Recently I’ve been thinking about some radical changes we could make to UK law and politics. Stay with me — this one sounds odd at first, but it starts to make a lot of sense the more you think about it.
Right now, most UK laws work on a simple pattern:
Person A does X → Person B suffers Y → A has broken the law.
The problem?
If someone finds a new way to cause Y, we end up needing another new law to cover it. It’s like playing legislative whack-a-mole.
Take drink-driving as an example.
According to drinkdriving.org, the first law against operating a vehicle while intoxicated was created in 1872 — and it said:
Every person who… is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine… shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”
Very modern. Very future-proof? — Possibly for the time.
But by specifying the vehicles did it include donkeys, Bicycles, tricicles? It definitely didn’t cover motorcars, motorbikes or electric scooters.
It also only covered alcohol. Interestingly it didnt actually specify what “being drunk” meant.
Since then there have been at least 22 additional changes and clarifications of the law.. Yep 22.. 9 of which have been since 2000. Thats a lot of changes.
Imagine if instead the law had simply said:
“It is a crime to cause injury or death while in control of any moving mechanism if your capability is impaired.”
Or even simpler:
“It is a crime to cause injury or death to another person.”
Whether the harm is caused by a car, a train, a horse, a drone, or a futuristic hover-pod doesn’t actually matter to the victim or their family.
The method changes. The harm does not.
What also needs to be understood is in most cases there is also an individual/organisation who gains/benefits from the action that caused the harm,
Normally this is directly the perpertrator, some times it is a corporate entity, either way again the victim really doesn’t care who benefits/gains they are just concerned with the harm they have suffered.
The same logic applies elsewhere.
Stealing is still stealing whether you:
- mug someone,
- burgle their home,
- trick them with a scam, or
- drain their bank account with a deepfake AI call.
Different methods, same impact:
someone loses property against their will.
Where This Idea Came From
Many years ago I heard a claim (which later turned out to be wrong) that one country had removed “rape” as a separately defined crime, replacing it by incorporating it with the broader category of “grievous bodily harm”, which held a higher penalty and removed the question of consent/intent.
While the fact was incorrect, the concept stuck with me.
The important part, surely, is the experience of the victim, not the offender’s preferred method or intent.
In my view, rape should carry a penalty at least as severe as stabbing or shooting someone and if someone claims the victim “agreed,” then the burden should be firmly on them to prove it.
If you’re not absolutely sure?
Don’t do it.
Focusing laws on impact makes them clearer, tougher and more future-proof.
I also think that this change will make teaching people about Law and Punishment easier, we will no longer be caught up in questions regarding what the person intended or aimed to do, but rather in the damage they caused to the victim.
This goes with the classic pub fight where a person punches someone and kills them with one punch, that is the risk when you punch someone, the message should be don’t punch/attack someone unless you are happy to end up in jail on a unlegal killing charge.
A Quick Detour Into Drugs
Let’s take another example: controlled substances.
Right now we label chemicals as “illegal” or “legal,” which becomes ridiculously outdated the moment someone invents a new compound.
What if instead the law said:
“It is illegal to sell any substance potentially harmful to health unless the risks are explicitly disclosed to the user.”
This would:
- shift responsibility onto manufacturers and dealers,
- keep laws relevant as new substances appear,
- protect users who want accurate information,
- still allow adults to make informed choices.
Yes, I am quite libertarian in that sense:
Adults should be free to do whatever they want with each other — provided everyone is legally capable of giving consent. and is fully informed and consenting.
But again, the burden of proof belongs with the one who risks causing harm.
FeedBack From my Sounding Board
So as I moved away from evidence based discussions into more theoretical ones, I have asked a group of people to review my ideas and give me feedback.
Now this proposal so far has recieved a quite over whelming – ERR what about.. response.
So lets have a look at some of the potential pit falls that make what to me originally seemed like a great idea turn into, mmm.. yes it needs more work and may even be unworkable.
The main one raised is that by moving to harm done – you are removing the concept of INTENT, a couple of examples I was given to consider:-
- If a person causes the death of another due to a malfunction in the vehicle they are driving that they were not aware of, who is responsible?.
- Would this person be penalised the same as some one who chose to use a car as a weapon by driving it intentionally at another and killing them?
- Would the manufacturer get off scot free, how will they be held accountable if it turns out they were aware of the issue?
- Should the manufacturer be held responsible even if they didn’t know about the malfunction?
- It was pointed out to me my suggestion about substances hazardous to health has two main issues –
- one is – that in reality there are very few substances that aren’t hazardous to health if misused.
- two is – it assumes that all the public are educated well enough to actually read and understand information made available. It made me sorry to realise that most of those who I discussed this with were not of the opinion that this was the case, and no matter how I might love it to be otherwise I have to reluctantly agree with them.
So my first foray into rethinking appears to have not quite hit the mark – but that is ok as if ideas aren’t discussed and debated then the related issues cannot be reconsidered and potentially reworked.
There is nothing more dangerous that a thinking person who will not or cannot accept criticism.
Next I am going to have a look at how Fines and penalties are defined in English law.
Discover more from Hysnaps Politics, Gaming, Music and Mental Health
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
