frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should the system of justice make judgements based on actions, or on intent?

Debate Information

I received my first traffic ticket today. I passed a school bus with flashing lights on the opposite side of the road, for which I was legally obliged to stop.
However, the SUV to the left of me blocked the line of sight for the majority of the time, so I could not even see the bus until it was directly to the left of me, and by then it was too late to stop in any case.

This was an honest mistake many people would have made in my case: no matter how good a driver you are, you simply cannot see everything that is happening around you, especially when your sight is blocked.
However, there was a chance I would have hit a kid walking from the bus due to this mistake. These laws are intended to protect children, and me violating these laws, whether as a result of a reasonable and honest mistake, or as a result of careless driving, put the children at risk.

This got me thinking on what the legal system should target. Is it the intent it should be targeting, so people with a malicious intent, negligence and so on are discouraged from being so? Or is it the action, that is the entity that leads to the physical consequences for the involved people? This has been a pretty serious debate for centuries, and, as far as I know, no consensus has been achieved in it.

So I have two general questions for our wonderful community:

A) When a person has no ill intent, but violates the law due to the circumstances outside their control - should they be held responsible?
B) Does the answer to A change based on whether the law violation led to serious negative consequences for someone else, or not?


Zombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    This already seems to be settled.  There are laws in which intent is a factor, and laws in which intent is not a factor.  Trying to factor in intent when it's not a factor leads to very poor outcomes, like when Comey said Hillary hadn't intended to break laws where intent was not an element of the statute.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @CYDdharta

    I think it is much more complicated than such a binary system. There are many ways in which the intent can mismatch the consequences.

    For example, consider a situation in which a soldier during training at a firing range shoots a civilian. There may have been many reasons for that to happen:

    1) The soldier was just shooting at the target, and the civilian came out of nowhere at the last moment, when the shot was already taken.
    2) The soldier saw the civilian, but thought he could hit the target and avoid the civilian, so he shot anyway.
    3) The soldier aimed at the target, but upon seeing sudden movement and then the civilian, he lost his cool, panicked and shot at the civilian.
    4) The soldier genuinely thought the civilian was an enemy, based on how he moved and maybe what he held in his right hand.
    5) The soldier wanted to just have a little fun and scare the civilian by shooting near him, but he "missed" (anti-missed?).
    6) The soldier was given an order by his commander (legal or not) to shoot all civilians on sight.
    7) The soldier was tired after a very exhaustive training and was not thinking straight.
    8) The soldier was drunk and could not tell what was happening.

    In all these cases, the soldier did not intend to do anything obviously illegal - but, of course, the court would look at, say, case 5 in a very different way from case 1. On the other hand, case 7 and case 3 could be viewed somewhat similarly.

    I am more concerned in this debate with cases when the individual knows the law well and has a full intention to follow it, but the circumstances outside their control lead to them breaking the law nonetheless. Such as case 1 above. In Hillary's case it was plain negligence, but there are cases when the individual ends up breaking the law even after all the precautions were made. For example, if Hillary had done everything by the book, but, say, accidentally confused her private server's password with the confidential server's password and entered it with someone seeing it - then that is a completely different case, from the one in which she simply did not take security seriously overall.

    I do not believe that not knowing the law should be an excuse. But knowing the law, trying your best not to break it and ending up breaking it still due to an honest mistake - I think this case is much more complex. Knowing the law, but not taking it too seriously, is also not an easy matter and should probably depend on the circumstances.
    Zombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    Well if intent is what we should go off of then should we prosecute people who technically didn't break a law but had the intent to swindle people and act in a way that the vast majority would consider morally bankrupt? Example Paradise and Panama papers. Possibly the most important leaks and journalism in decades, but everyone just forgets about so easily. Also Trump saying he is smart to abuse loopholes? 

    Doesn't an odd loophole, while legal, circumvent the intent of a law?

    I don't believe we live in a society that judges based on intent.

    Let's bring it back to your case. Let's say you know full well the schoolbus is there and that passing on the road (important) is a serious offense. You still decide you want to pass it but you know that passing a schoolbus by driving on the sidewalk has no letter of the law against it. Maybe driving on the sidewalk carries a lesser or no fine. Your intent is the same in both cases and presents the same danger to the children that the letter of the law intends to deter. How should you be prosecuted? 
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    Thanks for the topic MC.
    Have you reviewed your suite of options?

     a) Pay the fine and be done with it,

     b) argue your own case in court, possibly listing physical dimensions including what your eye level is behind the wheel, and the view an SUV of that make & model obscures, within traffic lanes of those dimensions, etc.

     c) Hire a law firm to argue it in court.

    WM,
    The police / FBI sometimes bust ostensible bad guys for intent, ie they sell the guy what they tell him is plastic explosive, when it's really just clay. Then they bust him for terrorist bomb-making.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @WordsMatter

    Well, I do not think moral considerations should have a part in a legal process - not on their own, at least. In fact, often they are seen as justifying breaking the law, rather than outlawing following the law. There was a famous case in Japan where a female artist was making very controversial sculptures, and while the law in Japan is pretty strict on vulgarities and she received a lot of heat from the judges, the society as a whole supported her pretty strongly in the process.

    Of course, when it can be proven that I wanted to, say, circumvent the law, and ended up doing essentially the same thing (as in your example of driving on the sidewalk) - it can be more complicated. It is a loophole in a way, but also an indication that there is something wrong with the law. If the law does not take into account such an obvious way to go around it, then perhaps the law should be modified. Otherwise, we get into the territory where the judge's personal interpretation of the situation can matter much more, than the letter of law itself.

    But what about the cases where we have good reasons to believe that the mistake was honest and had no ill intent? I am not saying we should just start forgiving every offence that was done with good intentions in mind, but I think there is a fine line between mistakes that the offender could have and should have prevented, and those that were a result of the stars aligning a certain way, so to speak - and in the latter case it would be reasonable to reconsider the penalty inflicted on the individual.

    Consider this case, for example. You are driving through the Death Valley on a hot summer day. Suddenly your AC stops working, however you do not realise it, as you are listening to the music and cannot detect the sound from fans disappearing. You also do not immediately realise that it is pretty hot all of a sudden. Slowly the heat gets to your head, you stop thinking straight - and hit the car in front of you.
    Now, there are rules that state that you should never drive when your mental state is impaired in some way. However, in this particular case you did not have a good way of knowing that you were becoming impaired. One could say, "Well, you should have been more careful and should not have listened to the music while driving in the Death Valley, and you should also have checked your AC functionality regularly". But then, if you were to take every single possible precaution while driving, you would never be able to even start your car, would you? Where do the reasonable precautions and and the paranoia begins? We cannot all drive 100% safely, always keeping every possibility in mind; it is just not realistic.

    This sort of debates often occurs in the medical field. Doctors sometimes make mistakes, and patients die or become extremely sick as a result. In some cases the doctor was obviously in the wrong and failed at their duties. But in others the doctor made an honest and well-intended, but wrong, judgement based on the incomplete information and imperfect knowledge. It can be pretty hard to determine where the border between these two is, especially in the court, where the judge is not necessarily qualified enough to appreciate the intricacies of the medical case.
    My understanding is that currently in the US the system of justice has a pretty strong bias against doctors, and it is very rare for a doctor making even a very honest mistake in a very complex situation to get away unscathed. This has obvious negative consequences, as the doctors are afraid of administering very effective treatments that have maybe a slightly higher chance to backfire, than some mainstream treatment that is not particularly helpful, but, at least, keeps the doctor's position intact.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @sear

    Thanks for the advice!

    I am planning to argue my case, with the goal being full dismissal of the charge. I think I have a pretty strong case to make, as my dashcam footage shows clearly how obscured the view of the bus was by the traffic conditions.

    It is also pretty common for people to argue for replacing the first fine with going through a state-approved driving safety course instead (typically takes 8-10 hours to complete). But whether such an option is available depends strongly on how the judge sees the case.

    Realistically, I will likely end up having to pay a hefty fine and receive a lot of infraction points in my driving record, but I am somewhat optimistic about my chances to get a better outcome.
    I might use the services of a professional lawyer in case my own defence does not go anywhere. It is possible to first present your case by yourself, and then, in case you disagree with the court's verdict, appeal for a review, to which you can bring your lawyer.

    Unfortunately, failure to stop for a school bus is a very serious offence in Indiana, so I should not count on the presumption of innocence much. The court will have a very strong position on this matter, and I will have to do a very good job arguing my case to have a chance of winning it.
    But you never know. There are many ways it could go really well. For example, the officer might not show up in the court, and then the case will be summarily dismissed. Bad luck often is followed by good luck, and let us hope this will be the case here.
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    " my dashcam footage shows clearly how obscured the view of the bus was by the traffic conditions." MC
    Excellent !
    MC,
    If you do plead your own case in court be sure to have a court stenographer there to document the trial. It won't matter much AT THAT TRIAL.

     BUT !!

    Having the court transcript available for a legal appeal may be quite useful.

  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    PS
    Does the dash-cam also show that you were stopped by police?

     - OR -

    Is the video date / time stamped? Otherwise the ADA may argue the video was taken at some other time, not at the alleged time.
    I bicycle about 1,500 miles a year in rural New York. I encounter a few vicious attack dogs and am on a first name basis with the Dog Control Officer (DCO).
    We have it down to a system. I use a 1080HD body cam that date & time stamps the video images. It's high enough resolution that I can do screen capture (stills) of the attacking dog with paws on pavement.
    I print the still image w/ date & time stamp. It's high enough resolution to document both the location, and the specific dog. I had the print to the DCO, and the DCO takes it to court, where the dog owner is charged a $fine.
    The law doesn't have much to say about the dog trying to sink teeth into my flesh. The violation in law is essentially trespassing, setting paw to pavement without a leash or human supervision.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @WordsMatter

    Of course, when it can be proven that I wanted to, say, circumvent the law, and ended up doing essentially the same thing (as in your example of driving on the sidewalk) - it can be more complicated. It is a loophole in a way, but also an indication that there is something wrong with the law. If the law does not take into account such an obvious way to go around it, then perhaps the law should be modified. Otherwise, we get into the territory where the judge's personal interpretation of the situation can matter much more, than the letter of law itself.

    Actually, that's what we need more of.  You will NEVER be able to specify every possible occurrence of every situation, which means there will ALWAYS be loopholes.  OTOH; by trying to legally define every possible occurrence of every situation, you'll make the legal system so cumbersome and unwieldy that the results will be even less satisfactory, which is the situation we find ourselves in now. All of that specificity creates nwo avenues for loopholes. 

    What we need is LESS specificity and more personal interpretation, AKA common sense.  We can hold individuals accountable for their actions.  If the judge is a poor judge, so to speak, we can get rid of him and get a new judge.  If the bureaucracy and process becomes too unwieldy, however, there is little anyone can do but let the system play out, which ever increasingly becomes longer, more tedious, and more expensive.

  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited March 2019
    @MayCaesar

    I’m sorry to hear about your run in with the law. I think it shouldn’t necessarily be a pressidant for a judge or jury to consider whether intent was a factor, but it shouldn’t be disallowed for a defendant to make that argument. It’s a case by case basis kind of thing.
  • OppolzerOppolzer 191 Pts   -  
    First of all, I’m sorry to hear that you experienced your first traffic ticket. :(

    I believe judgments should be on accountability of both. Although, when it associates with the law, actions often outweigh intent, regardless of genuine intentions.

    The justice system will usually base judgments of what’s the most practical. Therefore, in most cases, people are judged by their actions because there’s no way knowing what that person’s true intentions are. Action is seen as the most practical way to assess, because it’s what everyone can see, and everything is initially judged by how it appears. Albeit, there are always some circumstances in which intent will exceed action if the action is outside your voluntary control.
    piloteer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch