View Single Post
12-18-2013, 02:09 PM
Provolone & The Neck
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 18,365
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
I noticed a small error on my part. Obviously you can be punished for intent-only. In the example of, say, attempted murder. However, the punishment is more severe if you succeed in your attempt, which is what I was driving at.
To begin with, attempting a crime is a completely different crime than the crime itself. You are not simply punished because you didn't execute the crime properly or you didn't finish it or because the result of the fully completed crime would have been worse or whatever. It is a completely different offense. In New Jersey, for example, you will be guilty of attempting a crime if you take a substantial step in furtherance of a crime (any crime, not just murder).

In the civil context, if you are being sued for some sort of intentional tort, like a battery or assault, you will only be held liable if you intended to commit such a tort. It is an element of the tort itself. Again, this brings up the discussion of what exactly intent means, but in order to be liable in those situation, intent has to exist.

Putting aside the legal issues for a second and even if I were to concede that ok, you are right, results are what are punished, I don't think it should be that way in hockey. An illegal hit is an illegal hit. If a guy gets hurt and it is illegal let's say he gets five games. Same hit, no injury, still five games.

Re: your edit. How is appealing unlike the real world? In many cases if the judge hands down a sentence, you can appeal. Hockey isn't exactly like the real world, but the Department of Player Safety is structured similarly to a real world process.
Eh, I guess it is structured similarly in that there is an appeals process, but in the "real world" as opposed to the "hockey world," they are not the same thing. There is nothing to prove in the NHL, it is whatever Shanny says. No trial. No jury. There is no burden of proof on either side. Like every other aspect that I have pointed out. There's no jury of Tom Wilson's peers that will determine the outcome of this hit.

I'm not talking about any money my sister-in-law received. I'm talking about the suspended license that the driver received as a result of the seriousness of the incident. If my sister-in-law walks away unscathed, the driver probably doesn't lose his license for a period of time.
I see what you are saying here, and to a certain extent you are right. Criminal violations might take this sort of thing in to consideration so I could see your point that the NHL should as well. But the idea behind the criminal process is that you are punishing the act, not the result. The result might come in to play sometimes, like in the case of your sister, but other times it doesn't.

But again, I don't think we should punish for results in the NHL, it should be actions.

I suspect that if you watch Shanahan's explanation post-result, he will note the severity of Schenn's injury as a determining factor in the length of suspension/fine amount, yes.
Absolutely he will, but again I am not arguing that it DOESN'T happen, I am arguing that it SHOULDN'T happen.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote