Only people who's actions are intentional should receive punishment

82% Normal
7 Comments

I feel that someone who does something that's considered an infraction ,a misdemeanor, or even a felony should receive no punishment unless they did it intentionally, and that if they are deemed a danger to society due to the likelihood of the behavior reoccurring or other dangerous behavior occurring they should be removed from society not as a punishment, but only to receive help for their behavior. Also, I feel that the incident should not go on their record. is it normal to feel this way?

Voting Results
82% Normal
Based on 11 votes (9 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 7 )
  • thegypsysailor
    9 years ago

    So would you consider not paying attention while driving and killing several people, for instance, intentional or not? How about shooting a gun at one person, but killing someone completely different? What about someone with HIV not warning a sex partner that they have the disease, but wearing a condom that tears, giving the other person HIV? Causing harm to others, whether intentional or not, requires punishment severe enough that the behavior does not become common.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      9 years ago

      OP here. For the first example it would, for me, depend on WHY they weren't paying attention. Were they texting or playing games or doing whatever on their phone? or did they perhaps have a seizure and lose all control of their body? If it was because of something like the former, its intentional. If it was something like the latter, its unintentional. For the second example, if they know they have HIV, its intentional, if they are not yet aware that they have it, its unintentional. IMO, how bad someone feels after unintentionally causing harm to someone else is more than enough for them to not do it again. For my example of a man having a seizure, if I were the judge, I would simply order him to go to a neurologist and have seizure medication prescribed and nothing more.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • thegypsysailor
        9 years ago

        Just to play devil's advocate here, what if the person who had the seizure had a history of seizures, but maybe hadn't had one in some time? Would he be justified in driving, or should he never drive again?
        Personally, I don't think intent should be much of a factor, because few intend the consequences they create, though most could have been avoided by a tiny bit of forethought.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          9 years ago

          If he has a history of seizures his doctor will have forbade him to drive for at least six months, but if he drove anyway then he SHOULD be punished. But if its his first seizure, then absolutely not.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
      • Bluey_neilo
        9 years ago

        That's what lawyers are for. They try and reduce the punishment for justifying why they broke a law, e.g "they were intoxicated and young"

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • palepunk
    9 years ago

    Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • [Old Memory]
    9 years ago

    It depends. The problem is people would pretend it was an accident when it wasn't, which already happens. Cases are dismissed all the time when proven to be an accidental crime.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0