SamuelRSmith said:
Justice is getting everything back that was taken from you. If somebody steals your coat, justice would be to return the coat, or a payment of equal value, plus additional payments to cover the loss of use over the period of theft. In essense, to make the person "whole" again, and fully return everything that was taken from them. Why is it when the Government fines someone, the money of the fine never goes to the victims of the crime? How is that justice, and not arbituary punishment? |
I must admit I don't know much about the justice system in the US. Where I live, if there are victims, they can get money from the criminal. But anyway, your example is too simple for this matter, even though it makes sense. What about more serious crimes with harsher punishments? Surely people are so impulsive/emotional they would choose much harder punishments than what is reasonable, and if your "within reason" is still in the play, wouldn't it simply be appropriate to keep the current system but also allow the victim to make the punishment less harsh? I'm fairly sure the system has appropriate punishments already for most cases and for those that don't, well, it's something that can be fixed otherwise. Point is, no need to make the punishments harder at least, but that's exactly what would happen if you gave victims the choice.
