Electric bike rider run down by fashion designer

[mountainsport]

it's happened to me, several times - usuallya few teengers in a car that spots me (before especially on a recumbent), then returns and throws water (eggs and other objects on other occasions). it utterly defies any reasonable explanation i can come up with, other than that it hasnt happened to me anywhere other than dear old blighty, and i travel a lot

That's even worse for you being so low down. Sorry about that.

MS.

 

[tillson]

Someone in a passing car once threw a kettle at me. It missed.

 

[flecc]

London has greatly improved in this respect, even quite long ago the insulting behaviour towards cyclists was mainly on the fringes rather than the inner areas. Since the huge expansion of cycling in the last decade this seems to have largely disappeared, indicating that the more commonplace cycling is, the less likely it is that others will single it out in this way.
.

 

[jonathan75]

No, reparation wasn't my opinion on the purpose Jonathan, not in any way. The second paragraph in what I've quoted from your post is nearer the mark, basically I'm in favour of downscaling all sentencing anyway, and in this case the downscaling, aka leniency, was equitable.

As for road rage, of course I'm aware of the moral grounds limitations on what can be considered, but believe a court should be realistic. A loss of control means just that, so rational judgement temporarily goes out of the window just as surely as it does for an insane person. The law might not allow loss of control as an excuse in these circumstances, but I see nothing wrong in a court making some allowance by a degree of leniency in sentencing.

That surely is just simple humanity in the interests of best justice.
.

Really well put, I'm envious of your grasp, and lucidity and parsimony of argument here. I think your point about loss of control being a fact is a very apt one.

I think that point however can be extended to a great degree and this is a problem for criminal justice - many people are not really fully choosing the bad things they do, and if they are, then perhaps not to the same degree as others. Total free choice, full autonomy, is a bit of a judicial fiction. But the fiction serves a very important purpose. Deterrence, in the interests of the kind of public safety which is prior to nearly everything else we value. That's why a looter in a riot taking a bottle of milk, is very different to an ordinary thief of a bottle of milk. The judge has to ask "but for my judgement, what future harms will be accepted or deterred". Yes he uses the language of desert - partly misleadingly: the wickedness of taking the bottle of milk in a riot may seem worse than the ordinary taking, but not so much as to justify the additional sentence on purely desert-based grounds. The underlying rationale for the additional sentence in that circumstance and that of the road rager is (if we accept that the road rager may have lost it, which is actually opening himself to a Broadmoor sentence, but let's accept he's just an 'everyday' automaton) pure utility, i.e. public welfare.

There is actually an additional desert-based take-home for the public, which is 'don't put yourself in a position where this wrong could happen'. I accept that might not justify sentences which follow, on purely desert grounds.

It's tricky because another theory of wrongs (that of Immanuel Kant), has it that simply acting on maxims which, if everyone acted on them, would destroy the social order, is itself a wrong: e.g. "when I see a riot I will join in the disorder", or "when I am angry I will lose control". Of course in your well-made example, it is questionable whether the person losing control acts on a maxim at all. However it is surely clearer that long sentences for unhinged violence, signal to the public that they should 'stay out of trouble' generally, and avoid the risk of losing control. Although I accept your point that in huge numbers of real situations (your road rage example is better than the rioting imho, sorry guys) a lack of perfect and informed choice seems real and this is a serious problem for the fairness and proportionality of sentencing.

 

[flecc]

a lack of perfect and informed choice seems real and this is a serious problem for the fairness and proportionality of sentencing.

Indeed Jonathan, and just one of the areas where an ideal answer is not always possible.

The sentencing conflict that exists between the aim of punishment or the aim of reform you will be well aware of.

These areas illustrate how important it is for Judges to be able to judge individual cases free of unnecessary restrictions, rather than fettered by the ever more confining sentencing guidelines from parliament.
.

 

[JohnCade]

Really well put, I'm envious of your grasp, and lucidity and parsimony of argument here. I think your point about loss of control being a fact is a very apt one.

I think that point however can be extended to a great degree and this is a problem for criminal justice - many people are not really fully choosing the bad things they do, and if they are, then perhaps not to the same degree as others. Total free choice, full autonomy, is a bit of a judicial fiction. But the fiction serves a very important purpose. Deterrence, in the interests of the kind of public safety which is prior to nearly everything else we value. That's why a looter in a riot taking a bottle of milk, is very different to an ordinary thief of a bottle of milk. The judge has to ask "but for my judgement, what future harms will be accepted or deterred". Yes he uses the language of desert - partly misleadingly: the wickedness of taking the bottle of milk in a riot may seem worse than the ordinary taking, but not so much as to justify the additional sentence on purely desert-based grounds. The underlying rationale for the additional sentence in that circumstance and that of the road rager is (if we accept that the road rager may have lost it, which is actually opening himself to a Broadmoor sentence, but let's accept he's just an 'everyday' automaton) pure utility, i.e. public welfare.

There is actually an additional desert-based take-home for the public, which is 'don't put yourself in a position where this wrong could happen'. I accept that might not justify sentences which follow, on purely desert grounds.

It's tricky because another theory of wrongs (that of Immanuel Kant), has it that simply acting on maxims which, if everyone acted on them, would destroy the social order, is itself a wrong: e.g. "when I see a riot I will join in the disorder", or "when I am angry I will lose control". Of course in your well-made example, it is questionable whether the person losing control acts on a maxim at all. However it is surely clearer that long sentences for unhinged violence, signal to the public that they should 'stay out of trouble' generally, and avoid the risk of losing control. Although I accept your point that in huge numbers of real situations (your road rage example is better than the rioting imho, sorry guys) a lack of perfect and informed choice seems real and this is a serious problem for the fairness and proportionality of sentencing.

Seems to me that the law operates in a utilitarian way in matters like this rather than in any way that Kant might approve of. But the modern world is a very utilitarian place and IMO all the followers of Jeremy Bentham can get stuffed too.