CAN LIFE BE FAIR TO ALL?

[rigney]

Many of you have likely seen this item by now. Can't say I was stunned with it. But in essence, what does it say to us? How can thirty empty years of a persons life be filled again with anything other than bitterness? If something else, with what? Better to have said: "Alas poor Urich, I knew him well". Then, have let the chair, ax, rope, or needle do their job. By the time we get through sorting out what is just or unjust, the wrongs will have consumed us.

 

"http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/cleveland/today/news/national/article.cox?articleId=D9KHA7900&moduleType=apNews

Edited January 4, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

You pose 2 questions, which do not necessarily overlap.

 

Can life be fair to all?

I start with defining "fair", so that it is clear which question I am answering.

"Fair to all" in my opinion means that a certain action will get the same result (or reward) for everyone. Logically, that would mean we have to exclude chance/coincidence/luck from life, which is impossible.

 

So, I answer:

No, life cannot be fair to all.

 

How can thirty empty years of a persons life be filled again with anything other than bitterness? If something else, with what?

I have never spent any time in prison at all, so I am definitely unqualified to answer this question... But:

I do know from experience that hardship and bitterness are by no means related.

 

I think that it would be very difficult for someone to forgive a particular person if that person would have put him in prison for 30 years, when the person knew he was innocent.

However, why would anyone be bitter if this was an honest mistake? Bitterness is a feeling which is focussed against something or someone... it assumes that someone or something is guilty of something... but this is (hopefully) not the case.

 

Bitterness also stands in the way of forgiveness. Great people in history have been able to set aside bitterness, and forgive those who did awful things to them. I don't think there is any point in going into examples here.

 

So, I would be able to understand if someone is not bitter at all.

I could easily understand a massive disappointment though. 30 years is a very long time, and a lot of missed opportunities.

[lemur]

I think that it would be very difficult for someone to forgive a particular person if that person would have put him in prison for 30 years, when the person knew he was innocent.

However, why would anyone be bitter if this was an honest mistake? Bitterness is a feeling which is focussed against something or someone... it assumes that someone or something is guilty of something... but this is (hopefully) not the case.

 

Bitterness also stands in the way of forgiveness. Great people in history have been able to set aside bitterness, and forgive those who did awful things to them. I don't think there is any point in going into examples here.

 

So, I would be able to understand if someone is not bitter at all.

I could easily understand a massive disappointment though. 30 years is a very long time, and a lot of missed opportunities.

 

I'd be bitterly cynical about the fact that a justice system supposedly designed to find innocent by default except when the smallest "shadow of doubt" is overcome with evidence could generate false convictions and that it would take so long to prove it. Who exactly should this person forgive, btw?

[CaptainPanic]

I'd be bitterly cynical about the fact that a justice system supposedly designed to find innocent by default except when the smallest "shadow of doubt" is overcome with evidence could generate false convictions and that it would take so long to prove it. Who exactly should this person forgive, btw?

It might be possible that one is just incredibly unlucky and all evidence seems to point to one but one is innocent.

 

Is it then the fault of a lawyer for not defending you properly?

Is it then the fault of the judge for not finding you innocent despite all evidence against you (which appears to be false only after new techniques are invented in the decades after, like DNA testing)?

Would you have to be bitter about a system which simply couldn't do better in those days?

 

If bitterness in your book equals disappointment, then I agree. But as I said before, I think bitterness is different than disappointment.

 

Someone might be able to forgive a judge for sentencing him to prison despite the fact that the person was innocent.

 

We may have to discuss the definition of "bitterness" before continuing.

[lemur]

It might be possible that one is just incredibly unlucky and all evidence seems to point to one but one is innocent.

 

Is it then the fault of a lawyer for not defending you properly?

Is it then the fault of the judge for not finding you innocent despite all evidence against you (which appears to be false only after new techniques are invented in the decades after, like DNA testing)?

Would you have to be bitter about a system which simply couldn't do better in those days?

 

If bitterness in your book equals disappointment, then I agree. But as I said before, I think bitterness is different than disappointment.

 

Someone might be able to forgive a judge for sentencing him to prison despite the fact that the person was innocent.

 

We may have to discuss the definition of "bitterness" before continuing.

Would you volunteer to trade places with someone sentenced to 30 years due to false accusation? If not, and you were required to anyway, despite it being "not your fault," you might feel upset that you spent your life serving out this sentence and that no one managed to exonerate and set you free despite your innocence. That feeling could be defined as "bitterness."

[rigney]

It might be possible that one is just incredibly unlucky and all evidence seems to point to one but one is innocent.

 

Is it then the fault of a lawyer for not defending you properly?

Is it then the fault of the judge for not finding you innocent despite all evidence against you (which appears to be false only after new techniques are invented in the decades after, like DNA testing)?

Would you have to be bitter about a system which simply couldn't do better in those days?

 

If bitterness in your book equals disappointment, then I agree. But as I said before, I think bitterness is different than disappointment.

 

Someone might be able to forgive a judge for sentencing him to prison despite the fact that the person was innocent.

 

We may have to discuss the definition of "bitterness" before continuing.

 

I can almost assume you have read: Les Misérables? Interesting and compassionate; but only a book. Disappointment is when you are only one number from winning the "big" lottery, or your girl friend runs off with your best friend. Bitterness is finding out the game was rigged, and your best Bud and girl friend had been planning the tryst for months.

[Marat]

The law often says, especially in tort cases, that it is designed "to correct the injustice/injury as far as monetary payment may do." The law can never give you back your leg if a negligent driver has destroyed it, but it simply tries to do the best it can by forcing that driver or his insurance company to pay you enough money so that the gain of wealth equals the negative impact -- 'as far as money may do' -- of the injury. So this is the most that the fairness of the law attempts to achieve.

[lemur]

The law often says, especially in tort cases, that it is designed "to correct the injustice/injury as far as monetary payment may do." The law can never give you back your leg if a negligent driver has destroyed it, but it simply tries to do the best it can by forcing that driver or his insurance company to pay you enough money so that the gain of wealth equals the negative impact -- 'as far as money may do' -- of the injury. So this is the most that the fairness of the law attempts to achieve.

I have heard of people becoming multimillionaires due to lawsuits. I think people should be treated well who have to spend the rest of their lives suffering because of someone else's mistake, but I'm afraid rewarding such injuries too lucratively leads to a general culture of longing for victimization because of the prospective fortune associated with it. If anything, a rich person should be sufficiently penalized for their negligence, by issuing a large fine or preferably a reasonable prison term or redemptive labor sentence. Then the person wronged should receive disability-compensation according to functionality-lost. The problem is that there are so many examples of extreme prosperity that it seems natural for someone to go from rags to riches because of pain and suffering.

Edited January 5, 2011 by lemur

[rigney]

I have heard of people becoming multimillionaires due to lawsuits. I think people should be treated well who have to spend the rest of their lives suffering because of someone else's mistake, but I'm afraid rewarding such injuries too lucratively leads to a general culture of longing for victimization because of the prospective fortune associated with it. If anything, a rich person should be sufficiently penalized for their negligence, by issuing a large fine or preferably a reasonable prison term or redemptive labor sentence. Then the person wronged should receive disability-compensation according to functionality-lost. The problem is that there are so many examples of extreme prosperity that it seems natural for someone to go from rags to riches because of pain and suffering.

 

I wholeheatedly agree that there should be recompense to a person convicted of a crime they didn't commit. But how do we draw the line in fairness? Say for instance this fellow, (hypothetically) had been a felon with a rap sheet as long as your arm and with total disregard for the law. On the other hand let's say he had been a distinguished doctor, lawyer or a prominent dignatary etc. Other than the moral issue, should either role play into the issue of his compensation? Edited January 5, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

I wholeheatedly agree that there should be recompense to a person convicted of a crime they didn't commit. But how do we draw the line in fairness? Say for instance this fellow, (hypothetically) had been a felon with a rap sheet as long as your arm and with total disregard for the law. On the other hand let's say he had been a distinguished doctor, lawyer or a prominent dignatary etc. Other than the moral issue, should either role play into the issue of his compensation?

Ad hominem justice, interesting. What you're basically asking is whether valued (or just financially successful) people should be given better protection from false conviction. Theoretically, any sentence is supposed to constitute full repayment of one's "debt to society," so really former prisoners should be regarded the same as other non-criminals. The bigger question, imo, is whether it is fair for successful people who haven't ever been formally convicted of crimes they've committed to be treated as if they are completely innocent of any wrong-doing in life. When Jesus said, "let the person without sin cast the first stone," everyone dropped their stones.

[rigney]

Ad hominem justice, interesting. What you're basically asking is whether valued (or just financially successful) people should be given better protection from false conviction. Theoretically, any sentence is supposed to constitute full repayment of one's "debt to society," so really former prisoners should be regarded the same as other non-criminals. The bigger question, imo, is whether it is fair for successful people who haven't ever been formally convicted of crimes they've committed to be treated as if they are completely innocent of any wrong-doing in life. When Jesus said, "let the person without sin cast the first stone," everyone dropped their stones.

 

I thought my two part question was forthright. Ad hominem is as directed. Let me put it another way. You and I are both victims of a Ponzi Scheme taking away our entire fortunes. My $50,000 was inherited. Your $50,000,000 was through due diligence and smart investments. However, should there be a distinction in compensation if neither of us can prove our gullible investments?

[lemur]

I thought my two part question was forthright. Ad hominem is as directed. Let me put it another way. You and I are both victims of a Ponzi Scheme taking away our entire fortunes. My $50,000 was inherited. Your $50,000,000 was through due diligence and smart investments. However, should there be a distinction in compensation if neither of us can prove our gullible investments?

Imo, financial investment is an interesting situation. People want guaranteed secure investments but don't they often secretly hope that those who manage their investments to take risks to their advantage? Of course, they also want someone else to be responsible when their money gets lost. In other words, they just complain when the risks don't pan out, although they're happy to take the money when the payoff for the same risks turn out big.

 

Then, look at the whole mortgage meltdown. When the securities started failing, it was like the investors and banks were playing musical chairs to avoid getting stuck with the "toxic" assets. How is it fair for the last person to sell to have to pay the bill for all the speculation that drove up the market values so high above equilibrium values? Basically, commodity trading in any form allows people to profit off of market trends that have little if anything to do with the real value of the assets. And that's THE WHOLE GAME with speculation-trading.

 

Ultimately, what would have been fairest would have been to simply distribute the toxic properties directly to investors and let them deal with them. It's simply not fair for people to expect others to manage their investments for them so they don't have to. Direct investment allows individual investors to be responsible for their own business.

[Marat]

The concepts of fairness now represented in the common law are already 'ad hominem' in your sense. For example, if I negligently destroy the usefulness of your leg in an accident, the amount of money I have to pay you in compensation is based not just on the value of a lost leg, but on the value of a lost leg for you. Thus I will have to pay more if you were a professional football player than if you were a bank clerk.

 

Consistent with the wave of communitarianism now sweeping over all the traditional intellectual distinctions of law, there are now 'radical' proposals to adjust tort awards according to the 'real social need' of the people injured, so that victims of historical discrimination would get more for the same injury than those privileged by their race and gender. This would ultimately transform tort law into a kind of irrational, patchwork welfare system, where welfare benefits to equalize net social, racial, gender, and economic power would be built into tort compensations for injuries, but only as and when tortious injuries occurred -- which for some people might be never.

 

The whole idea is bizarre, but the triumph of communitarianism knows no bounds.

[imatfaal]

And in the entirely opposite direction; IIRC, a small jurisdiction attempted to remove the entire tortious jurisdiction and replace it with a ramped-up public prosecution of formally private acts of tort and delict combined with guaranteed social provision for the victim. I vaguely seem to remember that it did fairly well till dismembered by opposite political party.

[Marat]

To some degree tort is limited nearly everywhere by social insurance systems. For example, while in the U.S. where there is no public health insurance system you would have to pay a huge amount for the medical bills of someone you negligently injured, in other countries where there is a public health insurance system you would have to pay much less for inflicting the same injury, given that most of the expenses would be covered by the government.

 

Historically, crimes used to be handled as torts, with the victims or the families of the victims of crimes being allowed to collect monetary damages from the criminals as a way to settle the issue, with no further criminal prosecution by the state. Gradually the state came to take over tort actions for deliberate infliction of harm on other people, and out of this new system of answering injuries by state-inflicted punishments rather than monetary payments to injured parties or their families arose the modern system of criminal law.