Should crimes be replaced with private torts?

[FreakyLocz14]

For example. When a person robs you, instead of trying to get them locked up, sue them for damages and include extra for pain and suffering and attorney fees.

If a relative of yours is killed, sue for wrongful death.
If someone beats you and injures you, sue for pain and suffering, medical fees, etc.

Criminal sanctions don't do anything to compensate the victim for the harm they've suffered except maybe symbolically. Torts are all about compensation.

 

[jdbean5]

People are all about suing nowadays! I say send 'em to jail.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Why not both?

Sue them and then lock them up.

 

[Muffin™]

I say if a person robs a bank, chop off their hands so they can't rob anymore! AND so people would be like "...I DON'T WAT MEH BUTYFAWL HANDZ CHAWPED OWFF!!!"

 

[professor plum]

I say if a person robs a bank, chop off their hands so they can't rob anymore! AND so people would be like "...I DON'T WAT MEH BUTYFAWL HANDZ CHAWPED OWFF!!!"

Well, in the US at least, we have the 8th amendment which is basically the "No Cruel & Unusual Punishments" clause. I find that . . moderately silly.

Frankly, I think both should occur as well. If someone's stealing, killing, dealing drugs . . they need to be locked up. :/

Otherwise, I wouldn't feel very safe =3=;

 

[jasonresno]

For example. When a person robs you, instead of trying to get them locked up, sue them for damages and include extra for pain and suffering and attorney fees.

If a relative of yours is killed, sue for wrongful death.
If someone beats you and injures you, sue for pain and suffering, medical fees, etc.

Criminal sanctions don't do anything to compensate the victim for the harm they've suffered except maybe symbolically. Torts are all about compensation.

Just so I got this right. So if someone beats you savagely, bites you, threatens to kill you...sue for pain+suffering+medical etc?

I'm with that. Or make the consequences of said action be worse than what they did to conjure up their criminal charges. You rob someone: be stripped of every cent and property you've ever owned. You kill someone, and theres flawless evidence and no doubt, you get put down as well.

 

[Muffin™]

New answer. If ANYONE commits a crime, they should be locked up forever. Let's say a guy was accused of kidnapping a child, or if a guy was dealing pot, drugs ect. to teenagers. If they let him/her out of prison, he could DO IT AGAIN! COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!!

God, some of the people in the world are just plain stupid :\


EDIT: You know I'm talking about politics, judges, ect... RIGHT?

 

[professor plum]

New answer. If ANYONE commits a crime, they should be locked up forever. Let's say a guy was accused of kidnapping a child, or if a guy was dealing pot, drugs ect. to teenagers. If they let him/her out of prison, he could DO IT AGAIN! COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!!

God, some of the people in the world are just plain stupid :\

W-what? I'm hoping this was sarcasm. That's kind of cruel as well XD;
I mean, some people change. And, everybody makes mistakes :[

And plus, we'd have extremely overcrowded penitentiaries. [which we already do DX]

 

[professor plum]

Well, that's why we have the jail system: if someone breaks the law again, they go back jail for a longer time. And, usually, most people, when let out of jail, are on a probation system and if they violate it . . they go back to jail. (:

I mean, if you had a chance to get out of prison, would you change your life around, or would you still be a rebel and commit the same crime again?

Well, if the other option was life in prison, I would most certainly change. o_O

Which is worse, harsh government treatment or just letting them off, risking the possibility that the individual could commit the same crime again? Human lives are on the line here with the latter option. D:

In general, if someone charged with murder is released, they are on strict probation for quite some time, and have to visit with a parole officer, afaik. So I mean, it's not it's even that easy to get out after one commits murder. D:

And then, there's habaes corpus. :[~

Frankly, in regards to America, permanent imprisonment IS unconstitutional because of the 8th amendment :P

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The reason I think torts should take over crime is beacuse imprisonment does nothing to rehabilitate the offender.

And by locking them up for extremely long periods of time just for punishment's sake, we are wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money supporting their incarceration.

 

[professor plum]

But yet the U.S government does the whole "life in prison" thing anyway. :(

But not for minor crimes :P

I accidentally created that hypothetical situation. I was more or less referring to the actual mind of a person who committed the crime and how they would see things. Would they change, or would they commit the same crime again? Pretty hard to say, since a lot of things would be held as basis to try to reach a verdict for this.

Which is what rehabilitation is. :p Sometimes, people change. Sometimes they don't. It just depends on the person, though. :[

The reason I think torts should take over crime is beacuse imprisonment does nothing to rehabilitate the offender.

And by locking them up for extremely long periods of time just for punishment's sake, we are wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money supporting their incarceration.

I'd rather have them locked up than on the streets. :\

 

[FreakyLocz14]

This sorta contradicts your first statement.

And really, I would rather spend my working money on the government keeping the people that should be in jail in jail because otherwise I wouldn't feel safe with them roaming around the streets with the possibility that they could commit the same crime again. People can't psychologically change as a whole in 24 hours, the brain isn't programmed like that(at least, I don't think so). I mean, the people that are in jail, experiencing the harsh prison environment would probably think twice about what they've done and change for the better when they get out.

If you ask me, that's rehabilitation.

In actuality, most people will get out of prison eventually. Only murderers and really bad rapists get life or death sentences.

In prison, people learn to become better criminals and many join prison gangs for protection. All in all they come out worse than they were before.

 

[Esper]

In actuality, most people will get out of prison eventually. Only murderers and really bad rapists get life or death sentences.

In prison, people learn to become better criminals and many join prison gangs for protection. All in all they come out worse than they were before.

This sounds more like an issue with how prisons are run than the idea of prisons in general. Yeah, prisons are pretty bad, but if you have nothing to loose but your freedom then paying compensation to someone you hurt doesn't seem like a big deterrent.

I've met one or two ex-gang members who've gone back to school and do community work. People can change. Just because some, or even lots don't doesn't mean we shouldn't try to rehabilitate them because you never know.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

This sounds more like an issue with how prisons are run than the idea of prisons in general. Yeah, prisons are pretty bad, but if you have nothing to loose but your freedom then paying compensation to someone you hurt doesn't seem like a big deterrent.

I've met one or two ex-gang members who've gone back to school and do community work. People can change. Just because some, or even lots don't doesn't mean we shouldn't try to rehabilitate them because you never know.

I agree that we should run reform-school style prisons. Where inmates are required to attend classes (for High School Diploma, GED, College, vocational, or whatever level of education they are at) and those in on drug offenses are treated for their addictions. Inmates will mental health issues would be treated as well.

Obviously there will be the un-reformable so we can have traditional prisons for those people but that should be reserved for the last resort.

 

[Ray Maverick]

No, this wouldn't help. Money is money, you could live without it. But if you're locked up, it'd seem more like a penalty, because of the feeling.

 

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

Why not both? Especially in countries without national healthcare systems, GBH and such crimes could be VERY expensive for the victim, and what if they don't have health insurance? Maybe that was a stupid thing, but they're suffering even more. Simply put, this is my idea: say somebody commits GBH. They are sued/fined/whatever you want to call it for the amount to cover healthcare etc. If the victim is put in a wheelchair, they would also have to pay to have their home converted, etc. And THEN, they are imprisoned/rehabilitated/whatever.

 

[Graceful]

I think for murdering PRISON. And If it's not that extreme - like selling drugs I would say a fine. I don't believe in suing...

 

[professor plum]

I think for murdering PRISON. And If it's not that extreme - like selling drugs I would say a fine. I don't believe in suing...

....That does nothing to stop them from dealing. :/

 

[the bitter end.]

I say that the punishment should fit the crime. ex. If someone steals money, get them to give it back via. Fine or similar such method.

 

[I Laugh at your Misfortune!]

Torts do also raise the problem of rich people being able to get away with criminal activity a lot more easily.