eh

I don't see how the Shirley remark could be seen as an insult, but that's not my problem. But yes, not bothering to put any thought into your post (as you did with those silly examples) is what I would classify as idiotic.
Sure, as soon as you can actually be bothered to think before replying.

Toto

Split from HERE in BCH.

Ms. Siv

Isn't that more because we cant separate out the deterrance effects from the revenge aspect of punishing the criminals ?

Deterrance works when there is a undesirabe consequence to "cheater" behaviour (I'm using ESS terminology here). And a consequence to "cheater" behaviour can only be established by punishing the criminal.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), thats taken as "revenge" by those seeking revenge for the crime.

Jamie_L

It seems to me that modern justice is still very much wrapped up in revenge. This is seen in the fact that sentencing revolves so much around the outcome of the criminal act. Two criminal acts with the same intent, but different outcomes are punished differently. The drunk driving example is only one example. Another is murder vs. attempted murder. If you try to kill someone and fail, your jail time is likely to be less than if you succeed. Most peopel find this to be intuitively correct. I subimt that this "intuitive" sense that the punishment should fit the outcome (rather than the intention) is rooted in a sense of revenge. If a person dies, someone must pay significantly. If someone is only injured, then there's not the imparative sense that the criminal must "pay for their crime".

Now, its true that in practice, it is through the outcome that we most easily discern the motives, and thus the severity of the actual crime. But this does not fully describe the way criminal sentencing depends on outcome. Clearly people have a desire to see criminals punished more severely if their actions cause more harm, even if the intent of the crime was identical to another case where less harm was caused. I see no way to explain the adequately without bringing in the concept of revenge.

It's a separate arguement as to whether this is appropriate for a legal system. But it seems obvious to me that it IS part of almost all modern legal systems (and all historical ones as well - revenge is clearly very important to human beings).

Jamie

Selsaral

Well I am no lawyer but it was my impression that a charge of manslaughter also considers the motivations involved in the crime. For instance rash crimes of passion etc are punished more leniently than pre-meditated, calculated crimes even if the outcome is the same. Feel free to correct me.

Hyndis

Thats correct. And things that are truely accidential recieve still less punishment. Wanton recklessness for the dangers involved is less heinous than murder, but yet more serious than a genuine accident.

Xrikcus

No, you are indeed correct. Maybe indeed I was oversimplifying things wrt manslaughter. The point was merely to suggest that there is too much importance attached to the consequences of a crime in justice systems currently. Maybe the suggested distinction between Attempted murder and murder itself is a better one.