Intent, risk, liability.
Jul. 7th, 2009 09:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparrSix guys sit around a table playing russian roulette, with the gun pointed at the guy next to them. One of them inevitably ends up shooting another. Has that guy committed a greater crime than the other 5? The intent and risk was identical every time. They all knew the chances that someone would die when they pulled the trigger, they all chose to take that risk.
Two people buy the same car. Bob just starts driving his. Joe does thousands of dollars in aesthetic customization first. They get in identical wrecks, being hit by Sue and Amy (who are completely at fault). The chance of your car being hit is predictable, just like getting struck by lightning or having a tree fall on it. If Sue and Amy had stayed home that day, the chance of Bob and Joe's cars being hit would not have changed in any significant way. Joe took a greater risk than Bob by putting a more expensive car on the road, but our society puts the burden of Joe's risk on Amy, who took the exact same risk as Sue. Why is that? Why does Joe not bear any liability for his riskier behavior?
Somewhere out there is Sam. He has that same car again, and spends even more than Joe making it prettier. But Sam recognizes that he is taking a greater risk by putting a more expensive car on the road, and he does the responsible thing and gets comprehensive insurance. Why is Sam not the norm?
In almost every part of life, sensible people can come to a consensus that with greater risk comes greater liability and responsibility. In this particular situation, and a few other similar ones, that consensus is shattered. Why?
Two people buy the same car. Bob just starts driving his. Joe does thousands of dollars in aesthetic customization first. They get in identical wrecks, being hit by Sue and Amy (who are completely at fault). The chance of your car being hit is predictable, just like getting struck by lightning or having a tree fall on it. If Sue and Amy had stayed home that day, the chance of Bob and Joe's cars being hit would not have changed in any significant way. Joe took a greater risk than Bob by putting a more expensive car on the road, but our society puts the burden of Joe's risk on Amy, who took the exact same risk as Sue. Why is that? Why does Joe not bear any liability for his riskier behavior?
Somewhere out there is Sam. He has that same car again, and spends even more than Joe making it prettier. But Sam recognizes that he is taking a greater risk by putting a more expensive car on the road, and he does the responsible thing and gets comprehensive insurance. Why is Sam not the norm?
In almost every part of life, sensible people can come to a consensus that with greater risk comes greater liability and responsibility. In this particular situation, and a few other similar ones, that consensus is shattered. Why?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-08 03:42 pm (UTC)It seems that the angle you're coming from is, "Punishments should be based on intent and the riskiness of the action, not the actual consequences of the action." That philosophy, I think, actually discourages people from being careful. To take an extreme example, shoot a gun out the window -- if you randomly happen to hit a baby, you're no worse off than if you shoot a puppy. Or nothing at all, for that matter.