This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
It's called 'negligence' because it's 'neglecting the duty of care' that we are required to have for others.
As an example, pushing someone over, without considering that they could possibly fall off an unrailed cliff on the other side of the footpath - although it's the act of pushing that causally resulted in a death, the real driver is the person's negligence and lack of consideration for the reasonably foreseeable consequences. It's the idea that you don't have a motive for harming someone in the consequential manner that they were harmed, but had you known what the result was likely to be, you shouldn't / wouldn't have done it.
Another example - deliberately driving on the wrong side of the road, you hit a car and kill somebody. It's not manslaughter or whatnot, it's criminal negligence because you had no intent or motive, and you wouldn't have acted in that way had the result been known.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
I know about the duty of care, but I don't think it applies in this scenario. As a comparison (not an analogy), there was a test case on wikipedia that found that despite the fact that medical jars became contaminated and people were harmed as a result, the hospital still took "reasonable care" in preventing that harm and were not considered criminally negligent. I don't think "reasonable care" can apply in performing an action that is criminal to begin with.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm not sure how that comparison suggests it applies / doesn't apply at all? (Though I agree, that's another way the issue of negligence can fall.)
It's not about reasonable care, because the consequence wasn't reasonably foreseeable. Reasonable care is a lower-order test in negligence - certain other aspects need to be proven to show that there is a negligence case in the first instance, and then reasonable care is used to mitigate the person's liability.
Suppose I dropped a piece of paper out of my window, and it magically transformed into a sheet of steel and killed someone. I may not have taken reasonable care, but I'm not negligent either, as it wasn't reasonably foreseeable that dropping a piece of paper would result in that chain of events.
Edit: If it was reasonably foreseeable, then I agree, there are no grounds for reasonable care as a mitigant - he's obviously taken zero care about his roommate. But my argument is that it's not reasonably foreseeable. And going back to it, your argument is that it isn't about negligence at all.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
Yes, but I'm arguing (circuitously) that if there isn't a possibility of demonstrating reasonable care then it cannot be negligent. I wouldn't add negligence to the list of any other criminal charges unless there was a failed duty of care present as well (for example, if a lifeguard were stealing from a cash register and someone drowned).
It's not that I don't think that he played a part in his death, it's that if he did play a part it was an active part rather than a passive one (despite the fact that he didn't physically play any part in the death)...
I suppose from that perspective I can see how the negligence case could be argued, in that he failed to not perform an action which he could reasonably foresee would cause the death of his room-mate, even if he had no role in actually killing the room-mate.
There is a need to prosecute such individuals I suppose, especially those that seek to facilitate suicide. The mens rea and the result are the same with them and murderers, even if the actus reum isn't present.
Post by
Squishalot
Is the act of uploading it to the internet the failure to take reasonable care, as compared to the breach of privacy associated with the webcam in the first place?
I disagree that the mens rea are the same. 'Mens rea', these days, implies knowledge that it would/could reasonably cause the result, rather than simply having malice.
Then again, I'm thinking of it from an English Law point of view. I'm not sure how the US system works.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, I think some people revel in the fact that they caused another person's life to be ended. Probably not the intention of the guy uploading the video, but there was probably schadenfreude.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh definitely - intent to cause mental anguish, sure. But not an intent for them to end their life, unless he really is whacked up. If that's the case, then it's an entirely different ball game, of course.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
In before I'm an evil liberal trying to make them look silly
I disagree with their 2008 position.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
It really staggers me how nobody seems to be listening to the public and it makes me deeply ashamed to have helped the Liberal Democrats get into power.
I was a card carrying member of the Liberal Democrats until they formed a coalition with the Conservatives. While they would have been super unpopular and still wouldn't be able to make a majority if they had formed one with Labour, they had at least some things in common with Labour (desire for electoral reform, house of lords reform). On every issue, the majority of Liberal Democrats are at odds with the Conservatives. The reason I joined the party for instance: the Iraq war. Tuition fees. Pensions. NHS reform. The one issue where the Liberal Democrats have shown any innovation is wanting to repeal laws against age discrimination. What a major draw for the party...
Thing is my constituency is solidly Labour for general elections and tends to vary for local elections, so my vote won't even matter anyway (thanks to the failed referendum). The only candidates for general elections in my area are from the three main parties and a few right wing ones, otherwise I would probably vote Green. I'm not sure whether to vote Labour next general election or to spoil my ballot.
Post by
Patty
I'm disillusioned with all of three major parties tbh, I'm having more faith in smaller ones like Green. But I can't even vote, so it doesn't matter. :P
Post by
Azazel
I'm disillusioned with all of three major parties tbh, I'm having more faith in smaller ones like Green. But I can't even vote, so it doesn't matter. :P
Why not? Aren't you like 23 or something? I thought the voting age in England was like 18 or 20.
Post by
Patty
I'm disillusioned with all of three major parties tbh, I'm having more faith in smaller ones like Green. But I can't even vote, so it doesn't matter. :P
Why not? Aren't you like 23 or something? I thought the voting age in England was like 18 or 20.
I would be of age to vote, yes, as I'm 19, but I'm not
in
England, technically. I'm in a part of Britain that's British, but has its own form of government. It's complicated to people who don't really know about it.
Post by
Azazel
I'm disillusioned with all of three major parties tbh, I'm having more faith in smaller ones like Green. But I can't even vote, so it doesn't matter. :P
Why not? Aren't you like 23 or something? I thought the voting age in England was like 18 or 20.
I would be of age to vote, yes, as I'm 19, but I'm not
in
England, technically. I'm in a part of Britain that's British, but has its own form of government. It's complicated to people who don't really know about it.
Heh, Greenland is "Danish", but they have a smaller seperate government there, in addition to ours. It's tricky too. :P
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Maybe, it is about time to pull out of Afghanistan.
Some troops seem to be going nuts...
(Note: this is not about revenge claims, but about killings)
Things like this have happened in every major conflict since the beginning of time. The difference is, we didn't have the media to spread it around the globe in a matter if .002 seconds like we do now.
I am in no way condoning what happened. It was wrong. It was a crime. The soldier needs to be punished for what he did. But we do NOT need our president, once again, apologizing to the world, like we are some misbehaving child that needs a spanking.
I also agree we need to get out of Afganistan. 10+ years of trying to civilize a nation that is by design, uncivilized is enough. Unless we want to stay there forever, we may as well get out now. But we had better be prepared to go back in a few years when they attack us again. Only next time, we should just carpet bomb them into oblivion.
Post by
Azazel
But we had better be prepared to go back in a few years when they attack us again. Only next time, we should just carpet bomb them into oblivion.
=/
Post by
Adamsm
But we had better be prepared to go back in a few years when they attack us again.Will they be armed by the people they are attacking again?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.