16 yr old defense in DUI deaths --- "Affluenza"

In my view it doesn't. This has been my argument from the get go.

 

Read it as the wrong being punished.

And at any rate, you are speaking of the current system, not the proposed, theoretical one.

 

Why does there have to be a benefit?

 

Then why have crime and punishment?

 

Because in one instance you have personal damage only, and in the other you have personal damage AND damage to another.

And nothing you do to yourself should be illegal.

 

So that individuals who stray from a societal defined path lose, regardless of whether society benefits.

 

To what end?

 

So that the average member of society trends toward walking that path, so that there is long term benefit, even if not short term.

 

Think of it as removing outliers from a graph.

 

Not an accidental discharge. Just recklessly shooting at random where I walk, which is, in terms of recklessness, similar to recklessly taking the wheel drunk while others are driving in the vicinity.

And, civil cases must determine that someone has been wronged in some manner and to some degree, otherwise why the compensation? Do the litigants just draw lots?

 

I laughed

 

There are no fault judgements.

Shooting at random where you walk is pretty dickish, what's wrong about it?

 

No fault is poor usage. What I mean is that you don't have to show that something is wrong, just that there was violation.

Like price fixing. Even if fixed for society's benefit, it is still illegal

 

So, for society.

 

No, not necessarily. Saying that society might benefit is not the same as saying that the reason is to benefit society.

It is a positive externality.

I might rake my leaves and keep my bushes trimmed and yard landscaped, and as a result, my neighborhood's property value might go up. But that is not why I did it. I did it because I wanted my house to look good. The property value is just an added benefit.

 

So if not for society, then for what?

 

Order, example, punishment, retribution, payback, payment, law, justice.

Pick one or two.

 

Again I ask, to whose benefit?

 

But mens rea is what separates criminal law from tort law. Intent is the essence of criminal law, and rightfully so.*


*What I mean by "rightfully so" is that not every body of law in the US legal system gets it right. Antitrust law, for example, is a vague amorphous blob of contradictory opinions. But our criminal laws, in my estimation, are really good.

 

Okay, I'll pick one or more.

Payback: no, this is ridiculous. criminal justice systems are designed to ensure that citizens can go about their daily lives, and conduct their daily affairs, without getting jumped on the way to work, or randomly sniped out, or come home to find their house was robbed. It's ex ante. It's not ex post. W
Punishment: I've already addressed why "punishment" isn't a proper justification for incarceration.
Retribution: Nope. Again, it's a system to ensure that society can function as a civilized society, and not mogadishu. It's not about getting back at somebody. The State isn't a fourth grader.
Payment: Huh?
Law: okay, now you're just throwing out words.
Justice: and you just did it again.