Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46886)	5/8/2002 8:02:39 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

We may have to agree to disagree. It is hard to imagine any criminal case where there is not harm to others: monetary loss, pain and suffering, damage to property, etc. Often in a criminal trial, restitution of whatever nature is taken into consideration in the punishment. But we seem to be evolving into a new era, where virtually every criminal case is to be followed by a civil trial. As you put it, (Trial 1) what we do TO the perpetrator and (Trial 2) what we make the perpetrator do FOR the victim. In my long memory, this is a quite new concept. With murders, rapes, robberies, etc., there was always just one criminal trial, and sometimes restitution would be made part of that trial. If it becomes commonplace to try every criminal defendant TWICE, using the same set of facts, I believe this to be a serious Constitutional issue. Surely, the defendant is being placed in jeopardy TWICE for the same crime and the same set of facts. Every criminal case has the potential to be tried TWICE. If this is a good sense concept ... how come it has taken us 200+ years to hit upon it?