should be a test for negligence (criminal). E.g. if you were drunk, or running along the road with your eyes closed. You could also be sued.
For A, you can't be sued (no damage). I think you could still be found negligent.

(Why hope no one saw him do it? If he's killing old ladies, I don't want him free!;)

[larfingravy]

C and D only should face criminal punishment.

Your punishment should still be severe for C even though the old lady was nimble enough to get out of the way.

A and B should not face CRIMINAL punishment.

That said I'm sure in A and B some smart a*** lawyer would take the case on for the old lady in civil court.
They'll get their hands on the CCTV showing you walking along with your laces undone - negligence!

[Cunobelin]

It is clear that the old biddy has contributed to her own death by not wearing a helmet, knee , elbow pads and body armour - which completely vindicates you as it is clearly her negligence that has caused her death

[kwackers]

Ditto for things like drink driving etc. To me it's irrevlevent if somebody is killed/injured etc, the crime commited is unchanged and hence the punishment should be the same.

I don't quite follow that - are you saying the consequence of the crime has no bearing?

For example, a guy was convicted last week of manslaughter after he threw a glass into a pub which broke causing a fragment to fly off and severe an artery in a bystanders neck killing her.
If we prosecute without regard to consequence, should he have faced a lesser charge of say 'reckless endangerment' or should all glass throwing be manslaughter'?

What about someone who talks on a mobile phone whilst driving, should all of them be charged with causing death by reckless driving (or whatever it is) or should people who kill whilst doing it only be fined £60 and get 3 points?

I'm not completely convinced it works if you ignore the consequence of the action...

[Si]

:shock: What have you done!

Posted it on the wrong board for a start, can we consider this thread closed, and I'll re-post it on "Campaigning"

I moved it out of campaign as so far it'd not demonstrated any connection with cycle campaigning and public policy. I prefer to keep campaign only for threads that have actual links to, or the possibility of linking to, campaigns. this is more along the lines of hypothetical discussion and the OP doesn't overtly refer to any campaigning issue.

apologies for not PMing you to let you know - I was called out of the room. I shall leave it where it is for now in the hope that it does err toward campaign issues rather than remaining in an abstracted state.

[gaz]

For C and D, because you intended to kill her,

Did he? The deliberate action was to push her into the road, I'll even accept that he intended it to be in front of a lorry. In case D the defence counsel is unlikely even to accept that the action was deliberate. The defence counsel is certain to argue that there was no intention to cause injury or death, perhaps just to scare the old lady.

Or perhaps "My client deliberately pushed the old lady into the road as she was about to be struck on the pavement by a maniac cyclist. My client was endeavouring to save her from certain injury, or even death from an otherwise inevitable collision with this pavement riding peril. The lorry driver has testified that the same cyclist had mounted the pavement some minutes earlier in order to jump a red light and had been weaving wildly along it on account of his single pannier. Sadly my client's heroic efforts were in vain as she found herself in the path of the lorry. Nevertheless he's intentions were completely honourable. I ask you to return a verdict of not guilty and instruct the police to hunt down the real criminal."

[DaveP]

The original question is just about whether punishment is deserved. I dont think it requires us to consider how a trial may proceed.
In case C you have deliberately placed another person in harms way, which merits censure at least, and in D the result has been a death which must be at least manslaughter. Punishment would be appropriate. The only extenuating circumstance would be if the motive for your act was an attempt to avert another deadly danger, such as the "silent classic" piano suspended from a fraying rope. I would regard that as entirely adequate - I don't think society is served by penalising those try to help, even if it all goes wrong.
In A and B as described there would seem to be no grounds for punishment, though B would certainly result in a feeling of guilt. However, in case B especially, there would certainly be considerable interest in determining whether the accident was due to careless or irresponsible behaviour on your part. If so then some form of sanctions would seem to be appropriate.

[grim]

You lot need to get out more.

Graham

[DaveP]

I agree, but I'm trying to work out how much insurance and legal aid cover I need first...