Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

[steve threlfall]

Originally posted by Slick
But you must have commited a crime for the person to sue you?!? I don't understand your point, they wouldn't be able to sue you if you hadn't commited a crime against them.

If a person is a victim- they have commited no crime then the criminal who has commited a crime against them should not be able to sue.

[Slick]

Originally posted by steve threlfall
If a person is a victim- they have commited no crime then the criminal who has commited a crime against them should not be able to sue.

Still don't understand your point, what would they be suing the victim for if the victim hasn't comitted a crime?

[steve threlfall]

Originally posted by Slick
Still don't understand your point, what would they be suing the victim for if the victim hasn't comitted a crime?

hypothetical situation then mate

A thief breaks into your house, takes your possessions but wait rover the rottweiler is lying in wait and gives that thief a good run maybe ends up biting him. Imo the crininal should not be able to sue the victim of the crime

[Punky]

the criminal shouldn't even be there, so why should they be able to sue?! its like the burglars who sue if they cut themselves on barbed wire when they go over fences - they shouldn't ven be there, so why should they be able to sue for it!? are people supposed to sit back and allow these scumbags into their homes?! i know i won't, and if one of the bas***ds did try and sue me for batting their kneecaps of whatever, i'd tell em where to stick it.

[Zathras]

Well, you may 'tell them where to stick it' but it's not your decision, it's the court's decision, so it won't make an ounce of difference whether you tell them to go stick it or dance the lambada with Cilla Black, it's not your choice.

[Zathras]

Originally posted by steve threlfall
A thief breaks into your house, takes your possessions but wait rover the rottweiler is lying in wait and gives that thief a good run maybe ends up biting him. Imo the crininal should not be able to sue the victim of the crime

Wouldn't get very far if he did try it. A guard dog isn't the same as setting booby-traps.

[steve threlfall]

Not sure what that has to do with what im saying. A criminal should NOT be allowed to sue their victim, simple really. If someone sets a booby trap and breaks a thiefs leg then the thief should not be allowed to sue because they shouldnt have been there in the first place.

[Zathras]

Originally posted by steve threlfall
Not sure what that has to do with what im saying. A criminal should NOT be allowed to sue their victim, simple really.

Because setting booby traps etc is an illegal act. Simple really. As I said, you cannot make blanket rules banning suing someone if you were the first to commit an illegal act. You have to look at the severity of the initial crime and the severity of the response. After all to sue the person suing must be a victim of some form of illegal act otherwise the court would not even look at the case. At the moment the court decides each case on its merit.

Slick's already posted a reasonable and conceivable case, but a blanket ban would also cover more ridiculous circumstances. Almost everyone here will have downloaded MP3s, therefore making the artist/distributing company a victim of crime. Now if the artist comes to your house and kneecaps you for doing so, you wouldn't be able to sue because the artist was the first to be the victim. The artist may go to prison but you wouldn't get any damages etc for loss of income resulting from the crime committed against you.

"But that's a ridiculous example" I hear you say. Well, how do you decide what is ridiculous and what isn't, and what do you do when the ridiculous actually happens? How do you then write this into the 'blanket ban' law you wish to introduce? You'll end up having to look at each case on its merits.

[steve threlfall]

Ok this seems very reasonable zathras. Tbh i hadnt thought about it like that at all. Not as clean cut an issue as i had imagined. I just dont like the idea that someone could brak into your house, injure theself by perahps tripping over your coffe table and then sue you though i do admit the chance of this happening is nearly nil

[Kilrov]

Got to agree with Zathras here, each cae ha to be considered seperately....hopefully in the original case in question (Fearon) the courts will see sense and reward him nothing (but im afraid I dont have that much faith in the compensation system).

Now correct me if im wrong but I think Martin is having to pay his own legal costs whereas Fearon is getting his paid for him now IMO that is whats wrong. Maybe the person suing should have to cover his/her own costs because if they are certain they will win then its surely no problem for them to cover their own costs?

[[R4A]Bigman]

Zathras: It's illegal to set them up if you don't give warning signs about them, or am I wrong?

And if an Metallica came round and capped me because I was downloading their songs, I spose that would be fair enough. Sueing wouldn't have even entered my mind.

And as for tax payers paying for law cases thats wrong.

[Zathras]

So let's say you downloaded one song illegally and someone came round your house, broke both your legs so you'd never walk again, castrated you so you couldn't have children and caused you sufficient damage that to have anything approaching a normal life you had to pay upwards of a million for significant alterations to your house, an accessible car, carers to clean, cook and care for you etc whilst not being able to do your job because of your disabilities caused by the attack, you would be perfectly happy with all that and wouldn't consider suing? I don't believe you.

[Punky]

Originally posted by Zathras
Because setting booby traps etc is an illegal act.

so is breaking and entering, if you hadn't noticed...

[Zathras]

So two wrongs make a right? Where on earth have I suggested breaking and entering is legal?

[luke313]

I think not_your_punk is referring to this comment...

Originally posted by Zathras
Because setting booby traps etc is an illegal act. Simple really. As I said, you cannot make blanket rules banning suing someone if you were the first to commit an illegal act.

If they were there, they would have been breaking in and entering, which means that they have actually committed the first crime, not the setting of booby traps. But I do agree with the fact that it would get ridiculous with mp3 fraud and other 'petty crimes'.

[Zathras]

My point remains it doesn't significantly alter things no matter who were to commit the first crime. Setting booby traps is illegal, as is shooting people for trespass or kneecapping someone for downloading mp3s. Doling out punishment is the job of the judicial system in this country, not the individual, for reasons discussed in this and the other thread.