Punishment over bad actions - intended and un-intended: should they differ?

[Keitaro]

The question simply is whether the punishment for actions that are wrong in a situation "ie: leave work 3 hours early without notice, take something that doesn't belong to you, kill a person" should be equal or different. There are usually these 4 different types of situations between un-intended and intended actions as I've listed here:

-Intended bad action-
To do something wrong without a good enough reason for it if not any reason at all.
IE: Bill stabs John's mother because he thought it would be fun.

-Un-intended bad action-
To do something wrong without meaning to do it or doing it from mistake
IE: Bill wanted to cut the turkey but tripped over a power cable and stabs John's mother by mistake

-Promised Intended bad action-
To do another intended bad action after promising not to do it again.
IE: Bill stabbed John's mother yesterday and promised to never do it again and stabs John's mother 3 times the next day.

-Promised Un-inteded bad action-
To do another intended bad action by mistake after promising not to do it again.
IE: Bill stabbed John's mother twice in the past for fun and promised to never do it again then tries to stab a wall and John's mother walks in the way.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Teebs]

Where did you get these stories? They made me laugh.

Pretty much, all these definitions sum up each and every one of the actions given above. But what I got thought out of this was after an action happens once, and the same action happens again, intended or un-intended, people seem to blame a person of doing it intentionally, even if it was un-intentional. I can relate to this because it has happened to me various times.

When the action happens once, you do get blamed for it intentional or not. An action could happen again, and it could of been you or it could not of been you, but the same action happening again seems to get a person to go back to Step 1 of the previous action... "Why did you do this (action) again?" If you didn't do it, you still get blamed.

As for punishment, I always like to take the stand of, "Innocent until proven guilty." Taking for example from your stories above, such as the un-intended bad action, the suspect will get blamed for it and will most likely get punishment, jail, etc. The only problem I see with this is "accidental murder" is not taken lightly. Once again, to the un-intended bad action, the stab is fatal. Witnesses and jury members may see this as a "intended" murder. So, unless there is a hidden camera in that kitchen, you have no defense, unless the evidence goes your way.

But here's my question, or debate if you will, why would a person be blamed for an "intended" murder when it was really un-intended? (i.e. you and your friends are having harmless paintball fun, when you accidently get a few "good" shots off where it hits your friend all square in his chest, causing him to internally bleed, and he dies. his parents blame you for his death, even though it was unintentional, and they put a suit against you. you go to jail for a long time. how can something like this be explained "properly?")

If any of this seems confusing, please say so.

 

[snoblo]

The question over whether the action was intended or not may be fairly uncertain in many cases. Often the offender claims his/her actions were not intended in order to receive a lighter punishment.

-Promised Un-inteded bad action-
To do another intended bad action by mistake after promising not to do it again.
IE: Bill stabbed John's mother twice in the past for fun and promised to never do it again then tries to stab a wall and John's mother walks in the way.

That situations sounds a bit questionable, doesn't it? I've seen many people promise not to do something again, and not many seconds after they do it again.


Humankind as a whole is very flawed. We always try to get away with our wrongdoings, instead of accepting them and learning from them. How many times do we see prisoners let out of jail, only to be sent back a few weeks after?


On another tangent...

But here's my question, or debate if you will, why would a person be blamed for an "intended" murder when it was really un-intended? (i.e. you and your friends are having harmless paintball fun, when you accidently get a few "good" shots off where it hits your friend all square in his chest, causing him to internally bleed, and he dies. his parents blame you for his death, even though it was unintentional, and they put a suit against you. you go to jail for a long time. how can something like this be explained "properly?")

The parents' reaction in this situation is quite understandable. In times of crisis (such as a death of one's child), it's quite reasonable for one to make unreasonable choices (paradox, no?). When something goes wrong, people generally want to find someone to blame. In colonial America, the colonists often blamed witchcraft/sorcery for their crop failures. In Germany during the WWI/II era with their economic problems, the Jews were to blame.

People love to push the blame off themselves, and put it on someone else to make them feel better. One can find in many real life stories where a best friend's parents will sue the kid for accidentally killing their child, no matter how close they were before. The shock, combined with insecurity and the need for a scapegoat provides the basis for these unreasonable accusations.
I hope that made sense ^_^




However, I do believe that those with the intention of committing an act of wrongdoing should have a more severe punishment than those who did not intend to do so.

(This is my first post in the Debate Hall...hopefully it's not too bad )