3 ms·

It allows one to settle a civil manner without self-incriminating if the same act is also criminal. This grants more flexibility to civil procedure without over

It allows one to settle a civil manner without self-incriminating if the same act is also criminal. This grants more flexibility to civil procedure without overstepping fifth amendment bounds.

pessimizer 4y ago
> This grants more flexibility Do we need that flexibility? The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we're enforcing legislation for revenue's sake. I wouldn't complain about that just because it seems venal, I really find it silly because the amount of revenue is minuscule irt the budget.
- themitigating 4y ago
  What's the value of marking someone as guilty? The fine is a punishment.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Do we need that flexibility? Yes. > The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we’re enforcing legislation for revenue’s sake. Civil charges are about liability, not guilt, and have a different standard of proof than criminal guilt. However, in a criminal trial, and admission of facts necessary for civil liability is admissible evidence. No one benefits from a system in which it is impossible for a party to accept civil liability without admitting to facts that could be used against them in other, including criminal, litigation when the civil verdict itself could not be. And, while in this case all of the consequences may have been monetary, in civil litigation especially involving the government, there are often other consequences (such as legally binding commitments to heightened monitoring and behavioral controls) that are attained in settlements (often, in the form of “consent decrees”) of civil litigation. Making those more expensive for all sides because the defense was incentivized to go through a kabuki-dance trial even if they fully expect to lose on the civil burden of proof just to avoid making an admission to settle does not benefit anyone. Except lawyers, lawyers would love it.

It allows one to settle a civil manner without self-incriminating if the same act is also criminal. This grants more flexibility to civil procedure without overstepping fifth amendment bounds.

pessimizer 4y ago

> This grants more flexibility Do we need that flexibility? The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we're enforcing legislation for revenue's sake. I wouldn't complain about that just because it seems venal, I really find it silly because the amount of revenue is minuscule irt the budget.

themitigating 4y ago
What's the value of marking someone as guilty? The fine is a punishment.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Do we need that flexibility? Yes. > The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we’re enforcing legislation for revenue’s sake. Civil charges are about liability, not guilt, and have a different standard of proof than criminal guilt. However, in a criminal trial, and admission of facts necessary for civil liability is admissible evidence. No one benefits from a system in which it is impossible for a party to accept civil liability without admitting to facts that could be used against them in other, including criminal, litigation when the civil verdict itself could not be. And, while in this case all of the consequences may have been monetary, in civil litigation especially involving the government, there are often other consequences (such as legally binding commitments to heightened monitoring and behavioral controls) that are attained in settlements (often, in the form of “consent decrees”) of civil litigation. Making those more expensive for all sides because the defense was incentivized to go through a kabuki-dance trial even if they fully expect to lose on the civil burden of proof just to avoid making an admission to settle does not benefit anyone. Except lawyers, lawyers would love it.