He has shown himself a “bad person” by his subsequent actions – hiding his assets for example. He should, IMHO of course, be subjected to further legal sanctions for this over and above any for his driving offence.
In this manner it is the same what ever the crime – if some one is found guilty of a crime and then breaks the law to avoid punishment, this is a separate and new offence and should punished as such.
The idea of attaching a monetary value to everything is something which is quite old – the Danes in England did it before the eleventh century – and it has worked very well (historically). I am not sure why it has, largely, fallen out of favour but I can see there would be potential problems over deciding a consistent value of pain and suffering.
However, the idea that “X” damage results in “Y” jail time certainly has potential – especially if it could be scaled up to corporate and national crimes.
]]>His actions after the accident and his unwillingness to take responsibility are what should be punished. I know this will never happen, but I would like to see a dollar amount attached. You cause, “this much damage” you spend “this much time in jail.” I think that would be the most consistant way to punish someone in this situation.
Is that a totally crazy idea?
]]>I have no doubt, and never intended to imply otherwise, that the suffering caused in situations like yours (or the one mentioned by the BBC) is serious and life-changing.
The issue I was addressing here is the difference between justice and revenge. Drunk drivers fall into a different category than negligent drivers (IMHO), as there is an implied “choice” which could, in turn, imply the all important mens rea.
The important thing is that punishing some one based on an unintended consequence defeats the basic premises of criminal justice – you can not deter people from accidents.
Reckless, negligent, aggressive driving is criminal and punished accordingly. Should a very reckless, negligent or aggressive driver who has an accident which only causes property damage be punished less than one who was not as reckless/negligent or aggressive but has an accident which results in the loss of life?
In your case, if you dont mind me asking, how long should the driver have spent in jail?
]]>In July 2006 a drunk driver named Mark Nigon hit my vehicle head on. My survival was called a miracle by the doctors. Mark was out of jail the next day. When finally sentenced he recieved 11 months of work release. He then hid his assets so that he would have to pay us as little money as possible.
Did Mark set out to hurt me that night? No. But was he breaking the law? Yes. Reckless, negligent, aggressive, and drunk drivers are breaking the law and if they hurt or kill someone they should be punished as if though they did it intentionally. It’s no different than if I accidently shot you because I didn’t know the gun was loaded. It would be my fault for pointing a gun at you in the first place.
A car is a giant weapon and if you can’t control it you should not be driving it. Feel free to look me up and read more about this.
]]>