Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:43 AM Mar 2015

Criminal sentences should reflect actions, not consequences.

If you drink-drive and kill someone you will probably be sent to jail for a long time.
If you drink-drive and get pulled over without hitting anyone you may well just get a caution or a slap on the wrist.

If you punch someone, knock them down and they get up again, you will get a light sentence.
If you punch someone, knock them down a few inches further to the left, and they hit their head and die, your sentence will be much heavier.

Attempted murder is often not treated as seriously as murder.

I think that this is wrong. I think that criminal sentences should only reflect the actions the accused took, not circumstances beyond their control. Those who take reckless gambles with other people's lives should, insofar as possible (which is obviously a severe limitation) be sentenced based on the likelihood that their actions would have killed someone, not one whether they got lucky or unlucky.

Whether that means stiffer sentences for the lucky, lighter ones for the unlucky, or both, is open to debate. But the only things it's fair to punish someone for - and the only things it's fair to treat as mitigating circumstances in their defence - are things under their control.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
1. Meh.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:52 AM
Mar 2015

I swing a bat in a crowded area and get arrested. According to you, I should get the same punishment whether or not I killed anyone or did zero damage while so doing. After all, it is 'beyond my control' whether or not someone happened to step into the path of that bat at just the right moment.

So should my bat wielder who completely failed to hit anyone be sentenced exactly the same as a bat wielder who actually struck and killed a small child? After all, he was just 'lucky' he happened to miss everyone.

As per your last paragraph, should both men get a penalty that reflects swinging and missing, or swinging and killing?

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
3. Are we talkinng about swinging blindfold here?
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:03 AM
Mar 2015

If so then yes, both men should get the same sentence.

If not then it's not beyond your control whether you hit someone or not.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
8. No. results of actions can and are crimes.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:13 AM
Mar 2015

If someone uses a gun, that, usually, is not a crime. If someone uses a gun and the bullet hits someone and that person dies, that, usually, is a crime. The result of the action of using the gun is the crime.

Unless you are advocating that using a gun becomes a crime with the punishment being the same as murder, your argument doesn't work.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
7. No, I think they mean any swing, let alone a punch is an automatic murder conviction
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:11 AM
Mar 2015

In terms of punishment anyway.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
13. I suppose in theory it could work that way
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:36 AM
Mar 2015

But the practice would be to punish everyone much more harshly, or all the poor people anyway.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
14. Well, it's all theory now. In practice I doubt we'll move away from our revenge-fuelled results
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:45 AM
Mar 2015

based legal system. But in theory (and maybe at some time in the future), a system that judges an individual by what's in their control would be a lot more equitable and make more sense. The problem is, many people still see the legal system as a way of getting some sort of revenge.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
10. But you agree that someone who drives drunk and kills someone should go to prison?
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:26 AM
Mar 2015

So you seem to be arguing that every DUI should result in an automatic prison sentence.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
11. No, I'm not.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:32 AM
Mar 2015

Because I'm arguing for some form of averaging of the sentences, not always imposing the higher or the lower.

Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Original post)

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
16. Moral blameworthiness, intent and sentencing proportionality are concepts not used by the public, but are by judges. Answered.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:12 AM
Mar 2015

It is complex - reducing criminal law sentencing to such simple media friendly terms is like reducing brain surgery to ditch digging.

Look up the "thin skull" principal in criminal law sentencing.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
17. Consequences are a way of measuring the severity of the actions.
Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:21 AM
Mar 2015

Not all drunk drivers are equally dangerous, for example. The fact that you actually kill someone means that most likely you were engaging in a more dangerous form of drunk driving. For example, driving drunk for a couple blocks on an isolated road is less dangerous than trying to drive drunk for 100 miles on the interstate.

So, in a sense, the current system makes the average or expected punishment for drunk driving commensurate with the expected damage. If you are a "relatively safe" drunk driver, you are causing less harm, and you are also less likely to serve a long prison term.

There's also the fact that when someone dies, there's a victim and their family who want justice.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Criminal sentences should...