Yes I willWhat if you are the one who committed the offense? Will you beg for lifetime imprisonment?Why not?? If your own family members committed offense, he or she need to pay for the bad deeds and face the law. Shelter him or her and let them commit again??
Funny you should ask that....not the first time this is asked of me since I did my NS in the Police Force. I can tell you without doubt, if I know my own father commited a crime..I will report him. He is still my father and I might get him the best defend to plea his case for a fair trial but I will report him for sure. Filial piety only goes so far for me.
There is moral and there is moral. I am unbias to a fault. So logic like what you present me does not and can't not sway me. If I did wrong and I am caught and tried for the crime...I will not fight it. Be a man and stand up to it. If you don't think you can be that way..then make sure you do the right thing all the time. Be Mindful. It's not hard. Unless you are selfish minded which is what I think this irrate driver is which lead to causing the death of a young woman.
This is not about law as in govt law or man made law. This is about the set of law or ethics you set up for yourself to follow internally. Knowing when to do what's right and if you want to do something bad or possibly be risky in nature...make sure you don't drag any innocent people into it to share your fate AGAINST their will. I bet you he was not just a rash driver but he favour himself to be a great racer and was also showing off to his female passenger how good he can drive which lead to the accident.
So I am sorry, I respect your view but i don't agree with it one bit lah. But that's just me.
Last edited by sammy888; 25th October 2007 at 06:45 PM.
Just wondering, do you ever jaywalk? What if you cause a deadly accident this way? Still asking for life imprisonment?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (food for thought )
Retributive justice maintains that proportionate punishment is a morally acceptable response to crime, regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits.
In ethics and law, "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportional to the severity of the infraction. The concept is common to most cultures throughout the world. Its presence in the ancient Jewish culture is shown by its inclusion in the law of Moses, specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-21, which includes the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Contrarily, the U.S. Constitution includes a ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." Many other documents reflect this value in the world's cultures. However, the judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly between cultures and individuals.
Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behaviour.
However, this does not mean that the punishment has to be equivalent to the crime.
A retributive system must punish severe crime more harshly than minor crime, but retributivists differ about how harsh or soft the system should be overall.
Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have contrasted retributivism with utilitarianism. For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, and strictly for punishing crimes according to their severity.
Depending on the retributivist, the crime's level of severity might be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or moral imbalance the crime caused.
always the Light, .... always.
Sadly, we have laws but not necessarily justice. In spite of the the many still ongoing debate as to what constitutes natural law, often the laws are passed by the privileged.
hasta la justicia siempre
It seem this driver is a pamper child. The driver should die in the accident instead of the passenger.
I do not think anyone here have doubts that he committed that offense with no intention. What kind of argument you are putting up here??
This is an arrogant and irresponsible sucker who after causing the fatal accident have the guts to to try to search for another fast car without regards to what he cause to the family. A person who show remorse on causing such tragedy will never do that. You compared this to jaywalking??? What a joke and what a strange mentality.
did i hear wrongly? ? ONLY 7 mths .. got connection ba
Well, maybe you should go to jail for a while for calling someone you don't even knows an arrogant and irresponsible sucker? With all due respect, the judge in this case has probably more accurate information available and is probably a bit more qualified than the kopitiam lynchmob.This is an arrogant and irresponsible sucker who after causing the fatal accident have the guts to to try to search for another fast car without regards to what he cause to the family.
I see you have been in this situation. Otherwise, how would you know? Or are you authoring a psychological report on a person you probably have never met?A person who show remorse on causing such tragedy will never do that.
As for jaywalking, if you cause a fatal accident, you're not one iota better than someone who causes it by speeding. You deliberately chose to ignore the law and are responsible for the consequences.
Hi LittleWolf..........looks like you are out here to defend your 'friend' and talking rubbish. Your argument just shows your stage of "sound" mentality. Even a child hurting someone will feel bad and you can argue how would I know? Maybe you should go for a mental health screening.