Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:05:46 PM
I'll just go right out and defraud people out of $100,000 this week. According to YOU I can pay back a `portion` of it and face no jail time
I wasn`t suggesting we be that generous, on one hand if it were possible then it indeed should be required the culprit pay more to recoup money spent on lawyer fees and court costs. On the other hand there are sunk costs that victims are faced with.
Furthermore, suppose you did defraud people of $100,000, do you seriously believe anyone is going to be as apt to give you money again? I doubt it very much.
So, in yet another way, here are the two situations:
1. We legislate that a criminal must repay the victim some amount more than what they damaged or stole (kx or x+k). Conceivably, k could become unreasonable. X can never be unreasonable (because it's the amount they stole in the first place). Therefore, we should seek to eliminate k.
2. We legislate that a criminal must make restitution.
As 'resaonable man` is purely subjective, that`s exactly what you`re suggesting. I`m not sure how it happened, but I don`t think we are on the same page here.
Let me re-clarify my statement about the "reasonable man" since it has apparently caused some confusion.
We should seek out legislative processes that do not offer the opportunity to become unreasonable through political manipulation. If a process allows for a situation in which a "reasonable man" would be appalled, then that process should be avoided.
So, I`m not trying to say that we should use a "reasonable man" standard. I`m saying that we should avoid a system that requires such a standard. To do so, we must remove arbitrarily set variables that can be manipulated.