Jtuxyan on October 23, 2010, 02:02:50 pm
The latest several EFT comics have seriously put me off the comic. I understand the point that the author is trying to make in illustrating his point this way, but in doing so, he paints the legal system as having several other grievous flaws. I'm unsure if he's unaware these are flaws, or just considers them a part of EFT's superior legal system, but it makes it very hard for me to appreciate this scene. First I will clarify (since I've posted in various debates on this forum before), that this is a completely distinct point from the merits of an anarcho-libertarian legal system in general, focusing just on things we've witnessed in this scene. There are three main points I see here, any one of which renders the legal system essentially corrupt at the basic level.

#1, Merry Expected to Sacrifice Personal Time/Money for her Clients: There's a reason why the legal system goes to such lengths to detach lawyers from clients. In terms of communication, in terms of information, in terms of the outcome of the trial. The reason privileged information is so privileged -- to the point that if the client confesses to other serious crimes to his lawyer the lawyer doesn't have to say a thing -- is so the lawyer has nothing to gain or lose based on his clients probable guilt or innocence. If a laywer possibly stands to lose personally -- or just to suffer in reputation -- by defending a guilty client, then good lawyers will not be willing to defend clients who are thought to be guilty. This creates a vicious cycle -- once people have decided you're guilty, it's much less likely you'll get a lawyer who can convince them otherwise.

#2, Highly Limited Punishment Options: Here we see a judge -- a man who presumably knows a great deal about law and order even if there's no statist legal system -- going "Well, it's slavery or...frankly, I'm out of ideas." The entire issue of the morality of indentured servitude aside, if the legal systems only options are "A fine," "Slavery," or "Kill them," then that necessitate that those unable to pay fines but whom have not committed crimes worthy of death -- IE, poor petty criminals -- will be far more likely to end up enslaved. In effect, you are creating a society where petty criminals have every reason to do all they can to escape being captured, and if they are, you have created an underclass inherent to the system.

#3, Prosecutor, Jailer, Witness, and Evidence Expert are All the Same Person: In this case, we happen to know that it's an honest person -- but that *cannot* be taken as a given in the legal system. Having the man who is prosecuting a client also be that clients warden is completely unacceptable from any kind of legal perspective. Arguments about "But in EFT, warden's don't abuse their clients!" is false. Anyone who has the power to stop you from leaving has the power to make your life unpleasent, and while abuse may be very rare in EFT, having the bond-holder, the jailer, the prosecutor, and the victem all be the same person is a massive, massive conflict of interest.

Brugle on October 23, 2010, 02:58:33 pm
The latest several EFT comics have seriously put me off the comic.
Have you actually read them?

Quote
#1, Merry Expected to Sacrifice Personal Time/Money for her Clients:
I saw nothing to suggest that she was expected to do so.  She agreed voluntarily.  (This disappointed me, as it seems like she's a dingbat.)

Quote
#2, Highly Limited Punishment Options: Here we see a judge -- a man who presumably knows a great deal about law and order even if there's no statist legal system -- going "Well, it's slavery or...frankly, I'm out of ideas."
I wouldn't think of him as a judge.  To most people, the term "judge" means a servant of the state with significant political power.

And why did he say that?  My impression (easily wrong) was that it was a bit of poetic license, trying to get an idea out of the defense, and getting an idea from the audience was a surprise.  Perhaps he was telling the literal truth.

Quote
if the legal systems only options are "A fine," "Slavery," or "Kill them,"
I see nothing to suggest that there is a legal system which prescribes options in various cases.

Besides, what you (and Merry) call (temporary) slavery is probably a lot more humane than typical punishment (incarceration+) given to people found guilty by state judges.

Quote
#3, Prosecutor, Jailer, Witness, and Evidence Expert are All the Same Person:
Wrong.  The jailer is "Bob's Bail Bond, Bed & Breakfast" (p 446).  There is no evidence expert--the defendants admitted the charges (p 551)--we don't know what would have happened if the charges had been disputed.  And what's wrong with a victim (or his agent) pressing charges?   Nothing, just as there's nothing wrong with the accused (or his agent) defending.

Quote
Arguments about "But in EFT, warden's don't abuse their clients!" is false. Anyone who has the power to stop you from leaving has the power to make your life unpleasent,
Exactly.  In EFT, people are responsible for their actions, which makes abuse very rare (but not nonexistent).  In a statist system with lots of people involved, wardens (and prosecutors and judges and others) are not responsible for their actions, and abuse is rampant.

sams on October 23, 2010, 03:05:45 pm
If a laywer possibly stands to lose personally -- or just to suffer in reputation -- by defending a guilty client, then good lawyers will not be willing to defend clients who are thought to be guilty. This creates a vicious cycle -- once people have decided you're guilty, it's much less likely you'll get a lawyer who can convince them otherwise.

I don't see the problem with that, lawyers generally already cherry pick their cases, in fact Great lawyers only defend affluent people or intriguing cases despite the public subsidy.

But overall I don't see the problem with the lawyer being connected to the case outcome, We all are held responsible for our actions, so why shouldn't lawyers be held also ? On people having hard time to get a lawyer in case of ''high presumption of guilt'', I don't see the problem with that, especially since the court decision depends on material evidence and not someone rhetoric skills.

#2, Highly Limited Punishment Options: The entire issue of the morality of indentured servitude aside, if the legal systems only options are "A fine," "Slavery," or "Kill them," then that necessitate that those unable to pay fines but whom have not committed crimes worthy of death -- IE, poor petty criminals -- will be far more likely to end up enslaved. In effect, you are creating a society where petty criminals have every reason to do all they can to escape being captured, and if they are, you have created an underclass inherent to the system.

It is true that since we can't give value to human life, it is likely that whoever kills will have a liability that can't be expressed in gold and thus can be held indentured for life. This might led to criminals being extremely violent to evade arrest.

I don't think it will create an underclass, but you might end up with a Business specialized in locking up indentured persons and make them work to pay-off their debts.

#3, Prosecutor, Jailer, Witness, and Evidence Expert are All the Same Person: In this case, we happen to know that it's an honest person -- but that *cannot* be taken as a given in the legal system. Having the man who is prosecuting a client also be that clients warden is completely unacceptable from any kind of legal perspective. Arguments about "But in EFT, warden's don't abuse their clients!" is false. Anyone who has the power to stop you from leaving has the power to make your life unpleasent, and while abuse may be very rare in EFT, having the bond-holder, the jailer, the prosecutor, and the victem all be the same person is a massive, massive conflict of interest.

I admit that it seems that the complexity of the arbitration have been diminished to fit on cartoons ... probably, but Sandy and Co know what they are doing

SandySandfort on October 23, 2010, 04:53:42 pm
The latest several EFT comics have seriously put me off the comic.

Horse races.*

I see very good responses to Jtuxyan's concerns, so I will try to keep this short.

... There are three main points I see here, any one of which renders the legal system essentially corrupt at the basic level.

#1, Merry Expected to Sacrifice Personal Time/Money for her Clients: There's a reason why the legal system goes to such lengths to detach lawyers from clients...

Merry is not a lawyer. The bad boys agreed that she would do most of the talking for them. She volunteered for everything in which she stood to lose something.

#2, Highly Limited Punishment Options: Here we see a judge -- a man who presumably knows a great deal about law and order even if there's no statist legal system -- going "Well, it's slavery or...frankly, I'm out of ideas." The entire issue of the morality of indentured servitude aside, if the legal systems only options are "A fine," "Slavery," or "Kill them," then that necessitate that those unable to pay fines but whom have not committed crimes worthy of death -- IE, poor petty criminals -- will be far more likely to end up enslaved. In effect, you are creating a society where petty criminals have every reason to do all they can to escape being captured, and if they are, you have created an underclass inherent to the system.

Pablo is not a judge. He is someone was asked to arbitrate a dispute by all the parties involved. There are an infinite number of punishment restitution options at his disposal. Slavery is not one of them. Nor is killing. I guess we didn't make Pablo's personality clear enough to you. He jokes, exaggerates and says things for effect. He follows in the grand tradition of dispute resolvers, such as Solomon, who say things to evoke a response from the parties. Or did you believe that Solomon would have cut the baby in half?

#3, Prosecutor, Jailer, Witness, and Evidence Expert are All the Same Person: In this case, we happen to know that it's an honest person -- but that *cannot* be taken as a given in the legal system. Having the man who is prosecuting a client also be that clients warden is completely unacceptable from any kind of legal perspective. Arguments about "But in EFT, warden's don't abuse their clients!" is false. Anyone who has the power to stop you from leaving has the power to make your life unpleasent, and while abuse may be very rare in EFT, having the bond-holder, the jailer, the prosecutor, and the victem all be the same person is a massive, massive conflict of interest.

Since none of those conditions obtain, I fail to see your point. Bob won't get too many clients if he abuses them. This definitely not true of state lock-ups. See the following and then tell me if the jailer and cops involved were put out of business:

http://deborahtutnauer.com/womens-vote/


* The reason there are horse races is differences of opinion.

J Thomas on October 23, 2010, 05:40:16 pm

I don't think it will create an underclass, but you might end up with a Business specialized in locking up indentured persons and make them work to pay-off their debts.

That doesn't seem particularly plausible to me, but I'm certainly not ready to say it's impossible.

If you have to lock someone up and make them work, what's the chance that the work they do is worth the bother of locking them up and forcing them to work?

You have to inspect their work because they are likely to goof off or sabotage stuff unless prevented. If you have an AI that can reliably tell whether the work is done right, is it cheaper to have the AI supervise people and punish them for messing up, or have the AI do the work itself?

Of course, depending on the biotechnology available, there might be considerable money in harvesting organs. But people could do things like inject themselves with something radioactive to make their bodies worth less....

Jtuxyan on October 23, 2010, 06:09:54 pm
Quote
Have you actually read them?

I fine you one internet for starting off a reasoned debate with an antagonistic tone. Go back to dial up and think about what you've done.

Quote
I saw nothing to suggest that she was expected to do so.  She agreed voluntarily.  (This disappointed me, as it seems like she's a dingbat.)

It was suggested she do so and no one had a problem with the fact that she did. In a regular court, even suggesting it would earn contempt, and a lawyer who accepted might be disbarred.

Quote
I wouldn't think of him as a judge.  To most people, the term "judge" means a servant of the state with significant political power.

And why did he say that?  My impression (easily wrong) was that it was a bit of poetic license, trying to get an idea out of the defense, and getting an idea from the audience was a surprise.  Perhaps he was telling the literal truth.

Okay, arbitrator. Same difference. My point is that those being his only options is a terrible system -- and if it is artistic license, the author hasn't indicated so in his post on this thread.

Quote
I see nothing to suggest that there is a legal system which prescribes options in various cases.

If you only have three buttons to push, then it doesn't matter if they're "prescribed" in some situations or not, your options are limited.

Quote
Besides, what you (and Merry) call (temporary) slavery is probably a lot more humane than typical punishment (incarceration+) given to people found guilty by state judges.

Irrelevant, I was saying that options were limited, not that they were inhumane. That is a separate argument going on in a different thread.

Quote
I don't see the problem with that

You are accused of a crime of which you are completely innocent, however, due to misunderstanding, miscommunication, or just vicious slander, the public (including the jury that will try you), is convinced you're guilty before the trial even starts. A good lawyer could probably get you off, by very strong arguments, use of evidence, and powerful public speaking. The court in EFT is, after all, basically fair and honest, and will not be swayed excessively by public opinion in the face of a strong argument.

Too bad no one like that will work for you because they don't want to take the chance they'll also be dragged in if you're found guilty.

See the problem now?

Quote
But overall I don't see the problem with the lawyer being connected to the case outcome, We all are held responsible for our actions, so why shouldn't lawyers be held also ? On people having hard time to get a lawyer in case of ''high presumption of guilt'', I don't see the problem with that, especially since the court decision depends on material evidence and not someone rhetoric skills.

The OJ.Simpson case and numerous other examples throughout history prove that what you're saying is wrong wrong wrong. While in an honest court system like EFT's, evidence is much more important then it would be IRL, there is *always* an element of Quality of Your Laywer in determining the outcome.

Quote
It is true that since we can't give value to human life, it is likely that whoever kills will have a liability that can't be expressed in gold and thus can be held indentured for life. This might led to criminals being extremely violent to evade arrest.

I did not say "Killed" I very clearly said "Petty Crime." Please address that point, since murder is clearly a different case.

Quote
I don't think it will create an underclass, but you might end up with a Business specialized in locking up indentured persons and make them work to pay-off their debts.

I'm not sure why you think the creation of professional slavers is a good sign.

Quote
In EFT, people are responsible for their actions, which makes abuse very rare (but not nonexistent).

I'm warden in EFT. Two prisoners with very bad reputations and a history of lying in court come into my jail. The prosectour -- to clarify, the man who is paying me to hold them -- asks me to deprive them of sleep before the trial so they'll give an inferior legal defense and will be more likely to be found guilty. There's no evidence either way since it's my jail, and my word against theirs will absolutly come down in my favor.

"Few abuses" and "No abuses" are not the same thing. Conflicts of interest are always bad.

Quote
Since none of those conditions obtain, I fail to see your point. Bob won't get too many clients if he abuses them.

Why not?

If two people hurt me, tried to kill me, etc, and I had the choice between bringing them to Country Club Jail and a jail where the guards would beat the shit out of them once an hour, on the hour, is it really so strange that I might chose the second one?

By EFT's logic, you could have a prison system that intentionaly, publicly works that way. The guards collect an extra fee to abuse prisioners, and if a prisioner turns out to be innocent, they can afford to pay him a massive compensation out of the fees they're collecting from beating all the others.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 06:13:32 pm by Jtuxyan »

SandySandfort on October 23, 2010, 08:09:53 pm
... Too bad no one like that will work for you because they don't want to take the chance they'll also be dragged in if you're found guilty.

See the problem now?

No. Found guilty of what? What is the cause of action? Who is  the harmed party? Your "problem" is nonsense.

I'm warden in EFT. Two prisoners with very bad reputations and a history of lying in court come into my jail. The prosectour -- to clarify, the man who is paying me to hold them -- asks me to deprive them of sleep before the trial so they'll give an inferior legal defense and will be more likely to be found guilty. There's no evidence either way since it's my jail, and my word against theirs will absolutly come down in my favor.

Absolutely? More nonsense. That is the initiation of force, therefore, a violation of the ZAP. How often do you think a prisoner custodian would stay in business if that were found out? And please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting it wouldn't get out. The guy who asked for the sleep deprivation could have a change of heart and admit what the custodian was asked to do and did. The custodian could have a change of heart and report the request to the arbitrator. Guards could roll over on the boss,. Credible inmates could corroborate the torture. The custodian's wife or kids could report him. Why should the custodian risk ending up in the dock? Also, why did the prisoner select that facility? Merry and her "clients" chose Bob's Bed, Breakfast and Bond. You didn't think Bert and Ernie chose it, do you?

"Few abuses" and "No abuses" are not the same thing. Conflicts of interest are always bad.

Sorry, potential conflicts of interest are potentially bad. In any case, conflicts and potential conflicts of law are cured by disclosure. So, no, conflicts of interest are not always bad.

Quote
Since none of those conditions obtain, I fail to see your point. Bob won't get too many clients if he abuses them.

Why not?

If the "evidence" you quote does not obtain (exist, apply), you have no point. Duh.

If two people hurt me, tried to kill me, etc, and I had the choice between bringing them to Country Club Jail and a jail where the guards would beat the shit out of them once an hour, on the hour, is it really so strange that I might chose the second one?

Assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. Who ever said the plaintiff gets to select the custodian? In any event, if you knowingly took them to a place that regularly initiated force against detainees, both you and the guards would be guilty of violating the ZAP and would find yourself in the dock.

By EFT's logic, you could have a prison system that intentionaly, publicly works that way. The guards collect an extra fee to abuse prisioners, and if a prisioner turns out to be innocent, they can afford to pay him a massive compensation out of the fees they're collecting from beating all the others.

Are you thick? "EFT logic" holds ZAP as the "prime directive." Government lock-ups regularly abuse prisoners, but get away with it, over and over again. I know of plenty of examples. Because the EFT culture embraces the ZAP, such an event would be highly unlikely and if somebody abused someone, theywould find themselves--need I say it again?--in the dock.

Jtuxyan on October 23, 2010, 10:38:52 pm
Quote from: SandySandfort
A lot of things about ZAP.

I considered a point by point reply to your post, but all of them come down to this one factor. That is, that there is no magical enforcement of ZAP. ZAP is only an inviolate rule insofar as the society of EFT will apply force or punish me if I break it. So, to draw a very basic example, if I beat up someone and nobody cares enough to stop me then I've just violated ZAP without any consequences. If I beat up someone and nobody cares enough to stop me except people whom I am also capable of forcefully defeating, then I've violated ZAP *and* suppressed a group without consequences.

You say, repeatedly, that no government laws doesn't mean no laws. I'm perfectly willing to accept that. So when you say things like:

Quote
No. Found guilty of what? What is the cause of action? Who is  the harmed party? Your "problem" is nonsense.

It portrays a misunderstanding of what I am saying. At the most basic level, Bob accuses me of stealing from his shed. We'll take it as a given that Bob believes he saw me doing it and is completely certain I'm guilty, and I know for a fact that I did not do that. There are essentaly three ways this can go.

1) We can work it out between us peacefully.
2) We can pick a court, third party meditation, arbitrator, etc, and both agree we will abide by his ruling whatever it might be.
3) We can shoot at eachother.

3 is clearly not a functioning society, 1 is ideal but won't happen all the time. So even if there are no government courts, there are courts of some kind. And if no court, lawyer, etc will back me because my guilt is presupposed, when you're reduced the options too:

1) Work it out between us.
2) Shoot at eachother.

Now, I'll grant, most people will probably choose 1, but the fact remains that a court that is biased against those who are presumed guilty upon entering it is a court that people in a free society will be less likely to chose.

J Thomas on October 23, 2010, 11:38:44 pm

At the most basic level, Bob accuses me of stealing from his shed. We'll take it as a given that Bob believes he saw me doing it and is completely certain I'm guilty, and I know for a fact that I did not do that. There are essentaly three ways this can go.

1) We can work it out between us peacefully.
2) We can pick a court, third party meditation, arbitrator, etc, and both agree we will abide by his ruling whatever it might be.
3) We can shoot at each other.

3 is clearly not a functioning society, 1 is ideal but won't happen all the time. So even if there are no government courts, there are courts of some kind. And if no court, lawyer, etc will back me because my guilt is presupposed, when you're reduced the options too:

1) Work it out between us.
2) Shoot at each other.

Now, I'll grant, most people will probably choose 1, but the fact remains that a court that is biased against those who are presumed guilty upon entering it is a court that people in a free society will be less likely to chose.

In the particular situation you describe, the choices have consequences. If your guilt is presupposed for stealing, what happens if you successfully kill Bob? Won't your guilt be presupposed for that too? This does not look like a successful outcome to me. Unless you're ready to die and you want to take Bob with you, scratch out that option.

And since Bob knows you don't have any good choices, why should he work anything out with you? He can say "You took this list from my shed and you say you don't have them any more, so pay me for them and this extra for the trouble you put me to.". You can give him what he wants, or put it to arbitration and give him what he wants, or die and maybe take him with you. So your choices basicly come down to

1. Suck it up.

And whether it's him making stuff up or somebody else who successfully steals from him, the same thing is likely to happen again later.

So your choices turn into:

1. Move somewhere far enough away he can't accuse you. Or
2. Catch the real thief and prove it isn't you.

But of course if people are biased against you in the first place to the point they automatically believe Bob instead of you, there's a fair chance they'll believe the real thief instead of you.

So I guess if you get into this situation, my most important observation is: It sucks to be you.

SandySandfort on October 23, 2010, 11:58:22 pm
3 is clearly not a functioning society, 1 is ideal but won't happen all the time. So even if there are no government courts, there are courts of some kind. And if no court, lawyer, etc will back me because my guilt is presupposed...

That's a honking big if, pardner. What in the world would lead you to believe that any courts (sic), lawyers (sic), would presume you guilty? In a world where your mother could be your soi-disant "lawyer" do you really think she would presume your guilt? And remember, you get to pick your own "judge." If the other party does not agree, presumably your choice will work out something with your opponents choice that will shy away from "hanging judges." I cannot imagine a realistic scenario, where your "lawyer" and your "judge" do not presume innocence as the default setting. Just out of curiosity, in your real life do you also believe that everyone is out to get you?

sams on October 24, 2010, 02:37:16 am
I did not say "Killed" I very clearly said "Petty Crime." Please address that point, since murder is clearly a different case.

Quote
I don't think it will create an underclass, but you might end up with a Business specialized in locking up indentured persons and make them work to pay-off their debts.

I'm not sure why you think the creation of professional slavers is a good sign.

First in the case of Petty criminals, like that girl who had a whole arc story on her. if the crime is petty, then the amount of stuff to be given back to the victim is by definition small ... so your concern about poor criminals being enslaved is nonsensical.

If you rob an apple, you can be put to work to repay the apple or what have you.

Who the HECK is talking about slavery here dude ? We are talking about restitution to the victims of crime, in such a case that the criminal have no possesion on the moment, he can be put to work to pay for it.

In both case the ''perpetual'' slavery you are decrying is impossible because both parties benefit if the debt is paid quickly.

Your insinuation that Lawyers farting capacities is somewhat connected the result of the judgement is nonsense, this court is based on evidence and any arbitration court will solely be based on evidence ... but said that getting a 5 years hold lawyer is not such a good idea  ;D

jamesd on October 24, 2010, 03:01:13 am
I considered a point by point reply to your post, but all of them come down to this one factor. That is, that there is no magical enforcement of ZAP. ZAP is only an inviolate rule insofar as the society of EFT will apply force or punish me if I break it. So, to draw a very basic example, if I beat up someone and nobody cares enough to stop me then I've just violated ZAP without any consequences. If I beat up someone and nobody cares enough to stop me except people whom I am also capable of forcefully defeating, then I've violated ZAP *and* suppressed a group without consequences.

If you beat up, for example, homeless bums, you will likely to get away with it.

Guess what.  In today's society, if you beat up homeless bums, you will also likely get away with it also.  You will notice that in today's, police give some people markedly more protection than others.

Although police are theoretically supposed to protect everyone equally, who is going to make them do it?  Indeed who is going to do make them do anything?

In today's society, if one murders whores - well, they had better have an energetic pimp looking after them.

Police usually fail to investigate, even when the case is  handed to them on a platter, and when they bust someone, they tend to grab someone more or less at random, and then simply fit him with the crime, relying on extorted confessions, fabricated evidence, and alarmingly cooperative court appointed lawyers.  Even when the evidence is right in front of them, they often do not bother to pick it up, finding it easier to beat a confession out of the suspect, or have a court appointed attorney agree that the evidence exists even if the policeman did not bother to pick it up.

Near Green river a serial killer was raping and murdering girls, mainly prostitutes, but also any girl he could get his hands on.

A pimp spotted him abducting one of the prostitutes the pimp was protecting.  Pimp gives chase.  Murderer loses him, but pimp has his license plate, appearance of the abductor's truck, and appearance of the abductor.  Prostitute turns up dead, so pimp searches the neighborhood.  Sees the truck, recognizes the murderer.  Instead of taking care of the matter himself the pimp then reports the serial killer to the police.  Police do nothing.  They talk to the guy, but the do not search his truck, search his house, or bring him in for questioning. So far, all police have done has been to prevent instant justice.

In due course, several years later, a prostitute escapes the guy while he is trying to torture her to death, and reports him to police, true name, license, appearance, the whole lot.

A couple of years after this complaint, police raid him on the basis of this complaint, and take a gene sample.

A few years after this raid, the sample is checked against the semen in several of the corpses.  It matches.  The police raid him again, and this time take the trouble to search his house, where they find a fine collection of body parts.  Finally they bust him, after about sixty murders. 

You are thinking of all things that can go wrong, and probably will go wrong in anarchic society, and comparing them with a government that works perfectly all the time.

terry_freeman on October 24, 2010, 09:23:39 am
JTuxian, you are forgetting an essential feature of AnCap - there are no subordinate classes of people, there are no privileged classes of people.

The problems you describe and your feeble attempts to correct them are problems due to the monopolistic nature of most existing systems. Bob, in EFT, is merely a businessman; he does not work for the monopoly government, he does not have an exclusive contract with the government. If his clients do not like their treatment, they can go to Joe's facility down the street. You skipped over an important feature: the clients are paying the bills. With your statist mindset, you may never have seen a "the customer is always right" sign - you certainly will never see one in a court, a DMV office, or a prison.

In short, Bob the "Warden" is a lot more like a hotel manager than a warden. The only difference is that this manager is charged with the obligation of keeping tabs on his clients. If his clients are beaten or otherwise abused ( in a non-consensual manner ), they have recourse. They may have their own surveillance devices; this is not like Terra, where police consider the private use of surveillance devices to be a felony.


J Thomas on October 24, 2010, 09:52:11 am

In short, Bob the "Warden" is a lot more like a hotel manager than a warden. The only difference is that this manager is charged with the obligation of keeping tabs on his clients. If his clients are beaten or otherwise abused ( in a non-consensual manner ), they have recourse. They may have their own surveillance devices; this is not like Terra, where police consider the private use of surveillance devices to be a felony.

This is a vital point. Thank you!

Jtuxyan on October 24, 2010, 12:53:39 pm
Quote
In short, Bob the "Warden" is a lot more like a hotel manager than a warden. The only difference is that this manager is charged with the obligation of keeping tabs on his clients. If his clients are beaten or otherwise abused ( in a non-consensual manner ), they have recourse. They may have their own surveillance devices; this is not like Terra, where police consider the private use of surveillance devices to be a felony.

...no. But I'm the Warden. It not a "felony" but I can just say it's "Against prison rules" and confiscate them until they're found guilty or innocent.

Quote
First in the case of Petty criminals, like that girl who had a whole arc story on her. if the crime is petty, then the amount of stuff to be given back to the victim is by definition small ... so your concern about poor criminals being enslaved is nonsensical.

It is entirely possible to engage in nonviolent, small scale theft, where the total sum of money lost or goods damaged exceeds the criminals total net worth. Your argument is incorrect.

Quote
In both case the ''perpetual'' slavery you are decrying is impossible because both parties benefit if the debt is paid quickly.

Actually, the slave holder benefits from understating the value of the slaves work as much as possible so he can keep him on staff longer. Your argument is false.

Quote
That's a honking big if, pardner. What in the world would lead you to believe that any courts (sic), lawyers (sic), would presume you guilty? In a world where your mother could be your soi-disant "lawyer" do you really think she would presume your guilt? And remember, you get to pick your own "judge." If the other party does not agree, presumably your choice will work out something with your opponents choice that will shy away from "hanging judges." I cannot imagine a realistic scenario, where your "lawyer" and your "judge" do not presume innocence as the default setting.

If a lawyer stands to lose personally, or will suffer in terms of his reputation if his client is guilty, lawyers will be much less inclined to take clients who are thought to be guilty. This means that if you're likely thought to be guilty it will be harder to get a good laywer. This does not mean that you CAN'T, or that it never happens, just that it's a system that is not purely evidence based if being thought to be guilty pre-trial makes you more likely to be found guilty.

I cannot think of any simpler way to explain that.

Quote
So I guess if you get into this situation, my most important observation is: It sucks to be you.

Yes, of course it does. But the fact remains that if there's no actual evidence against me (as there isn't in this scenario because I know I didn't really do it), I may end up paying a very large fee for the crime despite. In that situation, any court will be necessarily biased one way or the other and us both agreeing on a judge will be next to impossible.