Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:57:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
430 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> And actually, reading your pause above shows me a hole in the system. What if
> the victim has no family? Is murdering one person cheaper than another? Off
> hand that sounds icky, but is it actually bad? I guess I think it is!
> Otherwise, we'd have a system that _officially_ values the lives of rich people
> over the lives of the poor.
I think you are looking at the idea of equality with a slightly clouded lens...
We are equal under the law, and therefore due equal protection and liability
under the law. We are NOT actually all equal in reality.
The life of a person has value of certain kinds under tort law (trying to
remember it correctly here): the wage earning potential of the person, and
the society of that person. There may be more but I don't think it's just
the strict wage earning potential, I think there is more there...
What is protected under tort is what IS. Society places no value to the
life beyond that which the person in question achieved in their life and by
which wage earning potential and the society of that person is estimated.
Being social creatures, we have allocated standing under the law to persons
that are usually immediate family members: fathers, mothers,
spouses/partners, and children. A loner has no moving party that can go to
court for him or her and claim a loss.
The deceased has no claim but perhaps a value lost to society could be
allocated as a kind of automatic penalty in the absence of a proper
claimant, and such could be pursued against the criminal causing the loss.
-- Hop-Frog (still semi-lucid at 3 am)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) lens... I've been thinking about this for quite a while and I think that either I misunderstand your meaning, or you're wrong. The notion of equality under law, I think, is somewhat slippery. Further, it seems some times (this included) that (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) Would you contend that the abrogation of guilt caused by punishment has nothing to do with recidivism or that such effect is nonexistant? It kind of feels like you wanted to pin me to that specific stance so you could play whack-a-mole with (...) (22 years ago, 19-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
