lets say somebody gets run down by a vehicle and is killed. the victims are neglectful of their surroundings.. let's say more oblivious than neglectful. the perp's car totally malfunctions and there is no human error. the perp has lost control of the car and plows through pedestrians. again, zero human error on the part of the driver. the investigation show no fault on the part of the victims. no jay walking, no walking against a red light. is it really justified for the driver of the out of control car to be tried, judged and sentenced to jail? why or why not?
Ethics is the set of behavioral rules outside of the reach of law.
The scenario would be more a question of "should this be criminal".
And, your question is obviously answered. In a court of law, if your scenarios were presented, then the one in the vehicle would obviously be found innocent before a jury of peers...it might not even reach a trial jury. The district attorney would probably be smart enough to keep from wasting tax payer dollars on a useless court case.
The owner of the car has been neglectful in maintaining his car to a safe standard. Don't know what that would fall under in this case though. He couldn't be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter or death by dangerous driving (Well maybe the last one because his failure to maintain the car led to the dangerous driving) but I don't know how the courts would proceed with it.
Might end up being more of a civil court action for damages to the manufacturer.
In the legal system someone has always got to be at fault so they have someone to sue, so lawyers can makes money.
It is rather pathetic really, everyone makes mistakes its just the way it is anyway. And its a shame that people get done for making innocent mistakes let alone no fault accidents.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 14th, 2009 01:24 AM
