We have a responsibility to those around us.. If this is something that could have been foreseen (ie not an accident), then yes.
For example, lets say someone parks their car up a hill and does not engage the park break. The car rolls down and smashes into a day care centre, killing 35 children and injuring dozens more, leaving many with permanent injuries. That someone should be held legally responsible for their actions or lack thereof.
Even if they just damage the building but do not kill anyone.
So the question is, should the penalty be related to the negligent action or the outcome?
Seems if it is relative to the outcome than all you do is introduce a measure of luck into the process.
If for instance one looks at the statistics and finds that when trucks runaway on hills due to the parking break not being set that in 1 out of 10 cases one or more fatalities results and that in one 1 out of 5 cases serious injury and/or property damage results, but in 7 out of 10 cases nothing happens at all.
Then the penalty for any case where a truck runs away because the parking break is not set should be based on the average outcome, not the specific outcome.
Meaning 7 out of 10 people shouldn't get away scott free just because they were lucky and their truck did no damage, nor should the unlucky person who does the exact same negligent act spend his life in jail because his truck hit a day care center.
In my experience though, I find both laws and prosecuters proportion their punishment much more to outcome than to action.
Arthur
Last edited: