forums.rs

Forums

Story and Roleplay Chat Thread Thread is sticky

Quick find code: 49-50-864-65646316

of 3517
NotFishing

NotFishing

Posts: 16,946 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Westenev said :

Could you not argue the accident was caused by temporary insanity, absolving you of guilt?


You could not. If your cold is so bad that it negatively impacts your ability to drive, then it is your responsibility as a driver to choose not to drive.

Westenev said :

Evidence on its own is simply a bunch of materials or testimony's selected for interpretation. The most likely awnser is then accepted as fact - do you see how this could leave room for human error?


A system that focuses on the intent of the criminal rather than their actions or the results is even more open to human error.

Also, in regards to: "the most likely answer is then accepted as fact", this isn't necessarily true. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty (with some exceptions.)

Evidence itself can be either extremely vague or incredibly specific and damning. If the evidence is so vague that you have to rely on interpretation and speculation, then no sensible judge or jury should convict them as guilty. Beneath the gold, the Bitter Steel.

06-Nov-2018 19:39:33

Westenev

Westenev

Posts: 19,719 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
NotFishing said :
Westenev said :

Could you not argue the accident was caused by temporary insanity, absolving you of guilt?


You could not. If your cold is so bad that it negatively impacts your ability to drive, then it is your responsibility as a driver to choose not to drive.

Hmm, you're wrong on that front (at least, in my country). The driver was actually let off due to sneezing being an uncontrollable reflex (hence "temporary insanity" ), which impaired their reaction time. If it had happened at any other time, it probably wouldn't have mattered - so the person was let off with a slap on the wrist.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't always stop when you're sick.


NotFishing said :
A system that focuses on the intent of the criminal rather than their actions or the results is even more open to human error.

Yet without doing so, you can't establish guilt.


NotFishing said :
Evidence itself can be either extremely vague or incredibly specific and damning. If the evidence is so vague that you have to rely on interpretation and speculation, then no sensible judge or jury should convict them as guilty.

I'm sorry, my Human omniscience isn't working. Do you know where I can get it fixed?
Noth
ing
inte
rest
ing
happ
ens.

06-Nov-2018 20:36:22 - Last edited on 06-Nov-2018 20:54:08 by Westenev

NotFishing

NotFishing

Posts: 16,946 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Westenev said :

Hmm, you're wrong on that front (at least, in my country).


I am not wrong. Your country or whoever handled that particular case is wrong. Being sick or tired also count as forms of impairment.

Westenev said :

Unfortunately, the world doesn't always stop when you're sick.


No it doesn't. But if you really need to get somewhere there are always alternatives.

Westenev said :

Yet without doing so, you can't establish guilt.


Yes you can. If you kill someone, you are guilty. Why you killed them, or whether or not you can prove it was unintentional might play a role in increasing or reducing your sentence, but at the end of the day you're guilty of something.

Westenev said :

I'm sorry, my Human omniscience isn't working. Do you know where I can get it fixed?


You don't need to have omniscience to determine whether or not somebody committed a crime. Is there room for error? Yes. But judging people on intent rather than on actions/hard evidence is even more unreliable, since you actually do need omniscience in order to see inside somebody's head. Beneath the gold, the Bitter Steel.

07-Nov-2018 02:00:01

Quick find code: 49-50-864-65646316 Back to Top