Whoooboy....

[Oakley]

Red herring.

Stick to the facts: 2-lane highway with intersections, at night, 130mph. That's what this thread is about.

Wrong. His pointing out the hypocrisy here could not be more relevant.

Oh and you forgot no traffic, no victims, and no property damage.

Sponsored

 

[wynand32]

Wrong. His pointing out the hypocrisy here could not be more relevant.

Oh and you forgot no traffic, no victims, and no property damage.

All it would have taken for a catastrophic accident was for one person to make a turn onto that road, a turn based on the reasonable assumption that the Mustang wasn't traveling at almost three times the speed limit. Surely you understand that a turn based on an oncoming car at a certain distance going 45mph can be safe whereas if the car is going 130mph it is not. And the other driver would have no way of knowing how fast the Mustang was going.

That's the difference between driving recklessly on uncontrolled public roads versus driving fast in controlled conditions.

You say "no traffic," but that could have changed in an instant. That's the point about it being a public road. The fact that an accident didn't actually occur is simply fortunate.

 

[wynand32]

I'll add that I'm sure everyone here has broken the speed limit a time or two. I admit to driving 60mph in 45mph zones where there are no intersections, and 85mph on the freeway when the speed limit is 65mph and the traffic is flowing at 75mph. I even once hit 105mph merging onto a completely empty 6-lane freeway, although that was accidental. I didn't realize how fast the car could accelerate.

If someone can't tell the fundamental difference between those circumstances and driving 130mph at night on a two-lane road with intersections, then maybe they shouldn't be driving at all.

 

[Oakley]

All it would have taken for a catastrophic accident was for one person to make a turn onto that road, a turn based on the reasonable assumption that the Mustang wasn't traveling at almost three times the speed limit. Surely you understand that a turn based on an oncoming car at a certain distance going 45mph can be safe whereas if the car is going 130mph it is not. And the other driver would have no way of knowing how fast the Mustang was going.

That's the difference between driving recklessly on uncontrolled public roads versus driving fast in controlled conditions.

You say "no traffic," but that could have changed in an instant. That's the point about it being a public road. The fact that an accident didn't actually occur is simply fortunate.

that's a lot of words to justify pre-crime.

 

[MAGS1]

The posted speed limit is 45. He was doing almost triple that, which is AGAINST THE LAW thus a crime was actually committed. He was caught and now suffers the consequences. Want us to draw you a picture???? Whether you agree with the punishment or not does not matter, it is the punishment set by the state. As mentioned by another previously, it is set as a harsh punishment as a deterrent to prevent serious injury or death. They are public roads and all who use them have the right to be as safe as possible when using them no matter the time of day and no matter how many or how few are on said road at any given time. I know there’s big words in there but it’s not a difficult concept.

 

[wynand32]

that's a lot of words to justify pre-crime.

No, that's a few words to explain why it's not safe to drive at those speeds on public roads, and why doing so creates an imminent danger to other people.

I suppose you're against 25mph zones in residential areas as well. You'd be fine with someone driving 60mph through a neighborhood, as long as they're lucky enough that no kid runs out in front of them. No victims, no property damage, right?

By your logic, society has no right to establish reasonable rules against actions that have the potential to cause serious harm to others. Only after someone is injured or killed, or property is damaged, is there an actual crime in your book.

By the way, "pre-crime" meant something very different in the novel/movie than how you're using it here. Really, you're just hand-waving away the fact that driving 130mph in a 45mph zone is a crime as established by statute, because you don't like the way the law is written.

Or maybe your problem is with the severity of the criminal charges. In that case, you're just not being clear in your argument. Do I agree with the felony charge of "criminal recklessness using a deadly weapon"? I'm not sure, and it remains to be seen if that charge is actually prosecuted. I certainly agree with the misdemeanor charge of reckless driving, however.

But you're implying that there should be no crime because nobody or nothing was hurt. That's a specious argument.

 

[Oakley]

No, that's a few words to explain why it's not safe to drive at those speeds on public roads, and why doing so creates an imminent danger to other people.

I suppose you're against 25mph zones in residential areas as well. You'd be fine with someone driving 60mph through a neighborhood, as long as they're lucky enough that no kid runs out in front of them. No victims, no property damage, right?

By your logic, society has no right to establish reasonable rules against actions that have the potential to cause serious harm to others. Only after someone is injured or killed, or property is damaged, is there an actual crime in your book.

You're almost there. Society has no right to punish people for "what could've happened".
What you're ignoring is the necessary component of harsh penalties for people who ignore guidelines and cause harm.

You're doing this in service to your argument of "charge with pre-crime and split the difference on the penalty".

This is a compromise of justice in order to make you feel safer. you trade justice for the person who makes an error in judgment but hurts no one AND you trade justice for the person who actually murders people with reckless behavior.

in our present cirumstance NEITHER get justice because compromising on justice is by definition NOT justice.

my argument is "stop compromising on penalties for those that have done harm AND those who have harmed no one so that we can start distributing actual justice to people who take lives, rape, and cause property damage".

You can deal with the guy who blazes through town nearly killing someone in some way that doesn't ruin his life.

personally i'm a huge fan of bringing back public floggings for this.
take your lashings, take the momentary shame, learn from it, and get on with your life.

our entire legal system is a half measure on both ends punishing what might be stupid mistakes worse than actual unlawful behavior in many cases.

This is one of those cases.

i'm aware that this would require an overhaul of our justice system.
I'm also aware it would need to burn to the ground before statists would let that happen.

I will hope it doesn't need to come to that.

 

[wynand32]

You're almost there. Society has no right to punish people for "what could've happened".
What you're ignoring is the necessary component of harsh penalties for people who ignore guidelines and cause harm.

You're doing this in service to your argument of "charge with pre-crime and split the difference on the penalty".

This is a compromise of justice in order to make you feel safer. you trade justice for the person who makes an error in judgment but hurts no one AND you trade justice for the person who actually murders people with reckless behavior.

in our present cirumstance NEITHER get justice because compromising on justice is by definition NOT justice.

my argument is "stop compromising on penalties for those that have done harm AND those who have harmed no one so that we can start distributing actual justice to people who take lives, rape, and cause property damage".

You can deal with the guy who blazes through town nearly killing someone in some way that doesn't ruin his life.

personally i'm a huge fan of bringing back public floggings for this.
take your lashings, take the momentary shame, learn from it, and get on with your life.

our entire legal system is a half measure on both ends punishing what might be stupid mistakes worse than actual unlawful behavior in many cases.

This is one of those cases.

i'm aware that this would require an overhaul of our justice system.
I'm also aware it would need to burn to the ground before statists would let that happen.

I will hope it doesn't need to come to that.

Again, you're misusing the phrase "pre-crime." I think you intend it to mean punishing someone before they actually commit a crime. However, this person broke at least the crime of reckless driving, which is a misdemeanor. But I can't be sure, because the way you're using the term doesn't make sense.

And since you've established that there should be laws against acting in a way that might harm someone's life or property, now we're just arguing punishments. And certainly, you know that the punishment would be harsher if the person actually had injured or killed someone than it would be for the current felony charge, which I've already established I'm not sure about.

While I don't think our legal system is perfect, it's not so bad that actually killing someone carries lesser punishment than acting in such a dangerous way that you could potentially kill someone. Murdering someone while robbing them carries harsher penalties than just armed robbery, for example, where the gun is never fired.

You'll have to show me an example of where acting dangerously but not actually causing harm carries a harsher penalty than actually injuring or killing someone. Actually, you'll need to show me a bunch of such examples before you've established your position as valid.

Regarding your idea of public floggings and such, our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Personally, I would find your suggestions to be in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Oakley]

Again, you're misusing the phrase "pre-crime." I think you intend it to mean punishing someone before they actually commit a crime. However, this person broke at least the crime of reckless driving, which is a misdemeanor. But I can't be sure, because the way you're using the term doesn't make sense.

you're arguing semantics instead of the point because you know that i'm right in principle.

 

[wynand32]

you're arguing semantics instead of the point because you know that i'm right in principle.

Funny, I would accuse you of doing exactly that.

And I question your use of the term "pre-crime" because, in your context, it's meaningless.

 

[Oakley]

Funny, I would accuse you of doing exactly that.

of course you would.

And I question your use of the term "pre-crime" because, in your context, it's meaningless.

just like your arbitrary "standards" for what constitutes crime and therefore justice.

 

[wynand32]

just like your arbitrary "standards" for what constitutes crime and therefore justice.

I haven't said nearly enough about what my standards are for defining crimes for you to call them "arbitrary." So far, what I've said has been clearly defined and based on consistent principles.

 

[Oakley]

I haven't said nearly enough about what my standards are for defining crimes for you to call them "arbitrary." So far, what I've said has been clearly defined and based on consistent principles.

wrong again. I think we're done here.

 

[wynand32]

wrong again. I think we're done here.

We can agree on that one: we're definitely done here.

 

[Trap]

You're almost there. Society has no right to punish people for "what could've happened".
What you're ignoring is the necessary component of harsh penalties for people who ignore guidelines and cause harm.

my argument is "stop compromising on penalties for those that have done harm AND those who have harmed no one so that we can start distributing actual justice to people who take lives, rape, and cause property damage".

You can deal with the guy who blazes through town nearly killing someone in some way that doesn't ruin his life.

So you're saying it's ok to street race and drive insanely quick, and as long as no one get's hurt, a little slap on the wrist is ok.
That's like saying it's ok to carelessly shoot a firearm in public, as long as no one get hurt that's fine.

Sponsored