Should A Punishment Fit The "outcome" Of A Crime?

[pixie373]

Or the intention?

Just wondering, from a few threads I've seen recently, whether a sentence should reflect when someone has died, or whether it is the "action" that should be punished.

For example, if you hit someone in your car at 40mph and they die, should you have a more severe punishment than if you hit them at 40mph and they survive?

Just interested in your opinions and reasons why?

[woofgang]

I think its circumstances rather than outcome that are important. If you are doing 40 in a 40 zone and someone pulls out in front of you, you hit the car and the driver dies, that's very different from doing 40 in a 30 zone past a school at picking up time.

[pixie373]

It certainly is, woofgang. But if the circumstances were identical, except for the outcome? Should the punishments be different?

[mackfender]

If you are being prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian, then it figures that you have commited an offence in some way. If that results in the person dying, then the offence would be, in example, Causing death by dangerous driving etc. Therefore, the sentence should surely be more severe.

[pixie373]

More severe although your behaviour is the same? It does seem to work that way. I'm wondering whether it is more for the "benefit" of the relatives that have lost someone, and whether that does, in any way, help?

[Zeuhl]

It must be a combination of the two.

If you cause something to happen deliberately that must deserve more severe sanction than if you do it unintentionally

At the same time, the severity must reflect the damage done

So, if you deliberately drive your car into/and damage a neighbour you would expect to be dealt with more severely than if you drove into/and damage their fence

That would be factored by whether you did either of those things deliberately or unintentionally

[pixie373]

So, which is worse - to accidently kill someone, or to try to, but fail?

[woofgang]

try to and fail, that's attempted murder.

[jno]

killing someone with a gun does seem to carry a higher penalty than killing them with a car, even if it's equally unintended.

[Zeuhl]

^
Great question

From a legal pov (and I think moral too)

it is worse to set out to kill someone and fail than to kill someone accidentally

[pixie373]

Yes. One of the things that made me think about it, was a story i read quite a long time ago.
A 3 year old toddler was hit and killed on a main road. The driver was not speeding, under the influence, or anything illegal. It happened around a blind bend. He was jailed for 8 years. While i completely understand the tragedy of it, and the driver, himself was traumatised, there was never a reason why a 3-yr- old was in the middle of a road on her own.
In the future, what will his sentence teach him?
I would be devastated if it happened to my child, obviously, but I don't see the driver committed a crime, while the parents endangered their child. Why was he punished and they weren't?

[Old_Geezer]

One ought to be treated the same in your example but they won't. The outcome defines the charge and thus the possible sentence. That said you have assumed the motorist was the guilty party. Society does like to consider the motorist guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

[pixie373]

I think so too,zeuhl. My example above, for instance. But as far as i can see, the punishment seems to reflect the outcome, rather than the intention.

[pixie373]

Yes, you're right, og, I have assumed the driver was guilty! Would be interesting to know whether a pedestrian has ever been charged for damaging a car.