Fined for admiring "a very nice backside."

I've had several conversations pertaining to that. The general opinion has been that just because your a lousy shot doesn't mean you should serve less time. If you try to kill someone the charges should be the same as if you did. Sorry I'll get off my soapbox, but that does bother me.

While attending a local fair(at a church) this week I saw a lot pretty young girls with very little clothing on. I noticed boys and men trip themselves staring at them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if an accident happened while one of these girls were walking down the street.

I just looked at the picture again and it seems strange that The Mail would use that one as it is not even from the UK, the traffic is on the wrong side of the street. Apparently The Mail's editors get distracted by nice bums as well.

Perhaps all the drivers were distracted.

Annamarie: in terms of natural justice, I understand your argument. However, imagine the reaction of friends and family of someone killed by a careless driver (one of my relatives was so killed, so I know what I'm talking about) if the driver was punished no worse than if (s)he had gone through a red light, broken the speed limit or whatever with no damage done. Consider how often businesses break safety regulations, with only a small chance someone will be seriously injured. Mostly they'll get away with it because the breaches won't be identified outside the company; so if they're caught, that's already unfair in your terms for them to be punished at all. If the 5% chance happens and one of the workers gets killed, should they not be punished at all, or get only a small fine? If you do an irresponsible act knowing there is a risk someone will die or be seriously injured as a result, you accept the risk and should accept the punishment if you - and your victim - get unlucky. Consider also that civil law will punish a negligent person or agency severely through damages if their negligence leads to death or permanent, serious injury, but not punish them if luckily their negligence leads to no harm. That's because the victim or the victim's nearest and dearest are considered to deserve compensation - but it's still unfair, by your argument, for the perpetrator.

Barrethunter - I think you misunderstood me. If a person decides they are going to murder someone and they try but fail, the sentence should be the same as if they did kill them. Why should the criminal get a lighter sentence because the victim lived? The criminal's intent was for the victim to die. I don't want murderers or people who are trying to commit murder out and about at all.
If a person is driving carelessly but doesn't hurt anyone they should be punished by a ticket, or if the situation warrants it arrested (drunk driving). If the person causes an accident that kills someone then the charges would be involuntary manslaughter or something along those lines.
If a business breaks safety regulations and a person gets injured or killed the company should be held responsible. The victim or their family should be compensated. If during an inspection it comes to light that safety regulations are are not being followed then the company should be fined and possibly shut down, if the situation calls for it, until they comply.
I believe people should be held accountable for their actions. If a person is injured or dies due to a caretaker's or agency's negligence they should be punished the victim or their family should be compensated. If no one was hurt there still needs to be corrective actions made. That could be anything from retraining to dismissal for an employee and anything from fines to shutting an agency down until it is in compliance with the regulations.