Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:06:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
507 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I think it's fair to award an amount for the life itself, a separate amount
> for loss of society, and a third amount for loss of income (this last part
> will vary from case to case). People are not equal.
Setting aside the loss of income issue (because I'm still not sure and don't
have anything insightful to say), what does "loss of society" mean?
> Every child has the right to that which was lost. That's exactly what one
> sues for.
Let's imagine that a kid is part of a rich family until he's ten (way old
enough to have gotten used to it) and is simply given up for adoption. What
claim to his previous family's wealth does he have? (In our system, or a
"should be" one.)
What if the same family, instead of giving the kid away, decides that wealth is
"wrong" and gives it all away and moves to the woods. Again, what claim does
the kid have?
If in either or both cases, the kid has no claim, then I'm not sure that it
makes sense for us to assume the kid has such a full claim to the assumed
income of the murdered parent. I do understand that the removal of potential
wealth is different in nature, but the common thread is the child's claim on
the parent's life.
> Here's where it gets to be apples and oranges -- why should tort law serve
> as a remedy for social or economic inequalities? I'm not really arguing
> against a remedy to those inequalities, just saying that maybe this isn't
> the way to do it.
OK, maybe so. I was more rolling two issues together. It was sloppy of me.
> > 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.
>
> Why would "doing what's right" and a "neat philosophy of law" be mutually
> exclusive? I think the reason we are trouble now is that we have lumped in
> too many things to maintain a single coherent theory of what the law is and
> what it is intended to accomplish.
I agree with you. I think that a coherent philosphy of law that does what's
"right" would be the best choice. If we can't (or won't) have that, then I
think a system that does what's right through a Byzantine network of little
laws is better than a system of law that is stunningly consistent but doesn't
accomplish the right outcome(s). I do tend to think that we can have both, or
nearly so, and that's what we should be striving for. I like principles like
"without a victim there is no crime" which would eliminate lots of laws from
our books.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) Loss of that person's company; the loss of the relationship with that person. (...) Well, I'm not sure that a child does either -- certainly not all of it. But there could be other claimants, like a spouse. I think earlier in the thread we (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
