Only people who intentionally do something that is punishable by law should receive punishment

Asked by: weird_one
  • Yes, I agree!

    My opinion on this is definitely yes. If an incident occurs unintentionally, the person should just be let off with a warning and not punished because they had no intent to break/violate the law. However, if the person's actions were dangerous AND there is a chance that the individual may do this or other dangerous things again, they should be removed from society. Not as a punishment, but to get help for their behavior and just until they can prove that such incidents will no longer occur.

  • Only if you knew...

    "Your Honor,

    I had no idea that there was a copyright on this particular TV series was in effect in my country. I would like to assert that due to my lack of knowledge and newness to the series that I did not intentionally break copyright law and should be allowed free on these grounds."

    Did it work?

  • Innocent? Don't make me laugh!

    Let's use the example of a drunk driver. This man has had a few too many to drink. He's speeding down the highway, intoxicated. The man veers onto the other side of the road. He crashes into an oncoming car, and the person in that car (who was doing nothing wrong), dies.

    This man did not kill this person intentionally, but he has certainly caused the death of someone. He has also done wrong by society. So despite his absence of deliberateness, he has taken an innocent life and should be punished.

  • You're onto something here but it should be intentional or negligent

    Sometimes people didn't intend to do something but it happens because of their carelessness. For instance a drunk driving accident. But then some cases are just ridiculous. For instance tresspassers suing people because they got hurt on your property. I could understand a parent suing if their child drowned in a pool that was directly on the edge of the sidewalk but even then what's ridiculous is the lawsuit could go through even if the pool had been behind the most secure gate ever and the child was smart enough to get in. If you take the precautions required by law then you should not be held liable for damages or other legal penalties.

  • No, I think it would cause too many more loopholes and technicalities in the justice system.

    Criminal cases: This would cause the prosecutor in every criminal case to have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Imagine a guy wanted to kill his wife. He could just say "I was cleaning my shotgun while sitting on the couch next to her and it accidentally went off". Virtually anyone committing a crime that can be framed as an accident would be acquitted. For instance, if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, miss, and the bullet goes into your neighbors home and kills them, you are held accountable for the death of your neighbor, even though (in most states) shooting a gun in your home in self defense is perfectly legal.

    Civil cases: Most civil cases involve someone owing someone else money. For instance, a man that does not pay child support when he is under legal obligation to do so. This can be punishable by jail, but what would stop someone like that saying "well I didn't INTEND to not pay it, I just forgot/couldn't pay it.

    This kind of legal system removes responsibility or the need for common sense from the general public. Any judge will tell you that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, it is the citizens responsibility to know whether what they are doing is legal or not.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.