kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Say the cost of conducting a murder case (salaries of attorneys
and judges, cost for maintaining a courtroom, etc.) is $XXXXX.
Now say a defendant is found guilty and so is liable for these
expenses. What if he/she has nowhere near this amount of money?
There is no requirement that the fine be restricted to the cost of
the trial. The fine can be made sufficient to subsidize unsuccessful
and indigent trials. Trials can also be paid for by voluntary
individual contributions, by the victims, and by voluntary
organizations of potential victims.
... does it mean that the convicted person will somehow have to
"work-off" the debt? I thought we got rid of debtor's prisons a
long time ago.
We are speaking of people who have been convicted of a crime, not of
people who have simply gone into debt. So why not? You think that
prisons DON'T make convicts work? If so, you are wrong.
For first time and nonviolent crimes, electronically supervised
probation is a promising and inexpensive alternative to imprisonment.
The probationer can work normally while under such supervision.
Anyway, i'm not familiar with the actual costs of a trial, but i
can imagine that the cost for a complicated case could easily
exceed the amount of money that convict could "earn" for the rest
of his/her life.
Like anything else government pays for, the cost of trials has gone
up enormously. I think it can be reduced a lot without interfering
with anyone's rights. And it is in the interests of the defendant, if
he thinks he is likely to be found guilty, to waive expensive features
of the trial.
You DO realize, the vast majority of criminal cases do NOT go to a
jury trial, or even a judge trial, but are plea bargained. This is in
the interests of the defendant if he thinks he will be found guilty,
and is quite inexpensive.
No matter who you are, or how much money you have, you have a
right to a trial by your peers.
Right. This is important and should not be changed.
Besides, there are all of those other expenses -- electricity for
the court room, for example -- who volunteers to pay for them??
Be real. If the courtroom is lit by ten flourescent 40 watt bulbs,
and the trial lasts 10 hours, at $0.07 per kilowatt hour that would
cost less than thirty cents. If this is the best that opponents of
libertarian philosophy can come up with, we must be doing pretty well.
If the only reasonable way to guarantee equal access to the
justice system is by taxation, then that is the way we are forced
to do it.
And if the only way to guarantee equal access to the justice system
was by slavery, would you support that? There is no evidence for
either assertion.
...Keith
-------testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (08/20/86)
>From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> > > From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA> > > Say the cost of conducting a murder case (salaries of attorneys > and judges, cost for maintaining a courtroom, etc.) is $XXXXX. > Now say a defendant is found guilty and so is liable for these > expenses. What if he/she has nowhere near this amount of money? > > There is no requirement that the fine be restricted to the cost of > the trial. The fine can be made sufficient to subsidize > unsuccessful and indigent trials. What? Are you saying that some criminals should be forced to subsidize the trials of other criminals? How is this different from non-criminals being forced to subsidize the local phone rates of other non-criminals, which you have already objected to? >Trials can also be paid for by voluntary >individual contributions, by the victims, I can't imagine many people being victimized by someone also volunteering to pick up their trial tab. > ... does it mean that the convicted person will somehow have to > "work-off" the debt? I thought we got rid of debtor's prisons a > long time ago. > > We are speaking of people who have been convicted of a crime, not >of people who have simply gone into debt. So why not? You think >that prisons DON'T make convicts work? If so, you are wrong. > For first time and nonviolent crimes, electronically supervised >probation is a promising and inexpensive alternative to imprisonment. >The probationer can work normally while under such supervision. Yes, i am aware that convicts have to work. BUT, are the lengths of their sentences dependent on their ability to pay for something? Should a rich rapist get a shorter sentence than a poor one simply because he has a smaller monetary debt to pay off? I think that the sentence should be determined strictly by the crime committed. (I realize that this is not strictly the case even now.) > Like anything else government pays for, the cost of trials has gone >up enormously. I think it can be reduced a lot without interfering >with anyone's rights. Agreed. >And it is in the interests of the defendant, if >he thinks he is likely to be found guilty, to waive expensive >features of the trial. Here we go again. A person with lots of money can go ahead with the trial and take full advantage of the legal process; even if it is not likely that he or she will win, staying out of prison is worth the gamble. However, someone without as much money, who may NEED the "expensive" features of a trial for the chance to show that he or she is innocent, will not get that chance. This is equal justice? > No matter who you are, or how much money you have, you have a > right to a trial by your peers. > > Right. This is important and should not be changed. Unless you can't afford the expensive parts? > Besides, there are all of those other expenses -- electricity for > the court room, for example -- who volunteers to pay for them?? > > Be real. If the courtroom is lit by ten flourescent 40 watt bulbs, >and the trial lasts 10 hours, at $0.07 per kilowatt hour that would >cost less than thirty cents. If this is the best that opponents of >libertarian philosophy can come up with, we must be doing pretty >well. OK, the first example (EXAMPLE) off the top of my head was a bit trivial. I can think of more -- the cost of constructing/renting and maintaining the court building; the cost of the record-keeping systems; and the aforementioned salaries of court employees. I'm sure that you can think of more, too. > If the only reasonable way to guarantee equal access to the > justice system is by taxation, then that is the way we are forced > to do it. > > And if the only way to guarantee equal access to the justice system >was by slavery, would you support that? There is no evidence for >either assertion. Well, there is evidence (not proof) for the former -- are you aware of any system which has ever existed and WORKED to provide equal access to a judicial system without taxation? I'm not saying that it CAN'T be done, just that it has never been proven that it can. I won't even bother with your comparison to slavery. -joe testa ------- -------
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/21/86)
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
What? Are you saying that some criminals should be forced to
subsidize the trials of other criminals?
Yes.
How is this different from non-criminals being forced to subsidize
the local phone rates of other non-criminals, which you have
already objected to?
Because the latter aren't criminals, of course! Do you really see
no difference?
It is ok to violate the rights of a convicted criminal, to the
extent necessary to prevent crime from violating other people's rights
to a greater extent. The simplest example of this is that it is ok to
shoot someone if he is shooting at you. And it is ok to coerce money
from a person if he coerced the same amount of money from you.
My messages have been about the rights of noncriminals and of the
accused.
Read the 13th Amendment. We all know it abolishes slavery. To me
it seems that it also abolishes the draft and taxation, since those
are forms of involuntary servitude. There is, however, an exemption
in the amendment. Read it.
>Trials can also be paid for by voluntary individual
>contributions, by the victims,
I can't imagine many people being victimized by someone also
volunteering to pick up their trial tab.
They pay the cost of CIVIL trials, nobody finds anything strange
about that. So why not the cost of CRIMINAL trials as well?
In fact, an argument can be made that there should be no distintion
between civil and criminal trials.
Yes, i am aware that convicts have to work. BUT, are the lengths
of their sentences dependent on their ability to pay for
something?
Perhaps they should be to some extent. The idea convict should make
things right again if possible. Someone who steals a thousand dollars
should get a more severe sentence than someone who steals a hundred
dollars. "Thirty days or thirty dollars" is a common misdemeanor
sentence. Do you think it is unreasonable to imprison only those who
don't have thirty dollars?
Should a rich rapist get a shorter sentence than a poor one simply
because he has a smaller monetary debt to pay off?
No. You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was a
prostitute). I am speaking of paying off the court costs, not of
victim restitution which is a different concept. Many things, such as
murder, can't be put right or compensated for with any amount of
money. Such crimes should have severe sentences which include both
imprisonment and court costs and imprisonment costs and victim
restitution to the extent possible, for instance replacing the murder
victim's earnings.
If the convict can't afford this, well, he can't. Maybe later he
can. Meanwhile, fine other convicts proportionately more.
Note that it is NOT government's responsibility to compensate
victims of crime. It is the convict's responsibility to do so.
Government's responsibilities include holding fair trials, punishing
convicted criminals, and collecting court costs from the convict. The
victim may bring civil suit for restitution, or restitution may have
been mandated during the original trial as part of the punishment.
I think that the sentence should be determined strictly by the
crime committed.
I agree that the punishment should not depend at all on the wealth
of the convict, if that is what you mean. I am not convinced that the
punishment should depend only on the crime. For instance I think it
should be more severe if the convict has a long criminal record.
>And it is in the interests of the defendant, if
>he thinks he is likely to be found guilty, to waive expensive
>features of the trial.
Here we go again. A person with lots of money can go ahead with
the trial and take full advantage of the legal process; even if it
is not likely that he or she will win, staying out of prison is
worth the gamble. However, someone without as much money, who may
NEED the "expensive" features of a trial for the chance to show
that he or she is innocent, will not get that chance. This is
equal justice?
Perhaps not, but it is what we have now. Not all defense attorneys
are created equal, and you are not going to get F. Lee Bailey if you
declare indigency. Neither will you get a whole parade of expert
witnesses. How would you recommend changing it? Allow multimillion
dollar defenses at taxpayer expense for anyone who asks for one?
Forbid such a defense from one who can pay for it, on the grounds of
fairness? Strange kind of fairness that would be, making the chances
that a that a jury will falsely convict a rich man as high as the
chances that they will falsely convict a poor man! Please explain.
> No matter who you are, or how much money you have, you have a
> right to a trial by your peers.
>
> Right. This is important and should not be changed.
Unless you can't afford the expensive parts?
You have a right to a jury trial. You don't have a right to dozens
of expert witnesses and psychiatrists and high priced attorneys unless
you can pay for them yourself or talk someone else into voluntarily
paying for them.
I can think of more -- the cost of constructing/renting and
maintaining the court building; the cost of the record-keeping
systems; and the aforementioned salaries of court employees.
These are the court costs convicted criminals would pay for. I
never said I thought it would be free.
> And if the only way to guarantee equal access to the justice
>system was by slavery, would you support that? There is no
>evidence for either assertion.
Well, there is evidence (not proof) for the former -- are you
aware of any system which has ever existed and WORKED to provide
equal access to a judicial system without taxation?
As I pointed out in a recent message, not so many decades ago a
person could find no examples of a major civilization without slavery.
This did not justify slavery or prove that its lack would cause the
collapse of civilization.
Since no judicial system prior to ours has been even close to fair,
I don't really have a whole lot of instances to search through.
Saying that it probably can't be done any other way because this one
happens to to be done this way reminds me of an old joke. "All
Indians walk single file - at least the one I saw did."
...Keith
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/23/86)
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Well, i see *some* difference, but not to the level you do.
Should a criminal convicted of some minor crime end up paying for
some huge murder trial?
Reasonable maximum sentences for each crime can be set by the
legislature.
It is interesting to see that you DO think that rights are
not "inalienable" for everyone.
A person has the right not to be shot. But if he starts shooting at
someone else, he has no business complaining when his intended victim
starts shooting back.
And it is not just violence that people have the right to defend
themselves against, but any violation of rights.
If people do not have the right to prevent criminals from violating
their rights, then the violated rights are meaningless since anyone is
free to violate them.
... the government should pay the overhead costs of maintaining
the judicial system so that ACCESS to the system is available to
everyone, regardless of how much money they have.
Yes. And government should get the money for this from voluntary
contributions. These would not have to be very large, since:
1) The justice system takes up only a tiny percentage of tax money.
If taxes were eliminated, people would have many times this amount
extra to spend or donate as they saw fit.
2) The justice system can be largely streamlined. Do juries really
have to be 12 people rather than, say, 6? And instead of requiring
unanimity, how about 5/6 vote? And where in the constitution does
it say that the jurors must have heard nothing about the case? The
result of this peculiar doctrine is that jurors can be selected for
a well publicized case only from the uninformed minority, which is
NOT a jury of one's peers. Potential jurors who have made up their
minds as to the guilt of the defendant should be excluded, but not
those who simply admit to having read something about the case in
the paper.
3) The great majority of serious crimes are directly or indirectly
related to illegal drugs. Legalize the drugs and the crime rate
will drop by at least a factor of ten.
4) A fair number of crimes are, or are related to, other victimless
crimes, i.e. prositution, pornography, smuggling, sodomy,
loitering, etc. These would all be legal.
5) Much of crime is due to poverty. If the tax rate is reduced to
zero, prices and rents will drop, salaries will increase, employees
get to keep ALL of their paycheck, and voluntary charity will
increase.
6) Much of crime is due to unemployment. If employers are more free
to fire people they will be more inclined to risk hiring people.
If minimum wage laws are repealed more people will be hired. If
the complicated paperwork government requires employers to fill out
to hire people is eliminated more people will be hired. If
employers are not required to determine whether a potential
employee is an illegal alien, more people will be hired. If
employers are not required to search for equal numbers of employees
of each race and sex, more people will be hired. If employers are
not required to contribute money to unemployment insurance and
social security for each employee, more people will be hired. If
employers are not taxed, more people will be hired.
7) Much of crime is due to repeat criminals. If someone has served
two major felony sentences and is convicted of a third, he should
be put away for good.
8) A fair amount of crime is tax evasion. This would no longer be a
crime, since there would be no more taxes.
9) Much of the cost of the justice system, possibly all of it, can be
supported by fines. Certainly prisons should be self supporting.
And things used in the commission of a serious crime should be
confiscated and auctioned off.
There is also another difference between civil and criminal
trials. In a criminal case, if you lose, you could end up in jail
or lose money. In a civil case, you can lose only the money. So
it is more vital that access to the court system in a criminal
case be available.
I think they are equally important. I would rather spend a week in
jail than pay a $10,000 fine. You can't just say that any jail
sentence is worse than any fine.
> You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was a
>prostitute).
What??? It is more ok to rape prostitutes???
No. I didn't say that.
Prostitution should be legal. (It already is in Nevada.)
Conservatives oppose prostitution. Liberals sometimes advocate it,
but are confused by the contradiction:
1) Nobody should be forced to have sex against their will.
2) Any business person should sell their wares to anyone with money,
as has been pretty generally agreed to since the 1960s lunch
counter boycotts.
3) Anything two consenting adults choose to do is ok.
There is no way to believe both 1 and 2 and to advocate legalization
of prostitution. But there is no way to believe 3 without advocating
legalization of prostitution. A paradox.
Everyone agrees on point 1. Where liberals go wrong is with point
2. Not everyone agrees that any customer must be served.
Libertarians are the only ones to advocate both freedom and a
consistent political system.
One should not have to rely on voluntary contributions determining
whether or not the court will be in session this year.
If voluntary contribution are insufficient, the courts can raise the
fines. I don't think this is likely. For the reasons I gave above, I
think administration of justice will not be too expensive. I don't
mean it will be dirt cheap, but it will cost less than, say, the
restoration of the Statue of Liberty. The latter was paid for
entirely by voluntary donations. And I think anyone willing to pay
for a statue representing our way of life would be willing to pay at
least as much to guarantee the way of life itself. Especially since
the elimination of taxes would result in considerably more money being
available to everyone.
...Keith
[ It is interesting that the employment laws you decry were enacted to
redress the very greivances you say that their repeal will solve...
Also, is it necessarily good that a judge can levy fines based on how
much money he wants? "I need a new car. Fine is one Ferrari ."
- CWM]
-------testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (08/24/86)
[ Due to an administrative error, the reply from Keith to this message has already appeared in the last digest. My apologies to Joe Testa. - CWM] From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> > From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA> > > What? Are you saying that some criminals should be forced to > subsidize the trials of other criminals? > > Yes. > > How is this different from non-criminals being forced to > subsidize the local phone rates of other non-criminals, which > you have already objected to? > > Because the latter aren't criminals, of course! Do you really see >no difference? > It is ok to violate the rights of a convicted criminal, to the >extent necessary to prevent crime from violating other people's >rights to a greater extent. Well, i see *some* difference, but not to the level you do. Should a criminal convicted of some minor crime end up paying for some huge murder trial? It is interesting to see that you DO think that rights are not "inalienable" for everyone. > I can't imagine many people being victimized by someone also > volunteering to pick up their trial tab. > > They pay the cost of CIVIL trials, nobody finds anything strange >about that. So why not the cost of CRIMINAL trials as well? I think you misunderstand what i mean by the "cost" of a trial. We were discussing the GOVERNMENT'S expenses in conducting a trial. The government spend money to set up the judicial system, pay judges, etc. The government does NOT pay for the attorney fees, costs of legal research, etc. for an individual case (unless, of course, the government is a party to the case). I do not suggest that people should have these costs paid by the government, and they do not now -- either civil or criminal. However, the government should pay the overhead costs of maintaining the judicial system so that ACCESS to the system is available to everyone, regardless of how much money they have. Once they can access the system, then it is up to them how they will utilize the system. There is also another difference between civil and criminal trials. In a criminal case, if you lose, you could end up in jail or lose money. In a civil case, you can lose only the money. So it is more vital that access to the court system in a criminal case be available. > Yes, i am aware that convicts have to work. BUT, are the lengths > of their sentences dependent on their ability to pay for > something? > > Perhaps they should be to some extent. The idea convict should >make things right again if possible. Someone who steals a thousand >should get a more severe sentence than someone who steals a hundred >dollars. This is not the same thing. I said that sentences should not depend on the ABILITY to pay. I also said elsewhere that the sentence should depend on the crime; stealing a thousand dollars is different than stealing a hundred dollars. > You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was a >prostitute). What??? It is more ok to rape prostitutes??? > I think that the sentence should be determined strictly by the > crime committed. > > I agree that the punishment should not depend at all on the wealth >of the convict, if that is what you mean. I am not convinced that >the punishment should depend only on the crime. For instance I >think it should be more severe if the convict has a long criminal >record. Agreed. I had overlooked that. > You have a right to a jury trial. You don't have a right to dozens >of expert witnesses and psychiatrists and high priced attorneys >unless you can pay for them yourself or talk someone else into >voluntarily paying for them. Right. As i said before, ACCESS must be available; beyond that, you choose with your own resources how you will use the court system. One should not have to rely on voluntary contributions determining whether or not the court will be in session this year. -joe testa- ------- -------