I can't see your justification for thinking that we'd make worse judicial decisions if they are based on commons-sense rather than the UTTERLY haphazard system used of: 'that was bl**dy lucky' that we use at the moment.
Personally, I'd assess the offences as follows:
1) should you have been in control? 2) Was the outcome of your 'failure' easily predictable? 3) Was the damage cuased by your actions (scale of: no injuries likely, some injuries possible, likely to cause death or injury, almost certain death... IF it all goes wrong) 3) did any of your actions/decisions/innactions make the effect of the 'harm' more likely? (e.g., lose it in the high street mid-afternoon of mother's day weekend, or out on a lonely, deserted Scottish moor) 4) other mitigating/damning evidence
That's a VERY quick 'rule of thumb' set of 'factors' and I'm sure many other will appear after deeper thought.
Whatever the set of 'rules' are, they are a DAMNED sight more consistent than our 'flip a coin' system at the moment.
I'd extend this further. I would NOT jail people for a longer term for stealing millions from a bank than I would for stealing loose change from a little old lady. I'd factor in the 'damage to society' from the crime, NOT the number of zeros in the figures. Yes, the BrinksMat Robbers were 'bad' but were they 30 times WORSE than a mugger who steals £10 from an old lady for his 10th 'fix' of the day?
I want a JUSTICE system..... not a gambling system based on the size of the haul!
Ian
|
|