|
Dead Man proffers some pretty harsh observations, but not altogether inaccurate ones. We have a system of law that supports innocence until proven guilty. Essentially, in an interaction between entities or peoples governed by US law, there is assumed to be no fault unless proven otherwise. No, I’m not a lawyer, and this is my impression as a citizen. Combine this with human nature, and human foibles, and you have the situations he describes. So, we have a systematic issue.
It is not this way in every country. Some systems of law allow the presumption of guilt instead: You are presumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.
When applied to a car hitting a pedestrian or cyclist or a horse or any more vulnerable target, the driver is held to a standard of care, and trained as such. Why not? Is there any way that our legal system could embrace any aspect of this approach ? Is there any past legal precedent that could serve as a basis for systematic overhaul? We are all entitled to use the public roads, but we are unequals. I wish I had an answer that represented positive change.
|