You can't make punishment a % of net worth. Define net worth. Is it paper stock holdings, real estate, retirement funds, offshore bank accounts, cash, gold? You get the government investigating your "net worth" when you get a speeding ticket?

It's just another game that rich people will play better than poor people.

Fines are not ever going to be a fair form of punishment.

jail is not retribution or restitution or rehab.
It is removing an undesirable element from the public since we aren't willing to kill the offender.

I suspect this is gonna be unpopular:

She's not a witness, she's the victim. If an adult crime victim of sound mind is willing to accept a certain amount of money as full restitution for the wrongs she suffered, and the perpetrator is willing and able to pay that amount, then the State has no business prosecuting, because at that point, she is no longer the victim of a crime; she has been "made whole".

-Uwe-

PS: I wonder if she's in "protective custody" voluntarily, and if not, is the State going to compensate her?

Wrong, Uwe.

The DA's job is to protect the public by putting away miscreants. A violent crime was apparently committed, and it is in the public interest that the perp gets his just desserts.

The victim's choice in this matter is to sue or not to sue via civil trial. If the perp wants to pay off the victim in order to avoid the civil suit, fine by me.

Peter, I don't accept the notion of a "Victimless Crime". If there's no victim, there's no crime, and if there was a victim, but the victim has been made whole, then there is no longer a victim, and there is no longer a crime.

-Uwe-

So Uwe, if someone can simply buy their way out of a crime, whats to stop them from committing the same crime again and again? Sort of like knowing candy bars aren't too good for you, but they feel good, so I'll just buy more....
Maybe the next chick he decides to 'buy' might be your daughter or wife. Would you say "great job honey, keep bringing home the bacon"??

cost of doing business ...

Uwe -

It sounds as if you believe that restitution is sufficient to absolve someone for having committed a crime.

If, for the sake of argument, someone commits cold-blooded murder, should he not be prosecuted if he can come up with enough money to satisfy the victim's family?

Or, if someone robs a convenience store, and returns the money when caught, should he then not be prosecuted?

Or, should all the banksters get a pass on all the stuff Karl has been writing about here if they pay full restitution to everyone?

If you answer yes to these questions, then we can just agree to disagree. If you answer no, then please explain the apparent inconsistency in your position.

I dunno, it seems to me that Uwe and others here that argue to be able to buy ones way out of crime are fully in sync with our govt and military. Doesn't the military routinely pay for wrongful deaths around the world? Doesn't our gov't routinely levy fines against large corporations without requiring anyone to go to jail?
Perhaps its us, who still beleive that fairness and integrity are built into our system, that are deluded.
But if those who take the gov/mil stance prevail, there's nothing worth saving in this ****ed up country. Its everyone for themselves, shoot, steal,******and plunder. Hell, its the american way............

Quote:

If, for the sake of argument, someone commits cold-blooded murder, should he not be prosecuted if he can come up with enough money to satisfy the victim's family?

Nope. The victim's family isn't the victim. Murder is a crime which cannot be compensated because the victim is not around to determine what compensation is sufficient.

Quote:

Or, if someone robs a convenience store, and returns the money when caught, should he then not be prosecuted?

Nope, simply returning the money probably won't be enough. Sufficient compensation can only be determined by the victim, who should be allowed to determine it in a purely arbitrary manner. In my view, the victim is perfectly entitled to say "I will not accept any amount of money as compensation, I want the perpetrator prosecuted and incarcerated instead," or "I want double (or some other multiple of) what was stolen from me."

Quote:

Or, should all the banksters get a pass on all the stuff Karl has been writing about here if they pay full restitution to everyone?

Yes, if they pay full restitution to each individual victim, as determined by that victim. However, I rather doubt their ability to do that.

-Uwe-

Quote:

So Uwe, if someone can simply buy their way out of a crime, whats to stop them from committing the same crime again and again?

Fear of going broke. Fear of encountering a victim who will not accept any amount of money as restitution.

-Uwe-

OK, from what I gather, your position is that someone with sufficient wealth can buy a pass for most crimes, while someone without means has to "pay" via incarceration/whatever. That certainly is contrary to what I believe is the principle of equality under the law. While I disagree wholeheartedly with that POV, at least you're up front about it.

If/when the country gets serious about prosecuting the banksters, I hope you're not on the jury, because I'm afraid you'd let most of the big fish buy their way out while sending only the little fish to jail.

Jail is not rehab. Jail is punishment to those in jail, and meant to be a deterrent to those not in jail.

Also keep in mind that it is the State that makes******illegal, and it is the State that will prosecute an alleged rapist. The State does not prosecute on behalf of the victim; it prosecutes on behalf of the people of the State. The victim is needed as a witness or for other evidence. The criminal prosecution is not intended to provide revenge or restitution for the victim. Restitution can be sought in a civil suit. Revenge is not allowed. The criminal prosecution is intended to remove the criminal from society (the people of the State).

Restitution might seem like a good idea, but (like bank fraud) it would just become a cost of doing "business." I also don't think it's a good idea to encourage people to BECOME victims in the hopes of receiving restitution.

I lean in the direction that:

1. Citizens are not allowed to defend and protect themselves as they should (even the don't-you-know-who-I-am head of the IMF wouldn't attempt to******an armed woman);

2. The jail system is totally screwed up. Recidivism rates prove it. Either the punishment is not severe enough (i.e., cable TV, three meals a day, and lifting weights all day), or it is too severe (i.e., no personal safety for prisoners and little-to-no rehab). I think it's a combination of both.

Anyway, I'm much more interested in pursuing policies that allow citizens to defend themselves in order to prevent a crime from occurring in the first place.

They should give this bastard passage back to France in a cargo plane and dump him out of the cargo bay around Greenland

Since we, as a society, appear to be time-warping back to before the Magna Carta and re-entering the feudal age please read your history. The King`s men were free to enter your domain for whatever reason, usually taxation based but could be other things and you had no rights per se if accused of anything. IIRC the king was infalliable at this point in history.

There was NO government punishment for these types of crimes. The only crimes where the government would take punitive action were generally those of treason or tax fraud. The usual resolution of crimes of violence was the payment of Blood money to the victim. If said money wasn`t paid the family of the victim was free to hunt down and kill the family of the perp. FUN TIMES!

Oh, and sometimes for some crimes the crown would declare you an outlaw. That meant anyone could hunt and kill you, no strings attached.

So, after this short history lesson and watching the recent world are any of you surprised that DSK may pay and walk?

I don't believe any of you here are THAT naive.

Virtually all truly rich people have only a very small percentage of their net worth exposed to loss in any one country and most if not all of their assets are untraceable.

IMHO Prison time should be about punishment in the main, with "rehabilitation" coming in the form of deterrence through knowing that incarceration will suck severely, not just be a loss of freedom (e.g. breaking rocks for 12 hours a day while eating bread and drinking only water.)

Should a victim of a crime be able to accept a payoff and say "ok, no harm no foul." Eh, maybe. I understand the premise in the general sense and in the general sense I agree with it. The difference between******and sex is consent, and whether you agree with it or not money often turns "no" into "yes" in the case of sex, whether spent directly (e.g. with a hooker) or indirectly (in everyday "dating" which sometimes, but not always by any means, looks a lot like a hooker's transaction if you analyze it dispassionately.)

The problem I have with the general sense is the change of consent after the fact in the positive sense; does this not make "renegotiation" possible after the fact in the negative sense too?

That's a road I don't want to see traveled and yet historically it's one that people do try to travel.

In the civil system "here's some money, go away" is legitimate. But the criminal system brings cases in the name of the state; once that happens even if the complaining witness refuses to testify the case can, if the evidence is strong enough, proceed anyway.

I agree in the general sense with Uwe's premise but the problems it raises may be a bridge too far.

Quote:

The damage is already done to the victim, what way of punishment will be the best to help the victim in the real world. Putting him away or shooting him doesn't solve the victim's day-to-day living or psychological scar.

He does not need to go to prison to make the victim's life improve, or to rid her of a pshchological scar. He needs to go to prison because he broke one of the major tenets of a civilized society, namely YOU DON'T******PEOPLE!!!

He needs to go to prison because he has given up his right to be part of a free society, and his punishment for******is to rot in a prison cell for several years.

We demand, and expect, prosecution for the graft, corruption, and malfeasance that our elected leaders participate in.

We hear KD demand, and support the demand, for handcuffs, perp walks, and long stays with Bubba in the Grey Bar Hotel for the Banksters.

On many other threads, we hear KD say, and we all agree, that if the penalty for robbing a 7-11 is being fined a percentage of the take, we would do it every day and twice on Sunday.

Fines do not deter the rich elites. If a civil suit follows, and the two parties settle, so be it, whatever she gets and is satisfied with is up to her.

But, he should not be able to purchase a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

***************************************************

Murder?

Quote:

Critics of the position I'm defending often ask the following question: "What if someone you loved were murdered? Would you be content with seeing that the murderer paid you back and was lockd up, or would you want to see the murderer dead?" In my case, at least, the answer is: yes, I'd want to kill the murderer. And I might be justified in doing so if the government released the murderer while he still posed a danger to others - for then my action might count as defensive rather than retaliatory (whatever my motivations might be). But suppose I know the government isn't going to release the murderer. Even then, the desire to take revenge by slaying the slayer is a perfectly natural and forgivable reaction. But should the vengeful emotions of victims and their loved ones replace rational analysis as the foundation of jurisprudence? Important questions of rights and justice should not be decided in the heat of anger.

I should point out, incidentally, that under a restitution-based system, victims who did take revenge would not be treated harshly. After all, retaliatory coercion is not permissible against them either. If you kill me because I killed your loved one, then you would be required to pay compensation to my next of kin (though as Randy Barnett, another critic of retaliatory coercion, has pointed Out, you could discharge this obligation by handing back to my next of kin, as compensation for my death, the very same money I originally gave you as compensation for your loved one's death); but you would probably not be locked up, because you do not appear to pose a threat to others. Hence the danger of revenge by the next of kin would pose a serious deterrent to murder. As Louis XV of France said to one of his courtiers who had committed a murder: "I grant you pardon - but I also pardon whoever will kill you." (1n the case of murder victims without a next of kin, the right to compensation might be granted to whoever "homesteaded" it by pursuing the matter in court.)

Might such a system encourage a cycle of revenge, with each side in a dispute claiming a life in return for the life taken previously by the other side, as the two sides pass the same compensation money back and forth? Such does not seem to be the lesson of history. In the stateless societies of pre-Christian Northern Europe, the bloodfeud was originally a pervasive feature of social life; but this began to change with the institution of a restitutive system. Wergeld (mangold; that is, monetary compensation for a human life taken) gave feuding parties a powerful financial incentive to accept compensation and end the cycle of revenge,.rather than taking another life. If such economic motives could tame the bloodfeud in a society that glorified revenge as a matter of honor, a restitutive system should be even more successful in a society like ours, which at least pays lip service to the condemnation of revenge.

More here: http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l2.html

Quote:

Also keep in mind that it is the State that makes******illegal, and it is the State that will prosecute an alleged rapist. The State does not prosecute on behalf of the victim; it prosecutes on behalf of the people of the State. The victim is needed as a witness or for other evidence. The criminal prosecution is not intended to provide revenge or restitution for the victim. Restitution can be sought in a civil suit. Revenge is not allowed. The criminal prosecution is intended to remove the criminal from society (the people of the State).

man, that is simply terrifying, isn't it? Not sure if you meant that as farce or not, really scary if you were serious. Human beings do not need "The State" to know that******is an abhorrent crime against another human being. The perpetrator of such a crime is the lowest piece of **** imaginable.

Has there ever been a legal system in which the very rich couldn't buy their way out of justice? Unless someone can come up with a realistic way of implementing one you might as well legitimize the concept and make it available to everybody instead of just the aristocracy.

The rich and powerful can get out of jail no matter what.

The difference is, do you want them to spend the $$ on lawyers or on the victim? The lawyer fee of getting out of******or cases not involving any death may cost millions, I would rather see that millions dropped on the victim, that's it.

I don't believe for a sec that there will ever be a system in which everybody is absolutely equal, that is as fairy tale as communism.

Quote:

Quote:

Also keep in mind that it is the State that makes******illegal, and it is the State that will prosecute an alleged rapist. The State does not prosecute on behalf of the victim; it prosecutes on behalf of the people of the State. The victim is needed as a witness or for other evidence. The criminal prosecution is not intended to provide revenge or restitution for the victim. Restitution can be sought in a civil suit. Revenge is not allowed. The criminal prosecution is intended to remove the criminal from society (the people of the State).



man, that is simply terrifying, isn't it? Not sure if you meant that as farce or not, really scary if you were serious. Human beings do not need "The State" to know that******is an abhorrent crime against another human being. The perpetrator of such a crime is the lowest piece of **** imaginable.

It's not a farce. I might have written that in a somewhat clinical way, but it's accurate. By "the State," I mean one of the 50 states. Criminal law is a state matter, save for a few federal issues (i.e., killing a cop). Human beings might know that******is an abhorrent crime against another human being, but that doesn't stop some of them from committing it. That's where the State steps in to remove them from society. Again, by "the State," I mean the judicial system including due process of law.

House of Representatives
Lawmakers Concerned About Ex-IMF Director's 'Golden Parachute'
By Judson Berger
Published May 24, 2011

Quote:

The former head of the International Monetary Fund accused of sexually assaulting a New York hotel maid will receive a $250,000 severance payment -- paid in part courtesy of the American taxpayer -- unless U.S. lawmakers can stop the "golden parachute" from landing in the French politician's bank account.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/....

What I am saying below does not apply to any cases involving death or long-term disability because in these cases, the damage is permanent and cannot be recouped with any amount of money.

Let's say this French trash paid $5M to buy his raping privilege. How many women in NYC will consider him a public menace if they get $5M for each raping incident? I suspect very very few. At $50K, I think he is a public menace.

If $5M buys him raping privilege, then it's not rape, it's consensual. Actually, it would be prostitution, but that's another issue. If you're talking about $5M after the fact, then you are simply trying to find a price point where******is justifiable. Number one,******is never justifiable. Number two, if you allowed a post***** payoff, then you would have "victims" coming out of the woodwork. Unintended consequences.

As for his severance pay, he is innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure he has a contract that sets out the terms of his severance pay. If being arrested doesn't trigger non-payment, then so be it.

Congress should stay the hell out of it.