>> I see that the fire extinguisher boy got 32 months. I can't make up my
>> mind as to whether that's harsh or not. He was clearly acting like a prick
>> for those few seconds but ultimately there was no actual harm done.
I never quite understand the "no harm done" argument. I've seen it a few times on this forum in response to claims of dangerous driving, something along the lines of "yeah that was dangerous and could have killed you and your family, but it didn't happen, so what's the problem?"
Personally I think that you should be punished for your actions, not necessarily their outcomes.
If I aim a gun at your head and pull the trigger, but miss by an inch, my actions and intentions are the same as if the bullet made contact and killed you - yet I would likely receive a much lower prison sentence.
Am I any less morally culpable simply because I am a lousy shot? If not, why am I treated any more leniently?
Same thing with why somebody shouldn't be absolutely outraged that their safety was put at risk by the wilfully dangerous actions of another on the road, even if everybody drives away unscathed.
Just a thought.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 23:56
|