From: garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism 
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:05:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.170849.25128@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)      writes...
>In article <1992Dec14.215349.18380@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.064033.10089@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)  writes...
>>>Assuming that there would be no State intervention, criminal cases would be
>>>treated as intentional torts, with restitution to be made to the victims,
>>>plus court costs, plus a deterrent factor.  
>>
>>This might work for theft, but it wouldn't work for murder. If someone
>>murdered a member of my family there would be only one way to pay
>>restitution, with his/her life. How would the death penalty work under
>>this system? Also, if the murder victim didn't have a family, how would
>>this work? Finally, how would imprisonment work under this system? 
> 
>The death penalty is somewhat orthogonal to the issue.  I would suggest life
>imprisonment (in a private prison, of course) with the murderer required to
>work, and the proceeds (above survival level) going to the victim's
>representatives.  Of course if the prisoner refuses to work...

I imagine that in most cases the family would want the murderers life.
But who would imprison him? It costs alot of money to imprison someone.
Also, what about right of appeal? Would that be revoked under this system?
It's obvious that right to an attorney would be revoked if the defendent
was dirt poor. What if the family of the victim won case, but couldn't afford
the price of the executioner? I'm sure the convicted murderer wouldn't agree
to work until he had made enough capital to pay for his own death.

>As for no family for the murdered, rights would certainly be held by creditors,
>life insurance companies (probably a standard clause), etc.

What about people like me who have no debts, immediate family, or life
insurance? Also, what if the victim only had a small debt? Would it make sense
for the murderer to only work off a small debt then go free?
> 
>Prisons would probably be far less used, used only in the cases of persons who
>are either a continuing threat to others or refuse to pay restitution.

Or the poor. Don't leave that out.

>Each
>justice agency would likely have a minimal prison owned or contracted with;

Holly shit! Don't you realize what kind of curruption that would occur
with kind of system!? People, the poor in particular, would loose faith so
fast it would make your head spin.

>however, if a prisoner wished to contract with another, "better" prison, s/he
>could do so if s/he had something to offer not due to the victims.

In other words, buy off the victims family. This amounts to "How much justice
can you afford?" I'm not knocking you, but this idea seems so open to 
curruption that in no time at all you would be asking for a civil class war.
> 
>                                   James Parker
>                                   jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton