« I'm Not Joshing You: Roundabout Etymology Lesson of the Day | Main | Reality Check: How Progressive are Taxes? »

Tuesday, April 14, 2009


Not to defend the cop, but I think the griping about the amount of the bail is just another example of going for blood money.

Where I live, families of recent tragically killed young men (drugs/alcohol/driving in some combination or other) look tragic then immediately hire high priced lawyers to bankrupt the offenders who killed their relatives.

The money they get (bankrupting the families involved) amounts to pure vengeance.

A family cannot control a 19 year old drunk or addicted young male. How then is it just or does it heal anyone for them to be made to sell their house and give up their life savings because of their young jackass child?

I know people personally who have brought such suits, and tho they are nice people, they get caught up in the idea of getting rich. Manipulated by lawyers. Also, I would hope that if my child were killed, I would not regress to eye for an eye justice. When nothing will bring back their kid. And they can speak to local high school kids about not drinking or drugging (and have zero effect) for free.

The only punishment that is appropriate in such situations is jail time for the perpetrators. But the dead young people are not worth money. I don't understand the logic of redistributing the property of perpetrator to victim's family. Perhaps I am just legally unsophisticated? Or maybe people resort to these vile civil suits afterwards because they despair of real justice in the courts. If relatives knew that such drunken killers would be severely punished, no matter who they were, they might not go on these financial vendettas?

Only if someone kills a family man or woman might it be appropriate to sue for money to support their surviving children.

Some good discussion of this at Thoma:


Sorry, that comment was intended for another thread.

The comments to this entry are closed.