Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:18:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
498 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I think you are looking at the idea of equality with a slightly clouded
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 you point out what our (deep) law says in such a way that it sounds like
you're saying that's how it ought to be. Since it's sounds like that's what
you mean, that's what I respond to.
> We are equal under the law, and therefore due equal protection and liability
> under the law. We are NOT actually all equal in reality.
Obviously we aren't all the same. And on the face of it I think we all agree
that we ought to be equal under the law. But what we mean by that could be
widely divergent.
> 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.
It seems contradictory to claim that tort protects "what IS" while immediately
following with the inclusion of a bald prediction of a future "might be."
> 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.
I can't see a down side to allowing (and insisting!) that The People act as
claimant when one of them is injured beyond repair. Not "in the absence of a
proper claimant," but in addition to any other claims made.
You seem to support the notion that one child orphaned should be awarded a life
of leisure and another should be awarded an empty whisky bottle -- based merely
on what we might guess about the actions of their parents had they not been
murdered. That makes me uncomfortable.
It seems to me that the surviving children of murdered parents have claim to
(at least) food, shelter, and education of their choosing (within certain
bounds of reason), and care from loving adults (to the extent this is possible
to provide). What more? And why more for some than others? What _right_ does
a child born to rich parents have to those circumstances? And wouldn't
inheritance (with which I also have issues...for another discussion) take care
of that?
If you want to instead compare a lower middle class family with one in poverty,
and claim that the first kid has righteous claim to a proper education, I'd
agree. But so does the poor kid.
And I don't think that it's some Bergeronian understanding of equality to seek
the state of having the law value all peoples lives equally. I want the system
to do what's right because it produces a better world for everyone to inhabit.
Not because it fits neatly in some philosophy of law.
Does this make sense? Did I totally misinterpret what you were saying?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) Well, that's a fault of the kind of torts we currently allow. At the same time the destruction of what exists at the time of the loss is what is being protected. It's not that big a leap to assert that someone that has been earning "X" dollars (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
