4 ms·

>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

>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.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >I'm not the one that is expressing bitterness about this reality. Proposing a solution (a crowdsourced public platform for investigating crimes for/with law enforcement) is not bitter. Your response of shitting on the idea and saying civil courts already exist...is seemly bitter about your own experience. I noticed you didn’t answer my question about your own cases, which makes me think you didn’t follow your own legal advice and pursue anything in civil court. That’s very telling. >Because, where criminal prosecution already serves the public interest This is where you begin to sound like a troll...I know you’re not for the record...but what you are doing in this thread is telling victims of crimes, that persecuting these cases doesn’t serve the public interest. Who are you to make that determination? It would appear you are using a self fulfilling definition...that is if your case isn’t prosecuted then there either aren’t resources or it’s not in the public interest. But that’s not true. First you don’t know what happened factually so you have no idea if it’s in the public interest, and second you have no idea whether there are resources for this crime in this jurisdiction. And you keep bringing up restitution...that’s the least of my concerns. Can you even set forth a standard for what cases are in the public interest? And can you distinguish why my case isn’t in the public interest? Why weren’t your cases in the public interest?

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.

will_brown 8y ago
>I'm not the one that is expressing bitterness about this reality. Proposing a solution (a crowdsourced public platform for investigating crimes for/with law enforcement) is not bitter. Your response of shitting on the idea and saying civil courts already exist...is seemly bitter about your own experience. I noticed you didn’t answer my question about your own cases, which makes me think you didn’t follow your own legal advice and pursue anything in civil court. That’s very telling. >Because, where criminal prosecution already serves the public interest This is where you begin to sound like a troll...I know you’re not for the record...but what you are doing in this thread is telling victims of crimes, that persecuting these cases doesn’t serve the public interest. Who are you to make that determination? It would appear you are using a self fulfilling definition...that is if your case isn’t prosecuted then there either aren’t resources or it’s not in the public interest. But that’s not true. First you don’t know what happened factually so you have no idea if it’s in the public interest, and second you have no idea whether there are resources for this crime in this jurisdiction. And you keep bringing up restitution...that’s the least of my concerns. Can you even set forth a standard for what cases are in the public interest? And can you distinguish why my case isn’t in the public interest? Why weren’t your cases in the public interest?