Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick
Imprisonment, community service, fines. All meted out after due process of law.
I take it then that you believe that a kidnapper should only ever be given community service or fines, yes? Because if you imprison a kidnapper, you have given him a punishment which is the same as what he inflicted on his victim: apprehending and confining a person against their will. And as you've said, that would make us just as bad as the kidnapper.
If someone chooses not to report a crime then it is their decision, once it is reported they may have input but the decisions to proceed belong to the cops and the prosecuters.
Is this not "allow[ing] the personal will of the victim into the law" as you've previously disapproved of?
Get it from the state??? you are funny! you are entitled to get it from the person, or entity who took it from you. Why would I and every other taxpayer give you cash because somebody breached a contract between the two of you. If that person doesn't have cash you can get an order for possesion and sale of any assets they have. If they have nothing of value you can hold the judgement over them til the cows come home in hopes you get something someday.
You said I was comparing two things that were not alike. My point of comparison was who has to pay for the offence committed. In criminal law the person who has to pay is the person who is found to be responsible for committing the crime. In civil law the person who was to pay is the person who was found to be responsible for causing the damages. In this way, they are alike and so the comparison is valid. In order for the comparison not to be valid, the person who was to pay in one of the forms of law would have to be someone who wasn't responsible for the offending actions. So when you made the ridiculous statement criminal law and tort law are too dissimilar for my comparison I assumed that's what you meant: that in tort law someone else should pay. Because how else could the comparison be incongruous? It was the only thing I was comparing.
And so again, civil law is personalized. The person offended is being personally compensated for the damages done to them and the person compensating them is the offender. In a case where the offender believes he did no wrong and thus should not have to pay the plaintive for damages, when he is found to have done wrong, he will feel that a crime has been done against him. The scenario you described earlier in which retributive justice leads to constant retaliation is exactly this situation. Now your logic is in play and the offender should feel justified in retaliating. And so tort is just as dangerous to society as the situation described in the OP.
You leave me bewildered as to whether you don't understand the law, are just playing games, or are simply stupid.
It's a common tactic for people losing arguments to resort to insults.