Mark Tranchant said:Ian Smith said:Mick said:Ian Smith wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
>> usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
>> that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
>>verdict.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
>should be punished as if they hit someone.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,
Quoted message said:You're saying that breaking the law isn't a crime unless someone is
injured?
Absolutely not, but they should be punished for what they did. In this
case, the misdemeanour is using a phone whilst driving with a dodgy
tyre, and appropriate fines/points should be levied. *Only* if it can be
shown that this contributed to the accident should tougher sentencing arise.
Innocent until proven guilty *must* prevail.
Indeed. I have proposed nothing remotely contrary to that. You are
arguing with a straw man - it's not really very clever.
(Incidently, innocent until proven guilty is not a universal precept
of UK law.)
Anyone guilty of driving a dangerously illegal vehicle, having been
proven guilty, should be punished to a degree comensurate with having,
through delibverate negligence, hit someone with that vehicle.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Is that something you would propose for all law, or do you think it
should only aplly to motoring law?
All law. If I fail to maintain a tree on my property despite warnings
and a heavy branch blows down, I shouldn't get done for manslaughter
unless the branch actually does kill someone.
Right. So burglary is not an offence in your proposed legal system?
Fraud? Vandalism? All perfectly OK, as long as no-one is actually
physically injured.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|