On NOW at RadioFR!
Join John Bender and …WISH MERRY CHRISTMAS TO OUR MEN IN UNIFORM! Call 866-RadioFR!
Posted on 12/19/2002 5:48:54 AM PST by Kerberos
Because of this. We simply disagree.
I think our disagreement is on the point that you think that should fall under the purview of the criminal side of the court and I contend that there is already a mechanism in place for restitution on the civil side of the court.
IF I have a disagreement with someone on a non-criminal matter, the civil courts are the place for it to be resolved. If, however, my rights are violated criminally, it is the criminal courts that decide if I have been done wrong and who is resposible. And to have redundant actions makes no sense to me. Also I should incur no costs whatsoever when I have already paid taxes in order for the government to defend my rights.
The "punishment" of the perpetrator should first and foremost be in the form of returning me to the same condition as I was before my rights were violated. Whatever wrong done to "society" as a whole should be suborndinate to that, IMO.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what your standing, in a criminal complaint, is. You seem to think that if a crime is committed against you then the state, represented by the prosecutor, is there to be your personnel attorney. That simply is not true.
The state is there, again through the prosecutor, to represent the interest of the people as a whole, not you individually. You just happen to be the focal point of the issue. Hence, that is why when a complaint is drafted in a criminal proceeding, it reads, The People vs., or The State of California vs, not Thomas Jefferson vs.
Criminal Law. The substantive criminal law is that law which for the purpose of preventing harm to society. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition pg. 337
Criminal prosecution. An action or proceeding instituted in a proper court on behalf of the public, for the purpose of securing the conviction and punishment of one accused of crime. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition pg. 337
Because of being the victim of a crime, you suffer financial loss; it is your reasonability to recoup those losses, which is accomplished by filing a civil action. Not by using the state, and hence my tax dollars, to have the state act as your personal attorney. So in short, the states primary function is to represent the interest of the people, and thus their security, not their financial interest. . .
On NOW at RadioFR!
Join John Bender and …WISH MERRY CHRISTMAS TO OUR MEN IN UNIFORM! Call 866-RadioFR!
That is your characterization, not mine. But it's not me who has a fundamental misunderstanding, it is you. That is to say, you misunderstand what my comments on this issue were about. They were not about how it is, but rather how I think it should be. I think that the people of the state and the people of the society would be better served by doing it the way I think it should be, not how it is. We can disagree on that, but it is, what it is. And it is my opinion and simply personal speculation, so while you may disagree, it cannot be wrong.
I thought I had been clear about that because of my frequent use of the term, "IMO", during my posts.
On to the next thing, Regards TJ
Doesn't everybody. LOL...Or as one poster lamented to me "If only I were king."
You are correct I did misunderstand that you were arguing from the perspective of what should be, not what is.
Is this an actual case or just a hypothetical one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.