Only 10 years?

[Glaucus]

I've told you exactly why I think there should be a difference between just using a mobile and killing people. You can't lock everyone up for 10years!

this isn't a reason. You cant pick one thing and say thats the only card on the plate and there's no other way of doing things. its an insane position.

i havent missed it all, i know what he was sentenced for. this doesn't change anything. Which is obvious if you actually follow what i say.
again its an insane position, you are essentially saying it's the law so we cant change it, yet we change laws all the time.

Now tell me what the root cause of the accident was, can you honestly say its not using the phone.

 

[Jokester]

this isn't a reason. You cant pick one thing and say thats the only card on the plate and there's no other way of doing things. its an insane position.

Of course it is, the 10years sentence is entirely just in this case in my opinion for death by dangerous driving.

Now tell me what the root cause of the accident was, can you honestly say its not using the phone.

It was caused by the drivers flagrant disregard for other road users safety.

 

[weringo]

That isn't attributable to luck, it's a result of each individual's own actions within each set of circumstances. It wasn't "unlucky" that he decided to stare at his phone rather than look at the road ahead.

Do feel free to try to demonstrate "luck" in action in this scenario though.

There are infinite possibilities which could quite easily have happened in this scenario: the car could have pulled into the other lane before impact, the car could have not been there in the first place, the family could have survived the crash, the reason the driver checked his phone (say he received a text) could not have happened, all would have resulted in a different outcome but the driver would have been none the wiser.

Why should someone else who stares at their phone rather than looking ahead in an equally dangerous scenario without the outcome not receive the same sentence?

 

[Glaucus]

It was caused by the drivers flagrant disregard for other road users safety.

so extactly the same as millions of other drivers do every year.

so no you still havent given a reason. other than an emotional appeal.
you havent said why the sentencing should be, or what it achieves.

That isn't attributable to luck, it's a result of each individual's own actions within each set of circumstances. It wasn't "unlucky" that he decided to stare at his phone rather than look at the road ahead.

Do feel free to try to demonstrate "luck" in action in this scenario though.

again the scenario i gave which all you lot keep ignoring, if he crashed into a high ncap rated car, and they all survived, why should he then not get 10 years in your mind. The reasoning behind it, the benefit to society etc?

not just i think 10years is a suitable sentence.

 

[Orionaut]

Do feel free to try to demonstrate "luck" in action in this scenario though.

The "Bad Luck" aspect in this case was that the previously, only seconds before, free flowing traffic on a not particularly busy DC trunk road, unexpectedly suddenly ground to a halt at just the same time that this driver chose to spend time fiddling with his phone.

(Why did the traffic suddenly slow/stop BTW?)

 

[Jokester]

so extactly the same as millions of other drivers do every year.

so no you still havent given a reason. other than an emotional appeal.
you havent said why the sentencing should be, or what it achieves.

It sends a message to those millions of other drivers (since it isn't feasible to lock them all up) that it's completely unacceptable to use a mobile whilst driving.

Has the number of people drink driving since the law changed fallen?

 

[Glaucus]

It sends a message to those millions of other drivers (since it isn't feasible to lock them all up) that it's completely unacceptable to use a mobile whilst driving.

Has the number of people drink driving since the law changed fallen?

it doesn't, show me stats where such deterrents like this actually work. you might want to start with the ultimate deterrent, death penalties.
and show me what caused the reduction in drink driving? is it the odd case where people go to prison for 10 years, or perhaps its the massive educational drive over many decades, and the increase in detection. not the 1 in a thousands big case.

you did see that i used the word fact many times? or evidence if you wish.

that also such law systems not only dont work, but actually increase death and suffering compared to more enlightened legal system, that rather than bowing to emotion can actually listen to scientific studies and outcomes.

I find it very sad that you and the population at large cant acknowledge evidence and instead actually campaign and want more suffering. That is what you are doing that's not an emotional argument. We know our legal system does this, we know there are better systems in other countries, and we also know how to make even better systems than those.

 

[LEUVEN]

Indeed, a mistake implies an accident. There was nothing accidental about this.


The current punishment has been largely ineffective at stopping people using their mobiles when driving. They're upping the penalty now to an automatic 6points and £200 I think it was.

It'll probably take treating it like drink driving (and I think studies show that using your phone is comparable in terms of lessened driving ability) before the general public start treating it as a anti-social behaviour.

Absolutely agree.

It'll probably take treating it like drink driving

This needs to happen. You could argue that people on their phones texting have less control of the vehicle than a drink driver does as they can't be looking at the road when looking at their phone.

 

[TheVoice]

There are infinite possibilities which could quite easily have happened in this scenario: the car could have pulled into the other lane before impact, the car could have not been there in the first place, the family could have survived the crash, the reason the driver checked his phone (say he received a text) could not have happened, all would have resulted in a different outcome but the driver would have been none the wiser.

All of those things are attributable to someone's actions, be it his own or someone else's. He hasn't been prosecuted on the basis that any other number of scenarios could have occurred instead, he's been prosecuted based on one single scenario which actually occurred.

Why should someone else who stares at their phone rather than looking ahead in an equally dangerous scenario without the outcome not receive the same sentence?

You seem to be trying to detach the outcome from the sentence, when it's very clearly part of it and has been for as long as the criminal justice system has existed.

 

[Glaucus]

You seem to be trying to detach the outcome from the sentence, when it's very clearly part of it and has been for as long as the criminal justice system has existed.

great argument, it was illegal to be gay for most of legal history, should we have kept that, why do people keep falling back to this argument? is it because you don't actually have any decent points?

every one is ware of the current laws and thats been like that since law began, that's not the question or debate. its about how we actually improve society, cause as little suffering to others as possible etc. and saying its always been like that, does none of those things

 

[Jokester]

it doesn't, show me stats where such deterrents like this actually work. you might want to start with the ultimate deterrent, death penalties.
and show me what caused the reduction in drink driving? is it the odd case where people go to prison for 10 years, or perhaps its the massive educational drive over many decades, and the increase in detection. not the 1 in a thousands big case.

you did see that i used the word fact many times? or evidence if you wish.

that also such law systems not only dont work, but actually increase death and suffering compared to more enlightened legal system, that rather than bowing to emotion can actually listen to scientific studies and outcomes.

I find it very sad that you and the population at large cant acknowledge evidence and instead actually campaign and want more suffering. That is what you are doing that's not an emotional argument. We know our legal system does this, we know there are better systems in other countries, and we also know how to make even better systems than those.

So you believe dangerous behaviour that results in the deaths of other people shouldn't be punished severely?

Oh, and have a paper on detterence effects of increasing punishment in drink driving:-
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20243

 

[Glaucus]

So you believe dangerous behaviour that results in the deaths of other people shouldn't be punished severely?

i think
a) you should be sentenced for the crime not the outcome
b) based on the risk
c) based on what we know actually works.

so it depends.
and no i dont think just because someone dies that should mean automatically massive sentences(and that currently how it works for some things, and then things like this case its the opposite, not every death leads to harsh sentences). Because that goes against those three basic points, especially point c. Which then can and does lead to more crime and more suffering .

do you honestly believe that if something like this happen but there happened to be an ambulance following then which meant they lived, they should then get a much lesser sentence, as they didn't die?

 

[weringo]

All of those things are attributable to someone's actions, be it his own or someone else's. He hasn't been prosecuted on the basis that any other number of scenarios could have occurred instead, he's been prosecuted based on one single scenario which actually occurred.



You seem to be trying to detach the outcome from the sentence, when it's very clearly part of it and has been for as long as the criminal justice system has existed.

You're explaining how the justice system works which we're very much aware of but not explaining why it benefits society to have a system based on results rather than intent.

 

[Jokester]

It's only a crime because of the outcome...

 

[weringo]

It's only a crime because of the outcome...

Actually it's not, attempted murder is a crime under our current legal system, but you're completely evading the point again.

 

[Glaucus]

It's only a crime because of the outcome...

no its not.
how can you even say that.
why do so many people get fined for using a phone, or many other things. when nothing happens.

So no it is not based on outcome.

it is initially and very much based on possible outcomes and risk. we then tack on stupidly harsh extra punishment for actual outcome.

but keep evading everything.

 

[TheVoice]

The "Bad Luck" aspect in this case was that the previously, only seconds before, free flowing traffic on a not particularly busy DC trunk road, unexpectedly suddenly ground to a halt at just the same time that this driver chose to spend time fiddling with his phone.

...instead he spent about 45 seconds looking at his phone as he scrolled through music, only occasionally glancing up and unaware that the traffic ahead had come to a stop.

Link

Traffic was apparently stationary because of a slow-moving HGV in front of them. Watch the video in the article; they didn't suddenly slam on the anchors in front of him leaving him no time to react.

great argument, it was illegal to be gay for most of legal history, should we have kept that, why do people keep falling back to this argument? is it because you don't actually have any decent points?

Is your intention to be just belligerent enough to make people stop responding to you so you can consider it a victory? Because it's working.

 

[Glaucus]

Is your intention to be just belligerent enough to make people stop responding to you so you can consider it a victory? Because it's working.

nope, its trying to point out the folly in your terrible lack of logic. Using points that are far less emotionally charged and thus has a better chance of you actually thinking about it. Rather than omg some died so some one must get life imprisonment, just because.
but again you would rather just ignore it rather than actually thinking.

 

[TheVoice]

You're explaining how the justice system works which we're very much aware of but not explaining why it benefits society to have a system based on results rather than intent.

It's based on both. Why do you consider this to be a fault?

 

[TheVoice]

nope, its trying to point out the folly in your terrible lack of logic. Using points that are far less emotionally charged and thus has a better chance of you actually thinking about it. Rather than omg some died so some one must get life imprisonment, just because.
but again you would rather just ignore it rather than actually thinking.

You're attacking a point I haven't even made, so I'm not sure I'm the one suffering a lack of logic here. I am thinking; specifically I'm thinking you're rude and obnoxious whenever you disagree with someone.