Friday, August 04, 2006
"What is Justice?"
The Times reports today on page 11, (not apparently online), about a driver who has been fined £180 for defective tyres. Unfortunately, the driver was involved in an accident in which four cyclists were killed.
"Diane Williams for the prosecution, told the court that a police investigation found that Mr Harris's defective tyres were not a contributory cause of the crash"
"... tyre tread is there to displace liquid ... in this situation there was no liquid ... it was black ice."
So let's us be clear, even if he had good tyres, the tyres alone would have made no difference.
What about the driving, well: "Harris's solicitor urged the court in a letter to note that his client's driving had not contributed to the accident."
So no fault there on this occasion from Mr Harris.
However Roger Geffen the campaigns and policy manager of the CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club) said: "Time and time again when people are killed and seriously injured the message given out by the legal system is that these incidents are nothing more than tragic accidents." Well what else can you call it, if there is no fault then that is what it is; would you prefer to see Mr Harris jailed when he has done nothing to contribute to the accident? If so, would anyone ever drive again, knowing they could be jailed through no fault of their own?
He continues: "The victims are disproportionately pedestrians and cyclists..." Yes, but it's the laws of physics, if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver is unlikely to be injured, so you would not expect any propotionality.
Mary Williams chief executive of Brake a road safety charity said: "... It is an outrage that Robert Harris has not even lost his license yet four people have lost their lives."
No it is no outrage, Robert Harris has done nothing to contribute to the accident, so why should he be punished for the accident? He had the misfortune to be there, and those who lost their lives had the misfortune to be there. They are equally culpable for the accident, that the accident caused some to lose their lives and not others, it is merely the outcome of the accident, and it isn't a function of justice to equalise the outcome of accidents. What if the driver had skidded, avoided the cyclists, ended up in a ditch and died, should the cyclists have been punished?
Of course not, but that would be the result if the "justice" that Mary Williams and Roger Geffen seem to be advocating were applied.
The offence that had been committed has been punished in line with the punishments for that offence. As it had nothing to do with the accident, the court ignored the accident. That is justice.
"Diane Williams for the prosecution, told the court that a police investigation found that Mr Harris's defective tyres were not a contributory cause of the crash"
"... tyre tread is there to displace liquid ... in this situation there was no liquid ... it was black ice."
So let's us be clear, even if he had good tyres, the tyres alone would have made no difference.
What about the driving, well: "Harris's solicitor urged the court in a letter to note that his client's driving had not contributed to the accident."
So no fault there on this occasion from Mr Harris.
However Roger Geffen the campaigns and policy manager of the CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club) said: "Time and time again when people are killed and seriously injured the message given out by the legal system is that these incidents are nothing more than tragic accidents." Well what else can you call it, if there is no fault then that is what it is; would you prefer to see Mr Harris jailed when he has done nothing to contribute to the accident? If so, would anyone ever drive again, knowing they could be jailed through no fault of their own?
He continues: "The victims are disproportionately pedestrians and cyclists..." Yes, but it's the laws of physics, if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver is unlikely to be injured, so you would not expect any propotionality.
Mary Williams chief executive of Brake a road safety charity said: "... It is an outrage that Robert Harris has not even lost his license yet four people have lost their lives."
No it is no outrage, Robert Harris has done nothing to contribute to the accident, so why should he be punished for the accident? He had the misfortune to be there, and those who lost their lives had the misfortune to be there. They are equally culpable for the accident, that the accident caused some to lose their lives and not others, it is merely the outcome of the accident, and it isn't a function of justice to equalise the outcome of accidents. What if the driver had skidded, avoided the cyclists, ended up in a ditch and died, should the cyclists have been punished?
Of course not, but that would be the result if the "justice" that Mary Williams and Roger Geffen seem to be advocating were applied.
The offence that had been committed has been punished in line with the punishments for that offence. As it had nothing to do with the accident, the court ignored the accident. That is justice.
Tags: justice, liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
