Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/johnband/sbbs.johnband.org/index.php:1) in /home/johnband/sbbs.johnband.org/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Harsh http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/ As fair-minded and non-partisan as Torquemada. Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:16:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: carmen electra http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-5859 Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:42:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-5859 mnastromarv.com The most essential fact is that this is
http://jessica-simpson.astromarv.com/jessica-simpson.html jessica simpson online a story, a love story told by poet and novelist
http://britney-spears.astromarv.com/britney-spears.html buy britney spears online Carson (Men in the Off Hours, 2000, etc.)
http://missy-elliott.astromarv.com/missy-elliott.html buy missy elliott in 29 brief, lyrical "tangos" (which are kind
http://avril-lavigne.astromarv.com/avril-lavigne.html order avril lavigne of like stanzas, only a lot more romantic)
http://justin-timberlake.astromarv.com/justin-timberlake.html _ that have little quotations from Keats in justin timberlake front of each. Basically, it’s Girl-meets-Boy,
http://christina-aguilera.astromarv.com/christina-aguilera.html christina aguilera online Girl-gets-Boy, Girl-and-Boy-grow-old-and-get-tired-of-each-other.
http://sarah-michelle-gellar.astromarv.com/sarah-michelle-gellar.html buy sarah michelle gellar online A marriage, in other words. Narrated mostly
http://orlando-bloom.astromarv.com/orlando-bloom.html buy orlando bloom by the wife, it becomes quickly lugubrious
http://kelly-clarkson.astromarv.com/kelly-clarkson.html order kelly clarkson in a sort of Liv Ullmann/Sylvia Plath-ish
http://jennifer-lopez.astromarv.com/jennifer-lopez.html _ kind of way ("I believe / your taxi is here jennifer lopez she said. / He looked down at the street.
http://angelina-jolie.astromarv.com/angelina-jolie.html angelina jolie online She was right. It stung him, / the pathos
http://ashton-kutcher.astromarv.com/ashton-kutcher.html ashton kutcher of her keen hearing"), but it is a vivid portrait
http://johnny-depp.astromarv.com/johnny-depp.html buy johnny depp all the same, razor-sharp and as quick as johnny depp astromarv.comnm

]]> By: john b http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-298 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:25:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-298 I’m convinced by Pete and Michael here – while Gary Hart was unfairly scapegoated, Lee Hughes probably did deserve it. Suggestions of unfairness duly retracted.

]]> By: chris http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-297 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:28:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-297 I’ve always felt that the simple answer (though no politician would touch it) would be that if a driver was uninsured, or in contravention of the terms of their insurance (eg. pissed), then the car should just be regarded in law as a lethal weapon, and penalties assessed the same as if it was an unlicensed assault rifle or something.

]]> By: Michael http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-296 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:06:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-296 Unless we’re content for society to have the moral understanding of a five-year-old, the judicial system should be about intentions rather than outcomes.

Indeed – and we have two clear intentions on display here: he intended to drive his car while under the influence of alcohol, and he intended to flee the scene of the accident in a thankfully failed attempt to save his skin and career.

Are you saying these should be deemed irrelevant when apportioning blame – in other words, that there should be no practical difference between accidental deaths caused through genuine accidents or through contributory negligence?

]]> By: Chris Lightfoot http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-294 Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:50:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-294 Well, one of the three. There’s nothing inconsistent in saying that we should have exemplary, deterrent punishment for some offences and retributive punishment for others. There might simply be some utilitarian argument that tells you where the deterrent is effective. As I say, I am not aware of any useful evidence on this point, but it might be possible to assemble some.

]]> By: Anonymous Coward http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-293 Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:47:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-293 Oh, that argument.

So if I get pissed and run about with a machete and someone’s daft enough to get sliced in half, I shouldn’t get penalised?

So, your honour, is this because:
a) I didn’t *intend* to hurt anyone, I just wanted to wave my machete around while drunk or
b) I knew the risks but didn’t intend to hurt anyone in particular – I didn’t know who, so it doesn’t matter or
c) It’s different because it’s a car and you know, it’s different in cars?

(Gary Hart should have hanged, by the way)

]]> By: Chris Lightfoot http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-292 Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:19:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-292 Well, there is the utilitarian argument that increased penalties for drivers who display incompetence will encourage other drivers not to do so. I don’t know if there’s any evidence that this theory works.

]]> By: Pete http://sbbs.johnband.org/2004/08/harsh/#comment-291 Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:58:00 +0000 http://sbbs.johnband.org/?p=319#comment-291 I think the sentence was so harsh because he failed to fulfil his responsibility to (a) report the accident to the police and (b) stay at the scene of the accident.

]]>