Quote:
Originally Posted by RobEvo5
Its also a bit like saying and using the analagy, of a rapist stalking a women and given chase with a clear intention, but the wowen gets away. Just because he didn't actually technically comit the crime does that mean he should not do a stretch. !
|
Rob,
Common sense and the layman would have to agree with your analogy, if I understand it. However, criminal law requires both elements of "Actus Rea" and "Mens Rea" (which are effectively Mens rea = guilty mind (intent) and Actus Reus = guilty act). The rapist cannot actually be convicted of intent without committing the actually crime. And it would be impossible to convict on Mens rea alone.
However, this thread is a traffic offence which is different to criminal law (and I shouldn't have tried to compare it with criminal law) and many would argue that many traffic law and convictions are actually deformations of the Law, to wit, the punishments not commensurate with the crime in comparison to other crimes under criminal law.
I would suspect that Admin's comments:
"...we do not know all the facts and therefore we are unable to comment on the punishment in relation to the crime.. etc" are spot on.
(They may have only continued to race in an attempt to escape the cops - ? which is worse.)
But I have to reiterate that no one was actually killed dead or injured.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence, if based on an assumption that they would have killed someone if not stopped, is not a fair conviction. I surmise that this was a comment printed in the press only.
There are a multitude of ways that a punishment could be rendered but if the system is not more uniform across the board for murderers, rapists, pedos, etc and the punishment is not uniform commensurate to the crime.
I just think the jail sentence is a bit harsh..