You be the Judge

[Have At You]

Heres a related question: What is the criminal justice system for?

Do we lock up criminals because we don't trust them not to commit more crimes (and therefore imprison them as a method of isolating them from the rest of us)?
Do we lock them up to teach them that they have done something wrong, and to reform the individuals? To punish them for violating a code of right behavior? To punish them for the sake of the victim/s of the crime, as a form of state legitimized revenge?

I mean, my rudimentary understanding of legal philosophy is that there are lots of reasons we put people in jail, but I'm wondering which of them you guys think ought to be taken as most important, and why.

Here's a good post on the subject: http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showpos...98&postcount=8

The criminal justice system (punishment) is separate from the civil justice system (damages, injunctions, etc.). A person who robs someone, for example, is liable in both courts: he owes the victim civil damages, and will be punished by the criminal system.

It is important that the two be kept separate. In the criminal system, the parties are the State and the Accused -- the prosecution is not the victim's lawyer, and is not the police's lawyer, but instead represents the People. In the civil system, the parties are the damager and the damagee. Additionally, the criminal system has enormous safeguards as mentioned above. The civil system only requires that one side have a little more evidence than the other side. This is why I have serious problems with the awarding of "punitive" damages in civil cases: it doesn't belong there.

[ Digression: Amazingly, on the civil side where the stakes are lowest (it's only ever about money, really) the fights are the bitterest, with the most acrimony between the parties and their lawyers. Whereas on the criminal side, where the stakes couldn't be higher, everyone seems to be more collegial. ]

[Philistine]

{snip}
Now you mentioned in an earlier post about an illegal search turning up drugs. That scenario does not concern me, since I don't keep anything of interest that an illegal search would turn up.

It's not really the threat of finding something illegal that worries most people about unrestricted police searches--it's the loss of privacy itself, or of the police finding something legal but embarrassing. Also, the fact of a police search is embarrassing and can make neighbors, relatives and employers (for example) think that you must have committed a crime.

Can someone give me an example of how reduction in our rights (in the interest of reducing crime) could lead to a situation that would concern me (as a law abiding citizen).

Well--as mentioned above, unrestricted searches can have a negative effect. If a neighbor who's mad at you (or a rival for promotion) makes an annonymous tip to the police that you are selling drugs/kiddie porn/stolen goods out of your house, and the police come in and do a search--your other neighbors are going to look at you differently. As likely will your boss.

Also, while you may be law-abiding, can you say the same thing about all of your friends? How about all of your relatives, no matter how distant? Most people would be concerned about the police putting a wiretap on their phone and listening in to every call on the off chance that black-sheep cousin George might call and give some indication of where he's been hiding.

Or they may suspect your wife/girlfriend of something and decide to plant a bug in your bedroom to catch potentially incriminating pillow-talk.

Or, if they suspect you, they may decide to bring you down to the station, and keep you there incommudicado for a week.

Another thing to be concerned about--say you're a business owner--law enforcement thinks you're running the business in a criminal way. They come in and take all of your records, which either effectively shuts you down or drastically increases your costs.

All of these things are possible law enforcement techniques--but they all require a greater or lesser degree of hoops that must be jumped through, and all require judicial oversight and approval.

As a law-abiding citizen, I would be very concerned if some or all of these became much easier to do and could be done at the whim of the police. I'm sure if that were the case, it would actually work to solve more crimes--but that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

{snip}The civil system only requires that one side have a little more evidence than the other side. This is why I have serious problems with the awarding of "punitive" damages in civil cases: it doesn't belong there.

Not really on-topic, but in 29 states (and D.C.)(IIRC), entitlement to punitive damages must be shown by "clear and convincing" evidence. Which is the highest civil burden of proof (and significantly more difficult than "preponderance of the evidence").

--Philistine