Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
Well Jazz, is whoever lit that blaze going to get jail? I don't think they should. To me, jail is punishment for malicious activity, and also disobeying prominent laws. Every infraction that this indivudal incurred was slight. The results of one bad turn after another is what lead to all the death, and I like I said, that's like blaming the butterfly down in peru who is flapping it's wings right now, and as a result the next big hurricane is going to kill a bunch of people.
I also think the word "liable" should be stricken from the English language.
|
but Halx, that's why I tried to lay the rationale out for standards of liability and intent. if you make the standard be someone has to "prove" you intended to harm them, then you raise the potential that people will get away with things simply because of the difficulty of such a standard. this was precisely the argument made in the 20's moving through the 30's as we moved into a complex, interdependent capitalist society.
we have to set a standard and if you don't agree with the "reasonable and prudent man" doctrine, what do you propose would be better (keeping in mind that the subjective liability standard has been determined to be ineffective and untenable for over 80 years now)?
I don't know why you would advocate strking liable from our lexicon. and perhaps we can discuss that, or despite my interest in your rationale for dropping it, I don't have a problem not worrying over it since we do have it in our vocab and have to deal with it as a legal concept
