Should crimes be replaced with private torts?

[twocows]

People that break the law should be made to cover any damages, in addition to doing something useful for society during their incarceration.

 

[LayZee_in_charge]

sue'n should only be done if the incedent is minor and jail should be for murdererz and pedafilez....jailz are too packed to be arresting and spending tax money on sting operationz just to take down a couple weed dealers and crooks.... basicly all the non voilent offenders, should be sue'd and fined for there actions...hit'em where it hurts the money....but we kno thats not gonna happen too bad huh...

 

[ILoveDragonite]

I'm still a firm believer in "Eye for an eye"

Someone steals a cookie from your cookie jar, steal a cookie from theirs.
Someone kills your sister, kill them.
Someone robs you, rob them the heck back.
Someone jumps you, get friends, jump back.

 

[Danick]

Ya good Idea, then they come back for revenge.

 

[ILoveDragonite]

Ya good Idea, then they come back for revenge.

precisely! This one catches on quick. =D

 

[Reina]

No idea if anyone mentioned this, but ... what was it, Hammurabis code? They went by an eye for an eye, steal and get your hand chopped off, hurt someone get the same pain back to you, etc etc, but did it really keep anyone from committing crimes?

 

[Yusshin]

If you kill or rape someone, or sexually molest a child, I'd like the death penalty.

In Canada, most crimes are punished with prison and/or community service, and in some cases, recompensation towards the victims.

Suing for everything doesn't solve anything.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Some states do treat minor infractions like traffic tickets, petty theft, and drug use due to addiction, as civil issues instead of criminal issues.
Where I live isn't one of those states. We have crimes such as "Petty Theft with a Prior", which is a felony and "Felony Petting" amongst other things.
If no harm was caused other than monetary harm, it makes sense that the penalty should be monetary compensation. In the case of drug use, the penalty could be compulsory rehabiliation.

Prison sentences should be reserved for people who are a grave danger to the community or repeat offenders who fail to be rehabilitated.

 

[Sneeze]

"An eye for and eye and the whole world is blind" ~ Gandi

Fair enough if someone kills like ten people then they need putting down but killing a one-off murderer, no, not in my opinion.

And on topic, no, because if someone is rich then they can effectively do anything they want and pay people off.

 

[Throat]

That's funny how some people would like the human rights to be canceled.

@topic
It would only work in a perfect world, usually, who robs is in the deepest level of the hole. Besides, you can always issue other people for unimportant crimes.

 

[Melody]

I feel that it really depends upon the crime committed and the damage done. Some people are happy to see the criminals sit in jail.

Now I do agree, there has to be some compensation for injury, and damaged/stolen property. As for death, I really don't know what price one can put on a person's life, but in cases where the person killed was someone who had dependents, some compensation can be made based upon what that person would have made when they lived, but by no means should this be mandatory, only in cases where it's clearly needed.

In the case of a lost child, I really do think some compensation is appropriate but what price can someone put on that? Definitely no one could offer a reasonable price in my eyes for that. While compensation is OK in that situation, I don't think they should be able to sue for damages unless it's seriously affecting their bottom line income, and not be allowed to tack on more than a set amount for so called "Pain and Suffering".

 

[Nick]

You can't put a price on a human life or any acts made against them, such as rape. It's one thing to sue for damages done to property that you own, but something done to a human, an act of murder, or another crime of the sort, should not be paid back through money. That's not justice at all. That's letting people act out crimes and pay for them through money they earn, which is no different from stopping at a store, breaking something, and having to pay for it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

We are already putting a price on someone's life. We say it's worth x amount of years behind bars. How would measuring it in money be any different? How does the victim benefit by the incarceration of their attacker? By providing the 3 free meals a day, free health care, and free shelther at their and other taxpayer's expense of course. How is that justice?

We get in our minds in America that prison is the answer to everything that's why our system is so screwed up.

 

[Yamikarasu]

We are already putting a price on someone's life. We say it's worth x amount of years behind bars. How would measuring it in money be any different? How does the victim benefit by the incarceration of their attacker? By providing the 3 free meals a day, free health care, and free shelther at their and other taxpayer's expense of course. How is that justice?

We get in our minds in America that prison is the answer to everything that's why our system is so screwed up.

Well, under the system you propose, people like Bill Gates can basically kill anyone they want since they can afford it. No, suing for things like that is stupid. It simply complicates and an already complicated legal process.

The purpose of prisons are not only punishment but reform. With prisons, people can think about what they've done and spend time away from society to use that time to become a better person. This is ideal of course, and people still sometimes commit crimes after jail, but there is no chance for reform if they just have to pay a fine for whatever crime you commit.

 

[The Magus]

Why not both?

Sue them and then lock them up.

quoted for truth
I am humbled to thee, o great thinker

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Well, under the system you propose, people like Bill Gates can basically kill anyone they want since they can afford it. No, suing for things like that is stupid. It simply complicates and an already complicated legal process.

The purpose of prisons are not only punishment but reform. With prisons, people can think about what they've done and spend time away from society to use that time to become a better person. This is ideal of course, and people still sometimes commit crimes after jail, but there is no chance for reform if they just have to pay a fine for whatever crime you commit.

Prison accomplishes the opposite of reform. People learn to become more sophisticated, violent, criminals behind those walls. Given this, prison should be reserved for dangerous, violent offenders. Non-violent offenders should not be converted into violent ones at the governments expense. If our goal is to deter crime, placing these people behind bars isn't the solution.

Why should someone caught selling marijuana be sent somewhere to be instructed in criminal ways by murderes and rapists only to carry on their legacy when they get out?If reform and deterance are the goal, we need to intervence in alternative ways if this is a more appropriate action.

 

[Missingno.7-4468]

Personally, small crimes, such as petty theft, vandalization, and so forth, should be sued for/have a fine.

Major crimes, murder, thieving spree, rape and so forth should have a set amount of time in prison.

Serial killers and serial rapists? Put 'em on the gallows in my opinion. criminals like them should not be able to be out in the world.

This would have been more wordy, but I'm tired, G'night.