Mum or Law?

[Charlie Boy II]

If you don't like the rules of society, then you shouldn't be part of that society.

But, I suppose you think that laws and consequences are for everyone else and to be bent or broken when it suits? Terrific attitude for a law student.

I'm sorry, but some things come before the "rules of society" - one thing working in the law drives home is that the law is an ass. It is necessary, but it is not sacred. And it is responsible for a lot of injustice. My mother is sacred to me. So yes, I would place her above blind adherence to rules.

[IndiReloaded]

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to find it hypocritical, based on the limited information you provided. However, your reading comprehension could use some work. Nowhere did I say I support blind adherence to laws. Quite the converse; and I daresay I'm far better at judging a situation than you are, with more experience. I've sat on numerous committees, had to evaluate a number of situations that require far more subtlety than your apparently binary view of the world, and even had the unpleasant duty of sitting on a criminal jury. I stated clearly the situation I would support and why. You should do likewise if you want me to engage in an intelligent discussion of this topic.

Of course, if either of my parents actually hurt someone through their own negligence, they would never ask someone to lie for them, nor would they hide behind some lawyer's loophole. They are very ethical people who would accept the reasonable consequences of their actions. Relatively rare in today's society of cowards who want the benefits of society, but only when it doesn't inconvenience them in some way.

[Doc Durian]

^ Socialist upbringing, eh?

I can tell...

[doppelgaenger]

I think imprisonment is too strict of a punishment for a vehicular accident like that. Imprisonment would only be necessary if it were really attempted manslaughter. Unfortunately when you hit someone going over 40km over the speed limit, the flawed way of determining whether or not it was attempted manslaughter is quantitative and determined entirely on the velocity and the speed of the vehicle, not the morals and will of the driver.

Society, government and law are all flawed and corrupted. I could not allow my innocent mother go to jail, knowing I could have done something to defend her, especially after all the unjust things I've seen.

[Charlie Boy II]

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to find it hypocritical, based on the limited information you provided. However, your reading comprehension could use some work. Nowhere did I say I support blind adherence to laws. Quite the converse; and I daresay I'm far better at judging a situation than you are, with more experience. I've sat on numerous committees, had to evaluate a number of situations that require far more subtlety than your apparently binary view of the world, and even had the unpleasant duty of sitting on a criminal jury. I stated clearly the situation I would support and why. You should do likewise if you want me to engage in an intelligent discussion of this topic.

Of course, if either of my parents actually hurt someone through their own negligence, they would never ask someone to lie for them, nor would they hide behind some lawyer's loophole. They are very ethical people who would accept the reasonable consequences of their actions. Relatively rare in today's society of cowards who want the benefits of society, but only when it doesn't inconvenience them in some way.

I'm sorry, you said "if you don't like the rules of that society, you should get out of that society" that sounds very much to me like you are advocating an unquestioning adherence to rules. In fact, I can't really come up with an alternative interpretation. So I find the "world-view" you are propounding rather more "binary" than what I am saying

And thank you for that impressive CV. "Numerous committees" you say? I never cease to be astonished at your many far-reaching accomplishments. And you've served on a jury! They don't just let anyone do that do they? Oh wait, yes they do.

And in any case, I don't really wish to engage in an "intelligent discussion of the topic" with you. I find your "intelligent discussions" rather tiresome, peppered as they inevitably are with ad nauseum references to your intellectual prowess and academic background.

And lastly I'm sure your parents are "very ethical people", but that was not the question. We are not discussing the ethical integrity of our respective parents. The question was whether we would lie about the speed our mother was travelling to save her from prison. So perhaps you could work on developing your own reading comprehension skills.

[Doc Durian]

The pair of them are more or less in agreeance of one another but are hung up on the terms and absorbtion of one anothers manner of expression.

I'd call it a draw.

If it came down to a matter of speed, and speed was not a decisive fixture in the true basis of the case... both would lie in order to do the right thing... or spin a great defense. Either or.

So let us smoke on the peace pipe.... until tobacco is either outlawed, or the smoking of tobacco while operating a motor vehicle has become a mitigating factor for prosecuting attorneys to ask for the death penalty in court cases involving freak motor vehicle accidents.

(as radios, cell phones, sunglasses, and balls of twine are deemed illegal to carry in a moving motor vehicle for "safety's sake")

[misombra]

i know somebody very well whose mother, when he was a young child, slid on ice in her car and hit a crowd of people waiting at a bus stop. she was imprisoned for 11 years. i think the person i know, if given the opportunity, would've lied through his teeth to keep his mother from getting put away that long.

[IndiReloaded]

If it came down to a matter of speed, and speed was not a decisive fixture in the true basis of the case... both would lie in order to do the right thing... or spin a great defense. Either or.

I explained clearly my scenario and criteria. Charlie Boy, doesn't know how to read and has trouble with the fact his dick doesn't measure anywhere close to mine. Successful people never post on the internet, only losers like him, apparently.

Anyway, I find it laughable but not unusual that a future lawyer thinks its perfectly okay to have a double standard for laws. Keep adding to the chaos that is the western legal system. But, in my world, it is the [un]professional equivalent of my paying lip service to the scientific method but then saying I think its okay to test my new drug in humans even tho the data doesn't support its safety, but I *believe* it will work b/c its my project.

If everyone took this attitude, then rule of law wouldn't mean much, would it? Frankly, its damn unethical. This attitude is the reason for a dual system of justice for the wealthy and the poor. If you don't like something, then work to change it but don't undermine it so as to make justice impossible to have meaning. This is what is happening, in fact, and its a total time waster for citizens, police, judges. In fact, the only ones who benefit are the lawyers b/c they charge for all this wasted time.

[IndiReloaded]

i know somebody very well whose mother, when he was a young child, slid on ice in her car and hit a crowd of people waiting at a bus stop. she was imprisoned for 11 years. i think the person i know, if given the opportunity, would've lied through his teeth to keep his mother from getting put away that long.

A decent system means that the punishment was fair for what happened. Without knowing the details, its hard to know if this was fair or not. Hypothesizing now, but if this woman chose to go out on a bad night, tanked from a night at the pub, and then took out someone's kid b/c of her poor judgement, then I would say justice was served. Tragic, but that doesn't make it unfair. If I killed someone's kid, I'd take my lumps and not expect my family to lie for me. I'd be appalled if they did.

If not, then her lawyer should have been asking for an appeal. Except b/c of the outrageous fees they charge, she probably couldn't afford it and if she was ethnic we all know how that sometimes goes. Especially in parts of the US.

[Lipp]

Got to drive against obstacles on a field of artificial ice when training for my license, and essentially it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are if you exceed the speed threshold, any resemblance of control goes out the window with you following behind it.

[Doc Durian]

Got to drive against obstacles on a field of artificial ice when training for my license, and essentially it doesn't matter how good of a driver you are if you exceed the speed threshold, any resemblance of control goes out the window with you following behind it.

Bullroar.

Exceeding the speed limits will generally keep one out of the ditch versus perpetually in it and that's with irregular patches of white or black ice, salt melt concentrations, and drifts. Braking however requires more distance though, but in an emergency one can generally throw a side into a drift and balance out to a relatively quick stop... sometimes quicker than dry concrete. Worst case scenario is a launch past an embankment which will have you either calling the wreckers or digging yourself out. (rear wheel drive)

It's the morons who put their units into four wheel drive and peter along at a puffers pace. What do you think happens when you give a vehicle four traction points on an irregular slippery surface?

You guessed it... in the ditch (but not always upright.)

Velocity and a steady nerve are the best friends a winter driver has. There are no under or over corrections. Just motion, weight distribution, and balance.

[Lipp]

It wasn't a matter of just driving on icy conditions, but rather to evade obstacles in the road (be it a car wreck, fallen logs or a bloody elk), in which case maintaining speed and turning maintains control (and works fine on an open road) but fails to turn sufficiently enough to evade and often leads to last-second overcompensation and spin, while the success of pumping the breaks and controlling the approach was directly related to the initial speed.

[Mish]

I think that if I tell my lecturer about how much debate his question generated on an internet forum, he'll be pretty damn pleased with himself

[Petit Papillon]

Don't feed his ego lol

[lastwish]

Anyway this was a fun little class exercise:

Traveling in a passenger seat with your mum, you observe your mum hit a pedestrian while driving over 40km in a 40km zone. Her lawyer says that if you lie under oath and testify that she was under the speed limit it will save her a lot of trouble, which may include her going to jail. What would you choose? Saving your mum or compromising your integrity and obeying the law?

I want to emphasize Charlieboy's point. The question is what each of us would choose to do, not what we think is right. Many of us would lie and choose our mother over the law since we are much more personal to her than we are to the law. Its not that we don't know it's wrong to disobey the law; it doesn't take a genius to know that. It's just the rules of psychology (that we have deep emotional attachments to what is ours) that dictates our action. This is case where it is easy to point out what is right or wrong but hard to act on them. If it is easy for human beings to always act on what we think is right, there would be no need to have the law and punishments to those who disobeys them even in cases where it is understandable for the crime to be committed.