mikhail

Say a man gets out his car at the top of a hill he forgets about the handbrake it rolls down and hits someones fence What should his punishment be?

but what if the car hit and killed a child does this mean he should recieve a harsher punishment?

It seems the mens rea and actus reus (from the actual act) are the same in both but it also seems likely people would call out for a much harder punishments this seems to happen in many different examples for example a drug dealer caught selling and an indenticle drug dealer who sells something someone ODs on.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Erudite

A difficult question, but considering that it would hypothetically be an accidental occurence, the outcome should be discerned from the act itself (in terms of retribution). Emotion should not enter into the austere realm of the judicial system, and each crime (or, in this instance, event) weighed objectively.

Summerwind

Criminally, I agree it should be that way, even if it was and if I remember correctly its the civil courses that tend to be where the differences are most notable wherein it is the value of the victim.

TacticalEvilDan

Where I live, it doesn't matter why the car rolls down off the top of a hill, if the car rolls and does property damage, the owner of the car is liable for the damages in civil court.

Um, yeah, seeing as how children aren't property.

Ultimately, he'll be liable for wrongful death in civil court, and whether or not he'd face criminal charges depends on whether or not the state can demonstrate negligence to a jury.

It is commonly accepted that an action which results in relatively minor consequences would receive a stiffer punishment if the consequences were not minor.

So what?

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

dirtpoorchris

I guess part of it is up to the offended party and the system we currently got in place.
So there is fluctuating costs to commiting the same crime.
Now if the car was a lambo the owner would pay bail and never see a jail cell.
If the car was a 84 honda the man would be seing stainless steal toilets.
On a different note.
Here is more "thought experiment"


:p

__________________
I like pork.

Mach

The acts are not identical. Negligence/forethought, damage, victims, all different.

Let me put it to you simply.
Someone kills someone who was breaking into their house and who had a gun.
Someone kills someone for fun at school.

Killiing someone, the act of killing is the same. Your reasoning would lead you to believe both need the same punishment. Thankfully, that's not the case.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

Iriemon

There is a difference between criminal and civil, but you are responsible for the consequences of the wrongdoing. If you negligently forgot to put on the brake and the car just rolls downhill and stops, you have caused no harm. You're lucky. Do the same thing and cause harm and you are responsible for it.

__________________
Matthew 5:9