Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

[tanman]

Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

A big no

I have said before anybody caught doing damage to my family & friends or properties or car will be dealt with accordingly.

Tan

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by 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.

I can see your point here. But, I have to disagree to a certain extent. If you were to plant a device to catch burglars then someone would have to be doing something wrong (note: wrong, illegal etc.) to get caught/hurt by the trap. The argument is, they shouldn't have been performing the aforementioned illegal act and they would not have been caught in a big net / eaten by hidden man eating sharks / etc etc.

They simply have themselves to blame for attempting to rob someone.

[DaBeeeenster]

Big Richard. Do you agree or disagree that punishment for a crime should be handled by a judicial court, or not?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by tanman
Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

A big no

I have said before anybody caught doing damage to my family & friends or properties or car will be dealt with accordingly.

Tan

So if you are walking across a field that you think is public land, and the farmer that owns the land comes out of nowhere and beats you into a wheelchair with a 9 iron, you shouldn't be allowed to attempt some sort of redress through the courts?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Big Richard. Do you agree or disagree that punishment for a crime should be handled by a judicial court, or not?

Partially. I don't know how to explain my stance on this at the moment. I think we should be able to look after our homes against buglars. Setting up a system (on your own premises) to prevent burglary should be allowed as long as all bona fide visitors/guests are aware of the dangers of such systems.


But ultimately the courts should handle punishment for crimes.

The courts should also say to burglars who are attempting to sue their victims when their victims fight back that they deserved everything they got.

You don't expect someone to be able to come and steal your gear and if they fail the courts to make you pay them what they would have otherwise stolen, would you? That's what I call daft!

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
So if you are walking across a field that you think is public land, and the farmer that owns the land comes out of nowhere and beats you into a wheelchair with a 9 iron, you shouldn't be allowed to attempt some sort of redress through the courts?

That's not what tanman said. He said:

Originally posted by tanman
Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

A big no

I have said before anybody caught doing damage to my family & friends or properties or car will be dealt with accordingly.

Tan

If they were doing damage to his family & friends or properties or car

[DaBeeeenster]

Walking across the farmers land is doing damage to his property...

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Walking across the farmers land is doing damage to his property...

In what way?

[DaBeeeenster]

This is entirely my point. Who's to say what other people decide to be damaging to their property? The farmer MAY WELL decide that the trespasser is damaging his property. Maybe he's just sown some new seed or something. Who knows. The point is that, according to the posts above, HE IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS to do what he likes to the trespasser.

Another example. Two kids are playing football in the street. One of them kicks the ball and it bounces of your car, knocking the wing mirror back. Should you be allowed to punch the kid into a coma? He just damaged your property...

[Big RICHARD]

Do you really think people lack the ability to decide what is an accident and what is blatant robbery?

[DaBeeeenster]

Out of the 58 million people in Britain, I'm pretty certian that there are a few, yes.

The previous poster did not exlusively mention robbery. They described damaging property as well. The examples above are damaging property.

[Big RICHARD]

I have to agree with you to a certain extent. Some people wouldn't be able to distinguish between accidental and malicious damage to property.

[DaBeeeenster]

Precisely. That's one of the reasons courts are there. It is a basic tenet of the british legal system that people (like Tony Martin) should not be able to take the law into their own hands. The reasons are clear.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Precisely. That's one of the reasons courts are there. It is a basic tenet of the british legal system that people (like Tony Martin) should not be able to take the law into their own hands. The reasons are clear.

But breaking into someones house is so blatantly a rape of their own haven and private life, that in this case Tony Martin should not have been tried for murder, he should have been knighted.

[DaBeeeenster]

Hmmm. I have managed to verge things a bit OT. Sorry.

I still think that in certain circumstances criminals should be able to sue their victims. Obviously the circumstances should be down to a judge to decide, and cases like the one involving Fearon will be (rightfully) thrown out.

Do you agree with that?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Hmmm. I have managed to verge things a bit OT. Sorry.

I still think that in certain circumstances criminals should be able to sue their victims. Obviously the circumstances should be down to a judge to decide, and cases like the one involving Fearon will be (rightfully) thrown out.

Do you agree with that?

Really? Yes I do! I don't think Tony Martin was entirely wrong though. But maybe a bit!