Ethical question: should we factor in the consequences of a crime when determining its just punishment?

Question

An ethical question:

As a society, we often punish crimes committed with the same amount of malice differently depending on the severity of the consequences. For example, attempted-murder convicts are usually given lighter sentences than actual murderers, even if this is because they are just bad at aiming a pistol.

One of the first mistakes I made when I was 16 and a new driver was running a stop sign that I just didn't see. There were no cars coming, though, so thankfully there was no accident. Had a cop seen me, the most I would have received was a ticket.

Yet I read in the paper about a man who made the same mistake. He was completely sober and alert, but just missed the stop sign. A minivan slammed into his car, and two of its passengers were killed. He was facing jail time for vehicular manslaughter.

We both made the same mistake and are similarly culpable. Why are the punishments not the same? Why should fortune and chance to factor in our criminal punishments?

I'm putting the question to a vote, but first I have some comments.

First, Sidoney, I don't believe in fate or karma. If fate was responsible for that man killing those people when he ran the stop sign, he seems to not be culpable at all, and our fated, inevitable punishments are meaningless.

Peterk and tehabwa: Could we avoid fundamentalism if we punish offenders lightly instead of severely for their mistakes, even if they cause death? And isn't mooch's response an example of fundamentalism arising from consequence-based justice?

However, Mooch, I have a feeling that you would believe in severe punishment even if the consequences of a crime weren't fatal. If someone tried to shoot a loved one but missed, wouldn't you still want to do them great harm?

Keither: We do actually speculate when we sentence a criminal. That's why armed robbery is more serious than smash-and-grab. The gun could have gone off and killed someone, so the punishment is severe.

My point is that consequence-based justice seems a little too much like revenge. The greater the hurt of the victim, the greater the crime. This is not the principal that most of us believe to be the foundation of our judicial system. It is supposed to be about appropriately punishing the mistake.

Answer 1

You have the answer.

Answer 2

First, A VERY good question.

You said above: "We both made the same mistake and are similarly culpable."

You are confounding the "crime" and the "mistake."

You seem to refuse to believe that the outcome of your "mistake" shouldn't matter. A "crime" is a matter of degree and based on a continuum. This continuum for the severity of a crime involves the consequences of your actions. I would hope you can see that running a stop sign in the absence of killing someone for your mistake is not the same circumstance as running a stop sign and killing somebody for your mistake. In the latter case the person must be held accountable for the consequences of the act that violated the law. In the former case, the person could have been held accountable had a cop caught it, but in the absence of killing someone for the mistake doesn't deserve the same punishment as the latter. You can't remove the consequences for the act in determining justice.

In the absence of considering the consequences of the act that violated some law, you know what you get? --fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism would punish the same mistake the same way: Run a stop sign and kill someone, you "deserve" a severe punishment. Run a stop sign and you don't kill someone, you still deserve a severe punishment. Drive while intoxicated and kill someone, you deserve a severe punishment. Drive while intoxicated and you don't kill someone, you still deserve a severe punishment. In the above examples, the mistake is the same but the crime IS NOT. Don't confound the crime and the mistake.

Answer 3

A couple different thoughts:
If you believe in fate or karma or the like, then you'll believe that no one was there when you ran your stop sign so you were spared for a reason; it taught you a lesson; you're more careful about looking for stop signs. Your guy in the paper wasn't so lucky; he never learned that lesson, so he had to learn it at the expense of others and himself. And who knows? He may have been dicking around with his cell phone, listening to the radio, not paying attention, or whatever. But maybe in the whole scheme of things you take a step back and look at the bigger picture: This accident was awful to the people who's lives it impacted there is no denying that. But what if he had the same luck as you and the next stop sign he ran was to stop him from the train tracks and his car being there would have killed 60 people? And him? I was hit by a drunk driver last year and lamented my lot for a few months feeling very sorry for myself becuse two discs in my back were displaced and I was in a lot of pain. Then I thought Ya know? What if by hitting my car, causing minimal damage to me (really, physical therapy and vicodin and I was ok!) and causing her arrest for her 3rd DUI, what if my car was the speed bump that stopped her from running into a school bus? Or something equally terrible.
Or on the flip side one might say that you were just lucky and he was charged with what he was charged with because it seems that there can't be any "accidents" anymore. Really he ran a stop sign it happens all the time Laura Bush did it once and killed a kid. People do it. This is the dichotomy of our times right now. No one seems to have to be held accountable on a personal level so the only accountability lies with whoever gets blamed. Didn't the driver of the minivan have some responsibility to not blithely go through an intersection? Aren't we all supposed to be defensive drivers? (Please I am not blaming the victim here, just trying to show a point) I mean in a perfect world after the dust settled and the minidriver could see through their grief, shouldn't they come to a mutual deal between the two of them as to how the guy could reconcile his mistake?

I actually believe it's a little of both, I truly believe the fate thing. It sucks when it doesn't work in your favor but think of all the times it has and you just are kind of like, "wheswsh, glad no cop wasthere for that one!" It's a great question...

Answer 4

Going back to your example, I think the reason the driver was convicted of vehicular manslaughter was he actually caused the death of others whereas, had you been caught for missing the sign, u would have been punished for doing something that COULD have caused the death of others.

I'm no lawyer but i guess that punishments are meted out based on the consequences, not what could have been the consequences. We can argue till the cows come home on what could have happened but there's no argument on what had already happened.

One may think the guy did not deserve jail because you would not have been jailed had a cop caught you; another may think you should get jail time because of what you could have caused. That is why the consequence do play a part in meting out punishments., i feel.

Unfair, but life's like that.

Answer 5

Yup! Quite a question you've got there.

These thoughts occur to me. If we treated all illegal acts, minor in themselves, but equivalent to their worst possible consequences, then too many people would be treated as severely as killers. People would also find most of these punishments unfair, as well as being impractical.

I think part of the reason for the difference in treatment between running a red and running a red and killing someone is that, given the tragedy of the death, when the person who caused it did do something (minorly) wrong, that they should have known was dangerous, it feels wrong to people to not punish them severely.

Attempted murder (shooting and missing), is and ought to be, treated more seriously than a moving traffic violation, as the intention IS important here.

Answer 6

This is an excellent question, and I'm distressed to see that you're getting so many thoughtless answers. I think it's true that if our justice system were perfectly fair, the *unintended* consequences of an action would have no bearing on the punishment. In other words, you could theoretically kill someone and get off scot-free, if your actions were all deemed lawful and reasonable. But perfect fairness would require omniscience. Consequences are indeed a crude way of evaluating actions, but without them we would be reduced to sheer speculation: What could have happened? How likely was it to happen? How would we punish someone who acted in a similar manner with more tragic results?

I think we have to acknowledge that the function of our justice system is not to give each person precisely the punishment he deserves, but rather to apply a consistent set of standards that encourage people to be cautious and considerate in their actions. In a sense, every "criminal" we sentence is serving as an example to his fellow-citizens. Nietzsche said that in the most advanced society imaginable, criminals would not be punished at all. But we don't live in that society. We live in a world where rules have to be enforced, even if that means injustice in the individual case.

Hope that answers your question.

Answer 7

People should be punished in accordance with the consequences of what they do. If somebody runs a stop sign and kills somebody else, they are worse (in my view) than somebody who tries to shoot somebody else but misses. Because no matter if it's "accidental" or not, one idiot leaves somebody dead while the other leaves nobody dead. My reasoning is quite simply that I would cheerfully do great harm to anybody who killed one of mine, regardless of whether the harm was intentional or accidental. And I wouldn't give a tuppenny toss about their excuses or their motives.

Mind, I'd make sure the idiot who tries to shoot somebody was left without the physical apparatus needed to hold and use a pointed stick, much less a gun, for his sins. Just in case he tries again.

Pass the hacksaw please; the blunt one will do...

Answer 8

maximum of it quite is in keeping with lack of information,many times lack of information fueled by using religious Ideology. Oddly adequate,history proves people who might legalize drugs top.All one needs to do is verify out Prohibition.It grew to become into Prohibition that brought about the rampant crime,it grew to become into Prohibition that brought about the Violence.because of the fact whilst Prohibition started,it did not exchange human nature,human beings nevertheless needed their booze.And without warning the main vile human beings in our society have been the only ones with the willingness to grant it,which brought about untold violence as they secure and ran their "business enterprise".to not point out how badly it corrupted our regulation Enforcement equipment. the comparable has held genuine from the commencing up with the "Drug warfare",with the two the violence,and the rampant corruption. comparable holds genuine for different victimless crimes,like Prostitution.extraordinary how the societies that allowed it observed much less females being coerced into it,much less of the newborn prostitution,and much less of the police corruption of officers taking money or favors to look any other way.whilst the international locations who combat it the toughest,see the appropriate issues linked with it. RWE