More Restitution-Oriented Justice System

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z3...e&q=victim crime against society king&f=false

According to this article here, at some point during the 10th Century (in England at least), the law began to reflect the idea that a crime was committed primarily against the State and/or "society," not against the victim, and instead of restitution to the victim, fines were paid to the state.

Another source I read complained that victims were pushed aside when crimes began to be considered primarily against the King, not the victim. In a more democratic context, I imagine "society" replaces "king."

Thing is, committing a crime against "society" is a very vague thing. I am not affected one whit by a bar brawl in a town in California--in all likelihood, nobody outside of the state of California is. Some guy getting drunk and punching some other guy in the face has not committed a crime against me.

Furthermore, this mindset leads to things like saying Josef Fritzl (the evil perverted Austrian) should be put in a less-unpleasant prison where his intelligence can be used to benefit the society he wronged.

Given how Fritzl's behavior embarassed the Austrian state and people, I could imagine one could claim his behavior was a crime against society as a whole--however, the primary victims were his daughter (who he imprisoned and raped) and the resulting children, three of whom were imprisoned in the basement too and three others raised upstairs and systematically deceived.

(Basically, the victim and his/her rights get ignored.)

However, a restitution-oriented justice system does have its flaws--there was a Roman who went around punching people in the face, who had a slave follow him and hand out gold coins to the aggrieved parties as compensation. A wealthier troublemaker who can pay compensation is more likely to continue getting away with things than a poorer man.

Plus externalities like the cost to the state of administering justice and the possibility that increased disorder (see the above) can harm the economy are not taken into account.

Regardless of the merits and demerits of the situation, how can the change (in English common law at least) not take place?

The only idea I've got involves religion--when King David is confronted by the prophet Nathan about the Bathsheba episode, he confesses to God "against you and you alone I have sinned," which strikes me as rather fallacious--he cuckolded and then murdered (by proxy) Uriah the Hittite, and given the power dynamics involved, Bathsheba may well have been a rape victim, not an adulteress. Yes, he violated two of the ten commandments, but his actions had human victims as well.

A stronger "Indo-European" component to the culture and a weaker Judeo-Christian component could do the trick, although England had been Christian for centuries before this change took place.
 
Eh, I dunno. Compensation is the whole point of tort and contract law.

Yes, but if someone smacked you upside the head for no good reason, couldn't that be considered a tort?

You'd have pain/suffering, medical bills (if he hit you hard enough), psychological issues (if, as a result, you're now more afraid when you go out), time you could use to do something else being used for the above purposes and could thus be construed as lost income, etc.
 
Top