I recall serious skepticism about the 2015 article.
Classic example of Law & Economics principles: In China, the criminal & financial penalties for a driver hitting and killing a pedestrian are much smaller than hitting and injuring. Hence, drivers who injure often back up and kill the victim:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/09/why_drivers_in_china_intentionally_kill_the_pedestrians_they_hit_china_s.html …
-
-
-
A better Chinese example (uneconomic sadly) would be the decision not to have a conviction without a confession. The criminals wised up and refused to confess. And so it came to pass that torture became entrenched in the Chinese Justice system.
-
Snopes piece didn't address the alleged penalty differential. Do we know whether that part holds?
-
I don't know. But the differential exists in NZ. Personal injury is covered by no-fault ACC but property damage is not. So if you are in a car without brakes or insurance and you have the choice of hitting a person or expensive property, what do you hit?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is similar to the advice that you should kill a burglar, not maim him, because a maimed burglar can sue.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.