Yellow traffic light?

[PakledHostage]

4 hours ago, Camacha said:

This was not negligence. This was intent. The law treats them very differently.

Perhaps, but here in Canada you can be convicted of criminal negligence.

My point was that people who are criminally negligent should be held criminally responsible, such as seems to have been the case for the guy in the blue car.

(For what it is worth, I understood that the blue Peugeot pulled in front of the lorry/truck after passing him on the left because the lorry/truck was going slow in the fast lane).

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, PakledHostage said:

My point was that people who are criminally negligent should be held criminally responsible

They generally are. For negligence to be criminal the actions have to be intentional and with a willingness to expose another to danger. This means you wilfully committed a crime and are dealt with accordingly. Of course, the line can be vague at times, and luckily for us, most developed nations require you to be proven guilty or walk free. If you were acting really stupid by accident you sometimes get penalized too, but those penalties will generally be less frequent and less severe. Intent is an important factor in most of western law.

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Camacha

[PakledHostage]

45 minutes ago, Camacha said:

lIntent is an important factor in most of western law.

Yes, mens rea and all that.

But there must also be mens rea even to be convicted of something as simple as a traffic offence (like, for example, for running a yellow light). Convictions for the types of traffic offences that you get a ticket for are so certain that most people don't even bother trying to defend themselves in court and just plead guilty when they pay the fine. Proving mens rea is clearly not difficult.

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, PakledHostage said:

Convictions for the types of traffic offences that you get a ticket for are so certain that most people don't even bother trying to defend themselves in court and just plead guilty when they pay the fine. Proving mens rea is clearly not difficult.

You are making a few dangerous assumptions there The fact that people do not bother to defend is in no way indicative of guilt, and in a lot of cases probably a practical approach to cost and reward. Most people will forego principles if the fine is small and just pay to be done with it. Some will have gone through the whole thing before and feel that it will not bring them anything useful worth the trouble. Some will be fined by a real life officer, making it a he said she said that is typically lost. Finally, a lot will be accidental offences that did actually happen, so appealing or defending is no use. Bad judgement or small lapses of attention are generally not criminal.

Depending on the country, paying a fine actually means avoiding pleading guilty and going to court altogether. It is much like a plea bargain, where you strike a deal to avoid actual prosecution.

[cantab]

8 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

But there must also be mens rea even to be convicted of something as simple as a traffic offence (like, for example, for running a yellow light).

I thought that traffic offences in particular, and some other things, could be "strict liability" and no intent is required.

And whether or not they require mens rea, for driving there are usually specific offences created rather than relying on more general statute or common law such as criminal negligence. In the UK "Driving without due care and attention" is the usual one for general bad driving.

Edited December 17, 2016 by cantab