4 ms·

What would reason look like in this case?

by 9dev 3y ago

LatteLazy 3y ago
Personally I think this should be a criminal matter not a civil one. The small part that is civil is the actual damages. Like measurable material damages. The criminal law system exists to protect non-material things, the civil to deal with material damages. So you should go to criminal court for your mistreatment as a person and civil for your material losses. Make sense? Civil damages in this case should be limited to things like lost income, lawyers costs, the effects of damage to her credit history, return of money stolen, compensation for the time required to deal with unnecessary BS, maybe the cost of some therapy. This would also be much safer for everyone, from the victim to the accused: * Currently there is no reason to assume he will stop. He's not in prison and have nothing to lose right? If he were in prison that would make continuing quiet difficult. But he isn't. * And there is no reason to think he is guilty either, since he's not actually been tried in criminal court and it isn't clear if he even had a lawyer. Yet his life is ruined (rightly or wrongly who knows?).
- thebigjewbowski 3y ago
  I like this punishment — the damage has already been done, now he’s going to pay for it. Of course he isn’t going to have, or ever earn, $1.2B but the court can garnish his wages. The compensation to the victim will enrich her life to a degree. If the perpetrator was incarcerated all she’d be paid is peace of mind. There’s nothing in this judgement that is stopping her from getting a permanent restraining order or anything. She may already have one. In the US, when someone goes to prison, their life goes to serve private corporations by way of slave labor and exploitation or the prison itself, similarly by way of slave labor. This ultimately costs the tax payer around (IIRC) $50k/year. Similarly, if Steve kills someone in a drunk driving accident and goes to jail for 25 years, the family of the deceased can rest assured that he won’t be on the road any longer but that does little to compensate for the fact that their loved one is gone. Money doesn’t bring them back but a mother or father having died is going to undoubtedly become a financial drain for 95% of people in the country by way of lost earnings, child care, therapy, lost productivity of survivors, etc etc. If instead of working for pennies in prison Steve could be barred from driving for life and instead spend his time doing productive work that earns more than $0.25 and pay a hefty sum in restitution to the victims in perpetuity they’d have the peace of mind that he isn’t driving and also have assistance with their loss.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    Of course, he has not been tried or had a lawyer let alone been found guilty. But assuming he did do it. Why would he stop now, fear of another 1.2bn fine? And if he insanely enough DID have 1.2bn that would be ok then? He could just pay and walk?
Arnt 3y ago
Courts spend a fair amount of effort on finding the most similar older sentences and making this sentence sort well with the older ones. That's reason. In this case, I'd expect the court to look for older harassment cases, stalking, that kind of thing. $1.2B is effectively an infinite sum of money with no jail time and nothing else (AFAICT he's not blocked from living hear her or from using facebook, etc), so it sounds like a corner, not something that sorts well with other harassment/stalking cases.

What would reason look like in this case?

by 9dev 3y ago

What would reason look like in this case?

Personally I think this should be a criminal matter not a civil one. The small part that is civil is the actual damages. Like measurable material damages. The criminal law system exists to protect non-material things, the civil to deal with material damages. So you should go to criminal court for your mistreatment as a person and civil for your material losses. Make sense? Civil damages in this case should be limited to things like lost income, lawyers costs, the effects of damage to her credit history, return of money stolen, compensation for the time required to deal with unnecessary BS, maybe the cost of some therapy. This would also be much safer for everyone, from the victim to the accused: * Currently there is no reason to assume he will stop. He's not in prison and have nothing to lose right? If he were in prison that would make continuing quiet difficult. But he isn't. * And there is no reason to think he is guilty either, since he's not actually been tried in criminal court and it isn't clear if he even had a lawyer. Yet his life is ruined (rightly or wrongly who knows?).

thebigjewbowski 3y ago
I like this punishment — the damage has already been done, now he’s going to pay for it. Of course he isn’t going to have, or ever earn, $1.2B but the court can garnish his wages. The compensation to the victim will enrich her life to a degree. If the perpetrator was incarcerated all she’d be paid is peace of mind. There’s nothing in this judgement that is stopping her from getting a permanent restraining order or anything. She may already have one. In the US, when someone goes to prison, their life goes to serve private corporations by way of slave labor and exploitation or the prison itself, similarly by way of slave labor. This ultimately costs the tax payer around (IIRC) $50k/year. Similarly, if Steve kills someone in a drunk driving accident and goes to jail for 25 years, the family of the deceased can rest assured that he won’t be on the road any longer but that does little to compensate for the fact that their loved one is gone. Money doesn’t bring them back but a mother or father having died is going to undoubtedly become a financial drain for 95% of people in the country by way of lost earnings, child care, therapy, lost productivity of survivors, etc etc. If instead of working for pennies in prison Steve could be barred from driving for life and instead spend his time doing productive work that earns more than $0.25 and pay a hefty sum in restitution to the victims in perpetuity they’d have the peace of mind that he isn’t driving and also have assistance with their loss.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  Of course, he has not been tried or had a lawyer let alone been found guilty. But assuming he did do it. Why would he stop now, fear of another 1.2bn fine? And if he insanely enough DID have 1.2bn that would be ok then? He could just pay and walk?

Arnt 3y ago

Courts spend a fair amount of effort on finding the most similar older sentences and making this sentence sort well with the older ones. That's reason. In this case, I'd expect the court to look for older harassment cases, stalking, that kind of thing. $1.2B is effectively an infinite sum of money with no jail time and nothing else (AFAICT he's not blocked from living hear her or from using facebook, etc), so it sounds like a corner, not something that sorts well with other harassment/stalking cases.