Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You tell me:Is there a 3. punishment? Like society's sheer desire for the criminal to suffer as a result of the harms caused?
If you fail to adjust for wealth then the law isnt impartial with respect to punitive effect. The poor criminal suffers more than the rich criminal.
I did. I want to know what you think.You tell me:
In the criminal code, the jail time (or removal of other rights) is the main deterrent, in tort law, the financial amounts ruled upon are the main deterrent.How is this different from any other legal penalty?
Okay, sure, but everything I said earlier still applies. See, for example, #18.Tort law involves civil/non-jailable offenses against another individual, so the financial aspect is the deterrent in these types of cases.
I was referring to the two conceptions of (criminal) law you listed in the post I quoted. So is punishment for its own sake, aka retribution, another valid conception of law in your opinion.What are you asking about? What is your list a list of?
Okay, well I don't see the righting of wrongs as exhausted by compensation. Usually retribution is also part of that. I got at some of this <here>.I was referring to the two conceptions of (criminal) law you listed in the post I quoted. So is punishment for its own sake, aka retribution, another valid conception of law in your opinion.
Okay, sure, but everything I said earlier still applies. See, for example, #18.
On one conception law rights wrongs. On another it discourages actions. It is only when this second conception is given primacy that deterrence and pain/penalty become the central considerations.
"In order to properly deter and pain you, we are requiring that you pay X amount even though the damages and restitution were much less." That is the strange move, and it also raises the fraught question: Who receives this extra money?
To say, "Because deterrence!" sort of ignores the whole question of what punishment is and how deterrence relates to punishment, which I take to be the original question.But the central question here is, "Why should a wealthy person pay more in penalties for the same crime?"
@ThatRobGuy - I don't know that you're really following. Here is the question:
To say, "Because deterrence!" sort of ignores the whole question of what punishment is and how deterrence relates to punishment, which I take to be the original question.
OK. I agree with that. The "negligence" part is the obvious hang up. A lot of mind reading has to take place, and I think that why successful defamation suits seem pretty rare.
So you conceive of the government as a moral nanny that runs around trying to deter people from doing bad things, and depending on the person in question it will use different methods of deterrence? Like I said earlier, that is not an impartial rule of law. It's person-based manipulation for the sake of a desired behavior-end.But I answered that...in the case of tort law (which refers to civil matters where jail and other forms of deterrence aren't an option), financial deterrence is the only lever to pull to dissuade someone from engaging in a particular behavior.
It's not.If, say, rape was considered in the realm of tort law
In the case of defamation, it's not the government doing anything, it's one citizen vs. another, making their case in front of jury with a judge presiding over it.So you conceive of the government as a moral nanny that runs around trying to deter people from doing bad things, and depending on the person in question it will use different methods of deterrence? Like I said earlier, that is not an impartial rule of law. It's person-based manipulation for the sake of a desired behavior-end.
That was just an example.It's not.
I totally agree with the defamation judgement in this case. I was just pointing out how to me it seems challenging to prove the negligence claim generally. In this case the defendant made it easy.The negligence part, in the legal sense of "failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances", was very clearly established in the various Sandy Hook court cases. The judge in the Connecticut case stated that Jones/Free Speech Systems "conduct was intentional, malicious, and certain to cause harm by virtue of their infrastructure, ability to spread content, and massive audience.”
If you really want to know about it, the podcast 'Knowledge Fight' goes into extraordinary detail covering how Jones/Free Speech Systems failed to perform even the most basic fact checking of anything. What's more, they deliberately misconstrued and/or failed to report information that contravened their defamatory positions. Such as Jones reading media reports verbatim while on air and as he did so altering the words or leaving out sections that didn't meet the conspiracy narrative.
This wasn't just a couple of mis-statements. This is deliberate and legally malicious promulgation of falsehoods. Look up the various 'Formulaic Objections' episodes for ~30 hours of coverage and analysis of depositions related to the case.
The wealthy should pay more to achieve both deterrence and retribution.......But the central question here is, "Why should a wealthy person pay more in penalties for the same crime?" It is not because of compensation, and it is not because of retribution. So is it because of deterrence? (The post I linked is at bottom about the problems with reifying and separating deterrence as a standalone consideration.)
But in what regard? That is the question. Classically it must be in a regard proportional to the crime/tort itself.Retribution is basically vengeance, right? Thats the desire to see the offender suffer in some regard.
Let's come back to retribution (which is really just another word for punishment) and focus on deterrence for a bit, because that is the original topic and the one on which @ThatRobGuy continues to beg the question.The wealthy should pay more to achieve both deterrence and retribution.
Nah. If you think there should be a law for the sake of deterrence, then you apparently think the government should be a moral nanny in the way I suggested.In the case of defamation, it's not the government doing anything, it's one citizen vs. another, making their case in front of jury with a judge presiding over it.
If you don't report the crime nothing will happen.If I hold you up at gun point and steal your wallet, it doesn't matter whether or not you say "meh, I don't care", the cops are still going to arrest me and the state will file charges.
So make your case. "Hello Mr. Judge. This fellow stole $400 from me. The law says I should get my $400 back and another $400 for punitive damages. But he's rich. So let's charge him an extra $10,000 for the sake of deterrence. Sound okay to you?"In the case of defamation, it's not the government doing anything, it's one citizen vs. another, making their case in front of jury with a judge presiding over it.
Why is defamation different from civil theft?But, in the realm of defamation.
There are a lot of people around here who think it is unfair that rich people are rich and poor people are poor, and that therefore we should redistribute wealth, or the poor should be able to steal from the rich with no consequences. I don't think that. I think rich people can do things poor people can't do, including paying penalties. That's called reality. My only surprise is that you are a libertarian who thinks it is unfair that rich people can do things poor people can't do, and that the government needs to step in and make partial laws based on personal wealth.Basically, what you're getting at, is that you want the financial penalty for defamation (in tort law) to be the same for a poor guy as it is for a rich guy. That doesn't work. How that ends up is poor people have to keep their mouth shut and walk on eggshells, and rich guys can lie about people all they want and have their accountant write a check. The very two-tiered justice system I assume you want to avoid.
Who cares? The government is not a moral nanny.Do you think Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk are dissuaded from doing anything over the risk of losing $10,000? Or is that amount of money so insignificant to them, that is has little to no bearing on their decision making process?
Yes, the suffering (retribution enacted) should be proportional to the severity of the offense. (I'm stipulating that retribution is a valid goal of a justice system - I'm not sure myself).But in what regard? That is the question. Classically it must be in a regard proportional to the crime/tort itself.
Deterrence requires felt negative consequence. Monetarily, the same felt consequence requires a bigger penalty for a wealthier person, typically. Jail time is different of course, as on average time spent in liberty is equally precious to everyone.Let's come back to retribution (which is really just another word for punishment) and focus on deterrence for a bit, because that is the original topic and the one on which @ThatRobGuy continues to beg the question.
So how does this matter of deterrence work for you? Are you saying that the goal of deterrence justifies an increased penalty?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?