3 ms·

>Sure, we'd all prefer a public subsidy of litigation costs, but public law enforcement doesn't have infinite resources, so not every loss, even where a crime i

>Sure, we'd all prefer a public subsidy of litigation costs, but public law enforcement doesn't have infinite resources, so not every loss, even where a crime is involved, is going to have public resources expended on it. What in the hell are you talking about? Your big takeaway from this conversation is what I would like and other who were victims of crimes where in this thread is that what we want is Subsidize our litigation costs? Im the victim of a crime, the majority of criminal courts have power to order restitution for a reason...it’s not to subsidize litigation, it’s efficiency of the courts and it actually is a savings for tax payer money. Why pay for a civil and criminal case instead of 1 where things may be resolved globally? Yes, resources are limited not every crime will be solved. That’s a great political response, it kindly ignores the specific facts of this case, where there is video evidence of grand theft and credit card fraud, but the police won’t muster the energy to write an email to request it. If we don’t have have the resources to email a request for a video (which I believe they do), then a public platform to conduct crowdsourced investigations by the public is more warranted than even I originally believed. As one lawyer o another, I hope your not the victim of a felony some day and the response from fellow man (or lawyer) isn’t...police don’t have resources to investigate your case, stop trying to subsidize your civil litigation costs, that’s what suing John Doe is for.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Yes, resources are limited not every crime will be solved Arrest, pretrial detention or supervision, prosecution, and execution of sentence also cost resources. The resource limitation that leads to choices about which crimes to pursue with public resources isn't just (or even mainly) about solving crimes, which is often a miniscule portion of the cost. > I hope your not the victim of a felony some day and the response from fellow man (or lawyer) isn’t...police don’t have resources to investigate your case, I have been, twice, once with overwhelming evidence and once where the perpetrator openly admitted the offense, where the police wouldn't even send someone out, much less pursue the case. I agree it sucks when it happens. That doesn't mean I can't understsnd why it has to happen with the combination of the array of criminal conduct defined and the resources devoted to law enforcement, and the actual structure of the legal system.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >I have been, twice, once with overwhelming evidence and once where the perpetrator openly admitted the offense, where the police wouldn't even send someone out, much less pursue the case. Now I see why you’re so bitter. Still others shouldn’t have to face the same fate as you. Did you take your own advice and file a civil suit? If not why, is that a shitty solution also? You didn’t care about the damages so much as being the victim of a crime? For someone talking about the structure of the legal system though...you have great talking points (that’s not police job; they don’t get paid to solve crimes; that’s your loss not society’s problem, you want to subsidize civil litigation costs). And just like a politician you gloss over everyone else’s point and maintain it’s not for the criminal court...but why then, do criminal courts have power to order restitution? Should the criminal court say sorry...that’s not the legal structure now go see a civil lawyer? Seems to me it’s built into the system for criminal courts to order restitution (which they exercise in every plea I’ve ever seen) and it’s cheaper for the taxpayer to have global resolutions in criminal court (of course that’s well known though) rather than having tax payers pay for both a criminal and civil case.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Now I see why you’re so bitter. I'm not the one that is expressing bitterness about this reality. > Still others shouldn’t have to face the same fate as you. Sure, in a perfect world there would be no resource constraints. Of course, property crime (and even property itself) probably would be a lot less of an issue in that case. Scarce resources require tradeoffs. Some property crimes not being pursued is not any where close to the biggest issue to address with that. > Did you take your own advice and file a civil suit? No, in both cases the damages were insured with a deductible which made it not worth pursuing that even if it might otherwise have been worthwhile (and in neither case did the insurance company seem interested in litigation, either.) > they don’t get paid to solve crimes; I never said that. I said that solving crimes is often a negligible portion of the resource cost of pursuing them, so that the fact that a crime is easy to solve doesn't automatically make it worth pursuing. > And just like a politician you gloss over everyone else’s point and maintain it’s not for the criminal court I didn't say that, either. > but why then, do criminal courts have power to order restitution? Because, where criminal prosecution already serves the public interest, so does integrating restitution, since the courts are a public resource and economy of justice increases the capacity for any given cost of that resource. That doesn't mean it serves the public interest to prosecute every apparent crime, even when there is a near zero cost to solve the crime. > rather than having tax payers pay for both a criminal and civil case. Sure. That clearly is true where otherwise there would be both types of cases. But when the criminal case wouldn't otherwise be worth expending resources on, there is no savings to the public by pursuing criminal process for private restitution.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Yes, resources are limited not every crime will be solved Arrest, pretrial detention or supervision, prosecution, and execution of sentence also cost resources. The resource limitation that leads to choices about which crimes to pursue with public resources isn't just (or even mainly) about solving crimes, which is often a miniscule portion of the cost. > I hope your not the victim of a felony some day and the response from fellow man (or lawyer) isn’t...police don’t have resources to investigate your case, I have been, twice, once with overwhelming evidence and once where the perpetrator openly admitted the offense, where the police wouldn't even send someone out, much less pursue the case. I agree it sucks when it happens. That doesn't mean I can't understsnd why it has to happen with the combination of the array of criminal conduct defined and the resources devoted to law enforcement, and the actual structure of the legal system.

will_brown 8y ago
>I have been, twice, once with overwhelming evidence and once where the perpetrator openly admitted the offense, where the police wouldn't even send someone out, much less pursue the case. Now I see why you’re so bitter. Still others shouldn’t have to face the same fate as you. Did you take your own advice and file a civil suit? If not why, is that a shitty solution also? You didn’t care about the damages so much as being the victim of a crime? For someone talking about the structure of the legal system though...you have great talking points (that’s not police job; they don’t get paid to solve crimes; that’s your loss not society’s problem, you want to subsidize civil litigation costs). And just like a politician you gloss over everyone else’s point and maintain it’s not for the criminal court...but why then, do criminal courts have power to order restitution? Should the criminal court say sorry...that’s not the legal structure now go see a civil lawyer? Seems to me it’s built into the system for criminal courts to order restitution (which they exercise in every plea I’ve ever seen) and it’s cheaper for the taxpayer to have global resolutions in criminal court (of course that’s well known though) rather than having tax payers pay for both a criminal and civil case.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Now I see why you’re so bitter. I'm not the one that is expressing bitterness about this reality. > Still others shouldn’t have to face the same fate as you. Sure, in a perfect world there would be no resource constraints. Of course, property crime (and even property itself) probably would be a lot less of an issue in that case. Scarce resources require tradeoffs. Some property crimes not being pursued is not any where close to the biggest issue to address with that. > Did you take your own advice and file a civil suit? No, in both cases the damages were insured with a deductible which made it not worth pursuing that even if it might otherwise have been worthwhile (and in neither case did the insurance company seem interested in litigation, either.) > they don’t get paid to solve crimes; I never said that. I said that solving crimes is often a negligible portion of the resource cost of pursuing them, so that the fact that a crime is easy to solve doesn't automatically make it worth pursuing. > And just like a politician you gloss over everyone else’s point and maintain it’s not for the criminal court I didn't say that, either. > but why then, do criminal courts have power to order restitution? Because, where criminal prosecution already serves the public interest, so does integrating restitution, since the courts are a public resource and economy of justice increases the capacity for any given cost of that resource. That doesn't mean it serves the public interest to prosecute every apparent crime, even when there is a near zero cost to solve the crime. > rather than having tax payers pay for both a criminal and civil case. Sure. That clearly is true where otherwise there would be both types of cases. But when the criminal case wouldn't otherwise be worth expending resources on, there is no savings to the public by pursuing criminal process for private restitution.