http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/the-problem-with-good-people/
An interesting article about the way the courts differentiate between negligence and malice in cases where a good person causes a death (usually of a cyclist) through dangerous or careless cycling.
"Deborah Lumley-Holmes struck Julian Evans from behind while he “was cycling on a straight stretch of road on a dry, sunny day with clear visibility“, fatally injuring him. She was given a suspended sentence, was ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work, and was disqualified from driving for one year."
"The first reaction to fatal incompetence should be to simply prevent that incompetence being an issue. Take killers off the roads. There is no moral judgment in this: it is purely a matter of a driver’s qualification and other road users’ safety.Do that first. Then, if there’s a need to make a moral judgment on other aspects of a case – such as fleeing the scene or becoming enraged or exhibiting flagrant disregard for safety – then that becomes something that can be judged in a “normal” criminal context.
But a revocation of a licence is simply pragmatic and sanguine. A churchgoer who does not drive is no morally poorer than one who does."
"Being a Good Person – whatever you consider to be the Good Acts that define them as such – does not make you a Competent Person. It does not make you a safe driver. It has absolutely nothing to do with it."
posts
