Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu From: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Cost of Justice Message-ID: <12233150471.32.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 14:22:32 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12233150471.32.MCGREW Posted: Sat Aug 23 14:22:32 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Aug-86 20:13:15 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 139 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: ~joe testa~ 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] -------