Defining crime in terms of property rights (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Read an interesting article on Mises about Xeer customary law in Somalia, very basically the law does not impose punitive measures such as imprisonment however requires that compensation be paid by the perpetrator (and/or their family) to the victim (and/or their family). These fines are not paid to the state but directly to the victim.

As they have to pay the compensation the family of the perpetrator is incentivesed to prevent the perpetrator commiting (or continuing to commit). If an individual becomes a serial offender and no longer has the resources to pay compensation and their family tires of paying compensation then they can disown the individual, who then becomes an outlaw and forfeits all protection under the law.

The other interesting thing is that by definining crime in terms of property rights there are no victimless crimes. There must be a wronged party to initiate a claim.

Consider that today the following verdicts were announed:

Molester to pay girl victim $629,855
Defendant must give victim $130,000

What are people's opinions on crime being defined by property rights?

To me it seems intuitively appealing however the prospect of the very wealthy commiting crimes with impunity does worry me.

 

[badquinton304]

What are people's opinions on crime being defined by property rights?

To me it seems intuitively appealing however the prospect of the very wealthy commiting crimes with impunity does worry me.

Yes, but I would expect that it could also be implemented as a percentage of income. But then fraud may become an issue.

 

[Anonymous-]

m8, fucking oath m8. why the fuck should the state be be compensated for a crime that they are not a victim of. fucking oath i believe in what you type.

 

[Sultun]

Nauseating ideas. Please, please don't tell me that any of these grotesque machinations of yours actually need a public refutation.

 

[vikraman]

I wouldn't mind being an outlaw? Can do anything I want until someone else kills me first. What if i'm an orphan? First crime -> outlaw status. Also rich people going shootin' and killin' for sport is well undesirable...

 

[jb_nc]

Read an interesting article on Mises

 

[Fish Tank]

The rich can buy their way out of crimes. Hmmm what a clever idea...

 

[Serius]

I like the idea of criminals being made basically destitute and having their wages garnished for the rest of their life to support their victims.

I also like the idea of victims getting some money and stuff to help them get on with their lives. The way things are, its like....ok the guy is behind bars, but i am still brain damaged from him bashing me, and my arm doesnt work right because i couldnt afford the medical bills...kind of an empty victory really.

At the same time, i dont like the idea of rich criminals able to buy a bashing of someone they dont like.

Maybe something like, they are sent to prison as per norm, 90% of their assets are confiscated and transferred to victim, whilst in prison they are put in chain gangs, work duties, mining etc and 90% of the money they make is transferred to the victims. Upon release, a fair amount is decided on[50%?], and their wages are garnished by that much for the rest of their life.

Of course those numbers are completely arbitrary ,depending on the severity of the crime it can change to whatetever.

 

[xeuyrawp]

The rich can buy their way out of crimes. Hmmm what a clever idea...

As opposed to buying their way out of supermarkets, school and hospital fees, fines, car dealerships, etc, etc, which of course doesn't happen now.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Read an interesting article on Mises about Xeer customary law in Somalia, very basically the law does not impose punitive measures such as imprisonment however requires that compensation be paid by the perpetrator (and/or their family) to the victim (and/or their family). These fines are not paid to the state but directly to the victim.

As they have to pay the compensation the family of the perpetrator is incentivesed to prevent the perpetrator commiting (or continuing to commit). If an individual becomes a serial offender and no longer has the resources to pay compensation and their family tires of paying compensation then they can disown the individual, who then becomes an outlaw and forfeits all protection under the law.

The other interesting thing is that by definining crime in terms of property rights there are no victimless crimes. There must be a wronged party to initiate a claim.

Consider that today the following verdicts were announed:

Molester to pay girl victim $629,855
Defendant must give victim $130,000

What are people's opinions on crime being defined by property rights?

To me it seems intuitively appealing however the prospect of the very wealthy commiting crimes with impunity does worry me.

Crime should be defined by property rights, but that doesn't mean that imprisonment can't remain an option. If it seems likely that the criminal will re-offend, eg a serial killer, or someone with obvious anger problems, I see no problem with locking them up or banishing them from a private terrority.

For most crimes though, fines are the most logical punishment. Why pay $50 000 a year to imprison someone, when you could garnish their wages and actually pay money to the victim. Only the government would allow such stupidity, and in the USA where the government funded prisons have become a rich and powerful industry we see just how out of control this culture of imprisonment can get.

To those that say the rich could buy a right to commit crimes, remember that right now people who are not scared by imprisonment are also in that position. While most of us are probably terrified by the idea of jail, there is a significant underclass within Australia who are not particularly frightened by the idea and would have a much easier time in prison than you or I because they have contacts in prison.

So right now these people can bash or rob you, and if they are caught pay for their crime with time in prison. A year in prison hurts and average person much more than a typical criminal, just as a fine hurts a poor person more than a rich person.

Most importantly, redefining crime in this way would eliminate all victimless crimes like drug prohibition which ends up being responsible for so many other crimes. Overall it would be a huge net gain.

 

[volition]

As an AC person I obviously agree with the idea of property rights based crimes as opposed to crimes being defined by the government, it generally means the focus is more on restitution, rather than punishment for punishment's sake imo.

Also, people who are whinging about the so called ability of the ultra rich to just commit crimes and "just pay the fine", I think you're just creating pathological hypotheticals. If a person really did that, who would want to do business with him? Who would want to live near him? Don't forget that their personal defence insurance premiums would skyrocket if they started just murdering people.

Why would a person who has spent their whole life trying to serve other people in the market suddenly decide that they now want to go kill people and "just pay the fine"?

I think some people just make up the most ridiculous scenarios and ignore what is happening now. There are people being locked up and denied any rights such as a trial or being told what they are in for (see Gitmo), wars being waged overseas that the US President made a promise to withdraw from, people in poorer countries dying because of trade embargoes imposed on them, people who are barred from having a job because of wage and labour regulations, your internet is about to get censored, your health care is constantly being made more expensive by insurance regulation and govt control, your rights are constantly being eroded away by a government that frankly just does not care about you and you are getting taxed well over 50% of your income (once you count local + state + federal tax + inflation). All these things are happening now, so I thought I'd just remind you guys.

 

[badquinton304]

Also, people who are whinging about the so called ability of the ultra rich to just commit crimes and "just pay the fine", I think you're just creating pathological hypotheticals. If a person really did that, who would want to do business with him? Who would want to live near him? Don't forget that their personal defence insurance premiums would skyrocket if they started just murdering people.

Why would anyone not want to do buisness with him you recieve some sort of shelter by getting on his good side and you get what you wanted in a buisness transaction.

Why would a person who has spent their whole life trying to serve other people in the market suddenly decide that they now want to go kill people and "just pay the fine"?

Interesting.

 

[volition]

Why would anyone not want to do buisness with him you recieve some sort of shelter by getting on his good side and you get what you wanted in a buisness transaction.

But clearly if he's a murderer then you never know if he might turn on you someday. It represents a massive extra risk and people would choose not to deal with him because of this.

Interesting.

I say this because typically people point to Bill Gates for these crazy hypotheticals about ultra rich people. But to get stupidly rich like he is, you generally have to have worked really hard to create a good company.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I think some people just make up the most ridiculous scenarios and ignore what is happening now. There are people being locked up and denied any rights such as a trial or being told what they are in for (see Gitmo), wars being waged overseas that the US President made a promise to withdraw from, people in poorer countries dying because of trade embargoes imposed on them, people who are barred from having a job because of wage and labour regulations, your internet is about to get censored, your health care is constantly being made more expensive by insurance regulation and govt control, your rights are constantly being eroded away by a government that frankly just does not care about you and you are getting taxed well over 50% of your income (once you count local + state + federal tax + inflation). All these things are happening now, so I thought I'd just remind you guys.

This.

"When things go according to plan, nobody panics. Even if the plan if horrifying."

 

[vikraman]

What happens if i've got no family, no relatives, essentially nobody to benefit from my death. If i'm murdered, the guy just walks away scot free? I'm sure the answer will be well someone will buy the right to prosecute, but buy from who? Since there is no state to determine who gets to buy it? And even if someone buys it, where does the money they pay for buying the case go to? Some arbitrary company who holds the monopoly for dead-peoples cases?

 

[volition]

Vikraman, once again, pathological hypothetical imo (how many people are there that literally have zero contactable relatives?)

but I'll humour you:
(1) First off, he does not get off scot free, his reputation goes thru the gutter and people won't want to do business with him, eg. he may lose his credit rating which will impede his ability to borrow money and do business in general.

(2) There may be a customary law that arises here, just because there is no government does not mean that there are no standards that people can agree on. There were no govt rules regarding international trade when it first started between companies, but rules developed over time because it was in the interest of the businesses to do this. And the reason it hasn't developed yet, is because govts are in control right now, but perhaps there would be a standard that the market comes to once govts leave the picture.

Who knows, maybe it would go to charity, or to their best friend, or whoever is willing to organise the funeral. I'm not saying I know, these are just suggestions.