BANG!

[SteveH]

Do you think people who have caused a death by drunk driving, for instance, should be permitted to drive again?

Depends on all sorts of factors. They would be imprisoned, and very likely lose their licence for good, but you can't make universal rules which take no account of individual mitigating factors.

[Roses]

Depends on all sorts of factors. They would be imprisoned, and very likely lose their licence for good, but you can't make universal rules which take no account of individual mitigating factors.

There are no mitigating circumstances for killing someone when over the drink driving limit, imo.

[ad_orientem]

There are no mitigating circumstances for killing someone when over the drink driving limit, imo.

 

Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?

[Roses]

 

Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?

Definitely not.

[Owlswing]

 

Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?

I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.

But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.

Where are you?

How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?

What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?

etc etc etc!

[ad_orientem]

I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.

But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.

Where are you?

How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?

What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?

etc etc etc!

It was only hypothetical and far from perfect, of course. It was merely designed to show that one can envisage mitigating circumstances. Neither does it mean that the said action is necessarily the right thing to do, only that it could be mitigating.

[Sebastian Toe]

I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.

But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.

Where are you?

How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?

What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?

etc etc etc!

You are at a camping party in the middle of nowhere. No mobile phones. Your child has inadvertently eaten some nuts to which he is severely alergic. The normal shots have not worked. You are certain that you only have a very short time to get medical attention before death ensues.
All of the drivers there are over the limit.
You have a car.
What would you do?

[jeremyp]

And it is that attitude that has resulted in a generation that knows that they can get away with absolutely anything 'cos there have been people like you who have got that attitude accepted and now others have to sort out the resulltant mess!

Absolutely. Because when we used to hang people, nobody ever committed crimes.

No, actually, what you say is bollocks. People have always committed crimes. Crime, generally, is on a downward curve even though punishments are far less severe than they were in days of yore.

[jeremyp]

Definitely not.

Why not?

[jeremyp]

I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.

But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.

Where are you?

How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?

What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?

etc etc etc!

Let's say you are not "pissed out of your skull" but definitely over the limit. You're at a pub out in the sticks. It's at least 10 minutes for an ambulance to get to you and your partner has collapsed and will die if they don't get to the hospital within 15 minutes. You drive them to the hospital and just before you get there, somebody dressed all in black steps out into the road in front of you. Had you been sober, you would have reacted in time not to hit them, but you aren't sober, so you kill them.

These are, in my opinion, mitigating circumstances. It doesn't mean you are not guilty and it doesn't mean you should not be punished in some way, but when you chose to drive drunk, it was either that or watch your partner die in front of your eyes. Don't you think some leniency should be applied in those circumstances? Would you risk the possibility of accidentally killing a stranger and losing your licence against the certainty of your partner's death? Would you blame somebody else who chose to try to save their partner?

[Owlswing]

You are at a camping party in the middle of nowhere. No mobile phones. Your child has inadvertently eaten some nuts to which he is severely alergic. The normal shots have not worked. You are certain that you only have a very short time to get medical attention before death ensues.
All of the drivers there are over the limit.
You have a car.
What would you do?

Drive drunk to the nearest hospital and, if possible, get as a replacement driver, the first sober person you see who can drive to replace you if you can't pray to whichever deity in which you believe, that you don't get nicked on the way!

Or, if you do, get nicked I mean, get the cops to take over the driving and nick you at the hospital, having got you there on blues and-twos!

[SteveH]

 

Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?

As in an episode of 'Casualty' a year or two ago, except I don't think anyone was killed.

[Sassy]

I think I may have misunderstood it  . Saw on the news last night and I thought it was about targeting thieves on mopeds, i.e. a thief spots someone with handbag at an atm, jumps off bike, mugs her, gets back on bike and speeds off. I didn't think it was about nicking bikes. Could be both?

I don't like it even tho' they are trained how to do, they could so easily cause injury.

The thief could have medical conditions where such actions could kill them. It is unlawful to hit someone with  a vehicle deliberately. Vehicular manslaughter a crime since horse drawn carriages were in action. We cannot make something lawful for the police which is unlawful for other drivers if it harms anyone.

[Sebastian Toe]

The thief could have medical conditions where such actions could kill them. It is unlawful to hit someone with  a vehicle deliberately. Vehicular manslaughter a crime since horse drawn carriages were in action. We cannot make something lawful for the police which is unlawful for other drivers if it harms anyone.

..like driving way over the speed limit?

Or, not related to driving - posessing and firing guns?

[BeRational]

The thief could have medical conditions where such actions could kill them. It is unlawful to hit someone with  a vehicle deliberately. Vehicular manslaughter a crime since horse drawn carriages were in action. We cannot make something lawful for the police which is unlawful for other drivers if it harms anyone.

Then that is bad luck for the thief!