I do not promise to go any further with this exchange, which is becoming drawn out, tedious and redundant.
(“Probability” may range from 0%-100% or, in statistics notation, 0-1. “Possibility” is colloquially equivalent to “Probability.”)
There certainly IS a reasonable possibility of having a wreck even under ideal conditions at 170mph, except maybe for a professional race car driver. Speaking of professionals, a professional marksman could fire any number of rounds near a crowded school bus stop with a probability of near 0 of hitting anybody if he wanted to just scare people. By the logic you advocate above, charging him with a felony would be inappropriate.
My point is that appropriate sentencing must be imposed regardless of the size of the prison population, especially for more serious crimes such as reckless endangerment. How the people and the three branches of government decide to cope with overcrowding is a different issue.
My exact words were: “Spend at least a year in jail.” “Spend” is not a synonym of “be sentenced to” and since few felons serve out the full terms of their sentences it is reasonable to assume that when a felon spends a year in jail he normally would have received a much longer original sentence.
The issue is not that there must be limits, the issue is where to draw the line on them. In some cases the line is now drawn too broad, and should be narrowed. In other cases the line is drawn too narrow, and should be expanded. A 170mph driver should not be entitled to own any vehicles, and confiscating all vehicles he does own would be an appropriate part of retribution, so the limiting line on vehicle confiscation should if necessary be expanded.
Fine, the law dictates. I was only trying to figure out what you were trying to get across with this comment:
And the law cannot assume that if the accused/convicted would violate any suspension on his license.
I was not objecting to use of the masculine pronoun, I was wondering whether the car in question belonged to the violator, or to the friend who was driving him around. If the violator is driven by a friend in a friend's car, that is fine, but it is business as usual, and I want the penalty redefined to prevent the violator from ever owing another car.
Here is what I was replying to:
This is extreme since the OP doesn't have a history of the driver and I can assume that this is a first time offense, she cooperated by pulling over immediately after she knew she was caught. First time offense and compliance with law enforcement should not be a factor in defining serious crime, or in sentencing practices. You will agree, I hope, that a first-time murderer deserves to have the book thrown at him. As for the lack of injuries that was covered in the example of the school bus stop shooter.
As for lack of damage of any kind suppose the expert marksman in the school bus stop scenario above decided instead to amuse himself by seeing how close he get to shooting people without them even knowing they were being shot at. Someone sitting on a park bench would not notice a slug kicking up dirt behind him, and would not be alarmed by the report if it came from far enough away.
Malice does not define felony, and stupidity does not mitigate it.
There is simply a divide between us: I think reckless endangerment should be more severely dealt with thank you.
Our debate concerns what the law should be, correct? You seem to agree that heavier fines would be appropriate for wealthier offenders; if so you should agree with me that some places, such as Finland and Denmark, are getting it right:
The World's Highest Speeding Fines
(from link):
I retired after a 32-year working life, and I do remember what it was to get a paycheck.
Sorry to hear you are not on board after all with an appropriate system of fines for seriously reckless driving. I guess Finland would really give you an aneurism.
I do not take for granted that levying a serious penalty for a serious crime is likely to lead to government activity opposed to the best interests of the public.
Necessary power is enormous power when it includes the ability to deprive someone of his wealth and freedom.
Yes, America IS an orderly society, and that order is in no conflict with any individual who exercises his rights responsibly. For example there exists for most people a right to own firearm, but there does not exist a right to shoot at innocent people, even with intent to miss.
Whatever you mean by “collective” you are using it as a form of slur rather than in any sense constructive to intelligent debate.
Democracy is the best form of government, by far.
And how about Hitler? (Pardon the godwinization) Mussolini? Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Pol Pot? Khomeini? Mullah Mohammed Omar (Taliban supreme leader since 1994, still at large), and god knows how many other personifications of forms of government so much worse than Democracy that it is ridiculous.
Most if not all modern Democracies have enjoyed expansion of rights over last 150-200 years. I cannot think of any that are ridged [sic?] cult states, or that suffer from unsolvable disputes.
This is not a exclusively libertarian view.
Rehash. Skip it.
Most of the ill of the world is caused by people who have deranged views of where their responsibility lies, or who behave in ways they know are at odds with what constitutes truly responsible behavior.
No one but the state can effectively guard against numerous transgressors, both potential and actual. Take the real estate markets. Take Wall Street. Take the Mafia. Take the KKK. Take people who think it’s kewl to drive 170mph on a public road.
This is not a exclusively libertarian view.
Previously addressed.
