4 ms·
It's not a punishment, it's a debt. If you steal a sandwich and eat it you'll be fined, that's a punishment and a transaction with the state, and you'll also pa
by cess11 2y ago
It's not a punishment, it's a debt. If you steal a sandwich and eat it you'll be fined, that's a punishment and a transaction with the state, and you'll also pay the owner damages, which is not a transaction with the state.
- HPsquared 2y agoOnly in the most legalistic sense.
- cess11 2y agoHow so? Is the difference between having to repay Lisa when you've caused her harm and having to pay the state because you did something criminal that hard for you to understand that you actually consider it a matter of "legalistic" quibbling? Would you accept a jurisdiction where, instead of going to prison, you could just pay someone a bunch of money after you've raped or performed some other obviously criminal act against them?
- HPsquared 2y agoWhen the assessed damages are way out of proportion, that's in the realm of "making an example", i.e. punishment.
- cess11 2y agoWho are you quoting? None of what I've written in this thread is about the correctness in how damages are measured, I don't see the relevance of your comment. To me it seems like you're confusing suffering with punishment. Debt is commonly painful, but it's not a punishment. The purpose of paying damages is to substitute someone else for harm you've caused. This is altogether another purpose than punishments. Paying damages is a reparation, punishment is based in another set of principles.
- moomin 2y agoI know this is a distinction relevant elsewhere in this thread, but I don’t think it affects the point I made.