lethalmiko Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) I just joined this forum as it is an oasis in the midst of intellectual chaos in the world and I also have a couple of questions I have been pondering that I want to settle. So my first question: Is it morally right for an evil person who has made money from the violation of rights to be allowed to keep his profits if he is punished for his crimes? Three examples. 1. A serial killer in jail serving a life sentence writes a best selling novel detailing in gruesome details his exploits. Should the book proceeds be confiscated or not, and why? 2. I steal another person's car and hire it out. I return the car and pay the owner for the inconvenience. Should the money I made be forcibly taken from me and given to the other guy? 3. An evil man kidnaps women and video tapes himself raping them and sells the videos. He gets jailed for 10 years for his crimes. Should he keep the money from the sales of the videos? Edited June 1, 2009 by lethalmiko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Cases 2 and 3 are clear: you should not be allowed to profit directly from your crime. Case 1 is different, because you are profiting from the legal act of writing a book. However, that example is complicated because we don't know if he's still in prison, or whether he has an outstanding debt to the victims. The problem is that Jones has to separately sue Smith for damages if Smith smacks Jones. Let us assume that the victim sued the assailant and a judgment was rendered against the assailant in the amount of $50,000. If the debt has been paid, the debt has been paid. If not, the book profits resulting from describing the attack can be attached. In a just society, the serial killer would never regain his rights and could never pay his debt to the victims (because of the substantiality of the debt). In which case, the proceeds from the book would go to the victims' estates. But it is not a general principle that any author who speaks of his past wrongdoings must forego royalties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randroid Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Case 1: The serial killer is not making money off his crimes, he is making money off writing about his crimes. Big difference. Besides, he is serving a life sentence. What's he gonna spend his money on? Cases 2 and 3: I believe the compensation that any just court of law would award the victims would outweigh any profits the perpetrator could have made off his crime, which makes this a non-issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethalmiko Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Cases 2 and 3 are clear: you should not be allowed to profit directly from your crime. Thank you for your response. On what principle does your statement above rest? My confusion is this. A person that has committed a crime and is punished fully for it no longer owes anything either to society or the victim. This rights violator has paid his debt fully so why should his profits be expropriated? On what basis does anyone lay a claim to this money (e.g. in case 2, the owner of the car was compensated)? He made the money by creating some value that someone else willingly paid for. And this seems to be a separate issue from the fact that he violated rights in the process of creating that value. To slightly modify example 3 to deal with the issue of "substantiality", what if I just lock up the women (naked) in a room, and I charge people to view a webcam? I go to court and pay a fine according to the penalty. But meanwhile I made a lot more money than I was charged in court. What is then to stop me repeating the cycle in many other ways until the law of diminishing returns sets in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethalmiko Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Case 1: The serial killer is not making money off his crimes, he is making money off writing about his crimes. Cases 2 and 3: I believe the compensation that any just court of law would award the victims would outweigh any profits the perpetrator could have made off his crime, which makes this a non-issue. Understood but the book is only a bestseller precisely because of the violation of the rights. It seems wrong that he should be indirectly "rewarded" for his evil acts. And he can easily spend his money while in jail. He can buy things online, bribe prison guards to get special favours, fund a political party, etc. As for the cases 2 and 3 "non-issue", it is concievable that he can make much more money than the punishment. e.g. he can drive the stolen car to another country where drug dealers can hire the car at a much higher price than in his home country. Edited June 1, 2009 by lethalmiko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 And he can easily spend his money while in jail. He can buy things online, bribe prison guards to get special favours, fund a political party, etc. Pay protection to other prisoners, cigarettes, etc. There's a whole underground economy inside most prisons. In some countries prison guards and wardens grow rich taking bribes from prisoners for all sorts of things (food, private TV w/cable, drugs, the use of a cell phone, even "conjugal visits" and in some cases release a few days earlier). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randroid Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'm not saying the murderer in case 1 shouldn't get to spend his money. Like I said, it's legitimately his, as the proceeds from his book are derived from his writing abilities, not from his crime - or at least very, very indirectly. The issue of corruption in prisons is an entirely separate one. As for the cases 2 and 3 "non-issue", it is concievable that he can make much more money than the punishment. Cases 2 and 3 are clear: you should not be allowed to profit directly from your crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 A person that has committed a crime and is punished fully for it no longer owes anything either to society or the victim.Punishment is not purely about restitution. I'm not sure it is even primarily about restitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 1. A serial killer in jail serving a life sentence writes a best selling novel detailing in gruesome details his exploits. Should the book proceeds be confiscated or not, and why? With the serial killer, it sounds revolting to say that he should be allowed to profit from his book, because he clearly doesn't deserve it: in fact he doesn't deserve another breath of air. Justice would be to execute him. But, as far as the principle goes, I don't see why one wouldn't have the right to profit from a book describing past wrongdoings (like stealing stuff), once he gets out of jail and repays whatever damages his victims were awarded by a Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 On what principle does your statement above rest?That you did not acquire the profit by right. You have a right to money for use of a car only if you have the right to the car (it is a controlled relinquishing of your right to use the car during the rental period, in exchange for money). It is not sufficient that you provide something that someone wants, you must also also have a right to that thing.A person that has committed a crime and is punished fully for it no longer owes anything either to society or the victim.No, even after the punishment the criminal owes his victim, although that debt is not entirely recognized under our legal system. Although, theoretically the criminal could arrange a private compensation deal, so the car owner or rape victim could sign a waiver of any claims for damage. Like that would happen.To slightly modify example 3 to deal with the issue of "substantiality", what if I just lock up the women (naked) in a room, and I charge people to view a webcam?Again, you will be punished for your criminal act, and you will also be liable for the damages that you caused your victims. A just legal system should make the victim compensation alone so severe that being such predation would be unthinkable (utterly unprofitable). So it would not be a matter of paying a little fine, it would be a matter of compensating each victim in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus spending many years in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethalmiko Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) That you did not acquire the profit by right. You have a right to money for use of a car only if you have the right to the car (it is a controlled relinquishing of your right to use the car during the rental period, in exchange for money). It is not sufficient that you provide something that someone wants, you must also also have a right to that thing.No, even after the punishment the criminal owes his victim, although that debt is not entirely recognized under our legal system. Although, theoretically the criminal could arrange a private compensation deal, so the car owner or rape victim could sign a waiver of any claims for damage. Like that would happen.Again, you will be punished for your criminal act, and you will also be liable for the damages that you caused your victims. A just legal system should make the victim compensation alone so severe that being such predation would be unthinkable (utterly unprofitable). So it would not be a matter of paying a little fine, it would be a matter of compensating each victim in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus spending many years in prison. To be clear, you are saying that money can only be morally made if I have some kind of right to the inputs. Therefore all monies made from violation of rights should be expropriated and presumably given to the victims. So what if I am a sick comedian who uses the naked women mentioned in my earlier example as a focus point for my jokes? By your principle, I have a moral and legal right to make money out of comedy but in this case I am making jokes about these naked women and people are paying for the jokes because they love to see naked women made fun of (via a live webcam). With respect to owing, it seems grossly unfair and morally unethical that I can be punished by an objective court system and still end up owing the victim. So if I defraud someone of $10 and get fined for it with interest, are you saying that I still owe the victim an infinite amount of money until they cancel this infinite debt? As for severity of punishment, again I can simply do my crime in another country where I make a fortune from my crimes that outweighs the punishment in my country. Punishment is not purely about restitution. I'm not sure it is even primarily about restitution. So what is it about? If restitution is redundant (or at least insignificant), then why fine anyone for any crime (e.g. in fraud cases)? Edited June 2, 2009 by lethalmiko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Plumb Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Freedom and value are interchangeable entities under the Uniform Commercial Code - the real law. Lawyer is just another word for liar and they are liars because they hide the fact that the courts run on the UCC. The courts themselves are a game and most of the energy is to establish a value for the judgement that can be used to put it onto the markets, rather than to establish guilt or innocence. An example of rights vs value is seen when a country goes bankrupt, statute laws are written to collect fines and underwrite bonds. To learn more, read "Introduction To The Law Merchant" Edited June 2, 2009 by Doug Plumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethalmiko Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Thanks to everybody that answered my question. At least now the main issue is settled in my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) So what is it about? If restitution is redundant (or at least insignificant), then why fine anyone for any crime (e.g. in fraud cases)?Restitution is important too; but, deterrence is important too. *** Moderator Note: *** *** Follow-on posts about restitution vs. retribution vs. deterrence, etc. have been moved to this thread. *** Edited June 4, 2009 by softwareNerd Noted: Follow-on in separate thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.