depending on the speed of the car and how it hits you would have much better odds of surviving. and in jesus land people would be more likely to call an ambulance after and get you to a hospital. there would also be a follow up on who hit you and criminally charging them. commie land people will just walk by and ignore it because if they try and help they are financially responsible for your hospital stay.
Literally the situation in China right now. People have a hammer in the glove compartment. If they hit someone and the victim is crippled, they beat the victim to death with the hammer. The sentence for manslaughter is limited, and it's generally preferred to the alternative (having to be financially responsible for the victim for the rest of his life).
It's pretty well-doumented, in articles such as this one. (Naturally, our dear 'independent fact checkers' rush to call it "unproven" because "China does not keep formal statistics on it". Ha. Ha. Ha.)
Well, they're just really putting the hammer into "hammer and sickle", you know?
Well,we have reserves for 2 months,4 if you add Baltic pipe and what we are getting from Poland.
How is killing someone with a hammer to avoid having to pay for the injury you caused them manslaughter?
I'm not sure if it's literally manslaughter, or whether Chinese law even uses that concept in that way. (These things vary; Dutch "doodslag" is technically the same as "manslaughter", but has different criteria.) The point is: it doesn't get you a terribly heavy sentence, and that creates the absurd incentive to just kill the victim. It's the less burdensome alternative, compared to having to pay for his medical needs forever.
Sounds like China's real problem is that their citizenry don't fear being punished for committing murder.I'm not sure if it's literally manslaughter, or whether Chinese law even uses that concept in that way. (These things vary; Dutch "doodslag" is technically the same as "manslaughter", but has different criteria.) The point is: it doesn't get you a terribly heavy sentence, and that creates th absurd incentive to just kill he victim. It's the less burdensome alternative, compared to having o pay for his medical needs forever.
It's the same issue you get with bankruptcy laws in many jurisdictions: it's often ludicrously easy to just pile debt into a company, then let it go bust, and walk away debt-free. Totally, twisted, but government regulations intende to make things better have created this perverse situation. WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING?
But for certain crimes, even very minor ones, punishments are disproportionately high. It's all very arbitrary, which is a sure sign of despotism.
I'm not sure if it's literally manslaughter, or whether Chinese law even uses that concept in that way. (These things vary; Dutch "doodslag" is technically the same as "manslaughter", but has different criteria.) The point is: it doesn't get you a terribly heavy sentence, and that creates the absurd incentive to just kill the victim. It's the less burdensome alternative, compared to having to pay for his medical needs forever.
It's the same issue you get with bankruptcy laws in many jurisdictions: it's often ludicrously easy to just pile debt into a company, then let it go bust, and walk away debt-free. Totally, twisted, but government regulations intende to make things better have created this perverse situation. WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING?
(The famous historical example of this kind of thing is the 'Cobra problem' in British India.)
