Sentence by consequence
OP - April 08, 2012, 12:48 AM
Just a little teaser 'cos I'm bored.
Results matter. So your soon-to-be-ex boss tells you when your hard work yields nothing. And so it seems, does the judge when he deems just how naughty you've been. But is it right to give more weight to that which was beyond a man's control than to the crime he knowingly and willingly committed? If you drive in a funny pattern because you've necked 3 bottles of vodka, you will receive an irritating fine. If however, a person happens to be somewhere on the funny pattern, you will be locked up for a very, very long time. Both cases you broke the same law, but somehow you deserve a far worse punishment the second time for ultimately making the same stupid decision. Is this justifiable?
The sentence varies wildly depending on the outcome, and we are calculating creatures. We play the odds. Drink driving? Probably not a good idea, but hey, chances are I will get away scot-free or with a small fine. I'm willing to take that risk and it 'pays off'. Hapless Joe is willing to take the same risk but, hapless as he is, a person rudely hits his car and dies. Hapless Joe is in deep shit now, and so will Mrs Hapless and Hapless Jr be while Joe is getting used to life behind bars. He was mostly a good man, he laments. He paid his taxes, helped an old lady to cross the street, played catch with his son. Sure he downloaded music illegally, but he felt bad about it. Now his life is ruined, he sees the ghost of the person he killed everywhere, his wife found someone with more hair and less involuntary manslaughter convictions, his son takes to drugs and his only friend is that old guy you see in every prison flick. Joe would never DUI again, he's learnt his lesson, but someone has to pay for the dead body. Why is it always Hapless Joe? *weh weh wehhhh* Cue laugh track.
Drink driving is very stupid and reckless, more stupid than the punishment for first offence would suggest. Drink driving and killing someone is equally reckless, but less lucky. Would it not be fairer, more productive even, to punish recklessness, action, rather than happenstance? You give people a hefty sentence for drink driving, and far fewer people will meet the stupidity-threshold. And where there are fewer idiots there are fewer oops-i-accidentally-killed-someone-s, which is good for those of us who don't like being killed and fairer on Hapless Joe's future descendants. Simple right?
Except it makes no sense - dealing with a death the same as a knocked-over sign. Blood must be paid for - we demand it. But how do we justify it?
Topic: Sentence by consequence