From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Punishment vs Restitution   was Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:18:56 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug17.185253.7078@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.042538.6698@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.173917.4633@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>>
>>>I prefer the idea of actual monetary
>>>compensation of the victims by the criminal to the idea of punishment
>>>by society for vengeance's sake, even if we assume that the
>>>criminal is locked up.
>>>
>
>>What happens if the criminal has no money or has so little money?
>
>He will have his prison wages garnished, if he has no assets.
>I am speaking here of a violent crime which leaves victims in its wake.
>

Prison?!?  I thought you preferred monetary compensation?  And surely,
prison wages are way too low to be of any significance.  

Isn't prison "punishment by society for vengeance's sake?"

>
>>(perhaps lack of money is part of the cause of the crime?) 
>
>There are many alternatives to crime when one is low on money,
>especially in a nation as wealthy as ours.  
>
>A great many crimes are committed by drug addicts who are not
>sensible enough to consider the alternatives, or who are desperate
>enough to take a chance on jail.  (80% of bank robberies in LA,
>for example).
>
>Re-legalizing drugs would prevent a lot of crime, but that is another
>topic.
>

No!  First homosexuality, then abortion, then now legalizing drugs?

What other topics have we not had yet?  Oh yeah.  We forgot Gun Control,
the Death Penalty, etc. etc. etc.

Can't we have at least one trivial debate?

Steve Bono for starter!!!!

>
>> How does the victim get paid?  
>
>The same way that the winner of any civil suit is paid.
>
>
>> Does that mean the state has to take over?  
>
>Assuming that having a court system for criminal law is part of the minimal
>form of govt, then yes.  There are theoretical private alternatives,
>and in fact there are many actual private judges for civil disputes,
>but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
>
>
>>Does
>>that mean taxpayers will be taking over the brunt of the punishment? 
>
>NO.  That is what we have now.  Compensation, if it exists at all, 
>comes out of the taxpayer's pockets, while the criminal is "punished"
>by a (short) jail term.  

Wait a minute.  I thought you were opposed to "punishment" for 
"vengeance's sake?"  Victims would be paid by the state (no harm to
the criminal.  Lots to the taxpayer) while the criminal gets only
a "short term?"  With this set-up, being a criminal can be a profitable
undertaking.

[stuff deleted]
>
>>If the state has
>>to pay for his crime, he'll just keep on committing more crimes at
>>OUR expense!
>>
>
>That's the problem I am trying to correct.

But your solution still involves some sort of non monetary punishment.

>
>
>>And what of the rich criminal?  Since he can afford committing crimes, 
>>he'll have the freedom to commit so many other crimes.
>>
>
>Rich criminals would be especially loathe to see their assets
>go to their victims, I would think.
>

Not when the money they have to pay is insignificant compared to their
total worth.  Rich criminals can think of a crime in terms of a pay scale:
On this crime menu, the rich criminal can choose between the various crimes:
   Rape: $5,94...
   Tax Evasion: Value of Tax evasion * 5;
   Manslaughter: $3,910.77

So after one crime, the rich criminal reaches for his/her menu and picks
another new one.  

By the way, there are specials offered.  If you happen to choose a crime
never before performed, you get a whopping 40% discount!

So what would it be:
   Breaking and Entering public property or Second Degree murder?