We have a criminal justice system, which, ideally, is supposed to be retributive. We have a civil justice system which is meant to be restorative.
Of course, it's been quite muddled in recent decades. We have civil courts giving out punitive damages (damages not meant to compensate for a specific injury, but to punish the defendant and deter future conduct in the future, which is the province of criminal law), and we have a criminal justice system which, as part of its sentences, often orders retribution to be paid to the victims.
So would you say you like the way it should or was supposed to be ideally, with retribution in criminal cases and compensation in civil? Why the distinction?
I think the distinction is more important in civil cases. In those cases, there is a far lower standard of proof. This makes sense, because nobody's life and physical freedom are at stake. However, when imposing punitive damages, you're doing something that resembles punishment, rather than compensation. Punitive damage awards can come to hundreds of millions of dollars, in many cases. This is far more than any fine that a criminal court could impose. So, you're effectively imposing something that almost resembles criminal punishment, without the protections afforded to a criminal defendant (proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a court-appointed attorney, the privilege against self-incrimination, habeas corpus, etc.).
Making compensation part of a criminal's punishment strikes me as far less morally questionable, and my reservations are largely practical. The criminal justice system is pretty good at determining questions of guilt and innocence, and and imposing appropriate penalties (though it's far from perfect). However, it's not equipped to handle issues that are primarily the province of civil courts, namely, compensation.
In a civil case, once liability has been determined, there might be a completely separate trial on the issue of damages. Why? Because it's often an amazingly complex issue, that civil courts (through the discovery process, and other mechanisms) are far better equipped to handle.
I see little to defend a system based on punishment and retribution though. And as Jason said awhile ago in a thread, only those who have proven they are not capable of living in a normal society should be put in prison until rehabilitated. Putting someone away for stealing a car does not seem right to me. ANyone could screw up like that. It isn't necessarily chronic behavior.
I see little to defend a system based on punishment and retribution though. And as Jason said awhile ago in a thread, only those who have proven they are not capable of living in a normal society should be put in prison until rehabilitated. Putting someone away for stealing a car does not seem right to me. ANyone could screw up like that. It isn't necessarily chronic behavior.
