Ethics about laws preventing profiting from a crime

[mr friendly guy]

Ok many countries have laws which prevent people profiting from a crime. So if I did drugs to win a bike race (snigger), got caught, I can't sell my story to some trashy talk show and expect to be able to keep the proceeds.

Say a home owner shoots intruders and wounds them, but calls 9/11 and the intruder lives but has a ton of medical bills. Lets also say that the shooting is done in such a way that prevents various self defence and castle laws from coming into play, eg he shot them in the back. Further information shows that the intruder has previously burgled that particular premise.

Now what happens if the intruder sues the home owner for his injuries in a civil suit? Presumably if the US has a wrongful death suit in civil cases, it doesn't seem far fetch that you can sue someone for causing injuries in a civil suit (correct me if I am wrong).

Going on

1. If the intruder wins anything, are they allowed to keep the money? I mean in both a legal sense and moral sense. PS I am not interested in getting sidetrack into arguments as to whether they deserved to win, only if they do win do should they be allowed to retain the money as opposed to the government taking it.

2. If they do keep the money, is this considered profiting from a crime in a moral sense? After all they wouldn't have been shot if they didn't commit a crime.

[Grumman]

2. If they do keep the money, is this considered profiting from a crime in a moral sense? After all they wouldn't have been shot if they didn't commit a crime.

Legally, I would expect that this would be covered by the idea that damages awarded should not exceed the actual damage suffered - that he should only be able to sue to break even from his crime and not to profit from it.

Morally, I'd call it obscene.

[Broomstick]

Now what happens if the intruder sues the home owner for his injuries in a civil suit? Presumably if the US has a wrongful death suit in civil cases, it doesn't seem far fetch that you can sue someone for causing injuries in a civil suit (correct me if I am wrong).

That is correct and in fact it has happened. I'm not familiar enough with the individual cases to say what the outcome was or typically is - anyone can sue for any reason but winning is another matter.

Prisoners have on occasion sold their story or otherwise come into money. It is also possible for their victims to sue to prevent them from keeping any profits. As an example, when O.J. Simpson wrote his book If I Did It the Goldman family successfully sued and were awarded all rights to the book. Not the same situation, of course, it just points out that even if a criminal acquires money that doesn't mean he'll be able to keep it. In the case of a thief, if he's been ordered to pay restitution winning case against a homeowner will likely mean that amount will be applied to restitution and fines, not simply deposited in the criminal's pocket.

[biostem]

This always bugged me - someone who is consciously committing a crime should essentially waive all rights to any sort of lawsuit or claims for damages. This especially bugs me with regard to trespassing - if you go somewhere you shouldn't/aren't permitted, then why should you have any right to sue for getting injured while doing so...

[Simon_Jester]

It occurs to me that you might be injured by something the homeowner is himself legally responsible for and which could have injured an innocent bystander. To take a stereotyped example:

For example, suppose you are a door-to-door salesman and you walk up to a house, failing to notice a sign on the front porch that says "no trespassing." Legally, you're a trespasser. You slip on a roller skate left on the porch, fall, and break your wrist.

Granted, you were on the property illegally. On the other hand, suppose you had had legitimate business there? That roller skate would be just as much a land mine for a neighbor coming over to borrow a cup of sugar, or a friend visiting the house, or a child coming to play with the owner of the roller skate, or a police officer investigating a disturbance in the neighborhood, or anyone else.

So in this case, while the homeowner has a right to expect you to not be there, they don't have a right to expect everyone to stay away from the house indefinitely. And they still have a responsibility to make sure people can approach the house without getting injured.

Moreover, you had no particular criminal intent- you were doing something the homeowner didn't want, but the trespass was neither particularly intentional, nor particularly harmful.

[mr friendly guy]

Wouldn't it be simple to legislate around this by declaring you cannot sue for committing certain crimes or were in the process of committing? For example breaking and entering where the perp has broken in a store, but you feel down climbing the stairs because the stairs broke.

Lets say in this example the store owner is negligent. But negligent only becomes a problem if someone actually tried to walk on the stairs. If no one does, the owner has more time to fix it. Clearly the perp would not be walking on the stairs if he wasn't in the act of committing a crime. I feel that the principle that prevents someone benefiting from committing a crime arguable applies here.

[Borgholio]

But negligent only becomes a problem if someone actually tried to walk on the stairs. If no one does, the owner has more time to fix it.

If the stairs were taped off with clearly posted "Condemned" signs on them warning people to stay off...then the store owner is not actually negligent. He clearly took steps (heh) to keep people off the stairs until they were repaired. If the thief still walks on them, then he should have no right to sue.

However, if the stairs have no clear warnings and are not blocked off, then what is to stop an innocent person wandering around from using them and being injured?

[biostem]

It occurs to me that you might be injured by something the homeowner is himself legally responsible for and which could have injured an innocent bystander. To take a stereotyped example:

For example, suppose you are a door-to-door salesman and you walk up to a house, failing to notice a sign on the front porch that says "no trespassing." Legally, you're a trespasser. You slip on a roller skate left on the porch, fall, and break your wrist.

Granted, you were on the property illegally. On the other hand, suppose you had had legitimate business there? That roller skate would be just as much a land mine for a neighbor coming over to borrow a cup of sugar, or a friend visiting the house, or a child coming to play with the owner of the roller skate, or a police officer investigating a disturbance in the neighborhood, or anyone else.

So in this case, while the homeowner has a right to expect you to not be there, they don't have a right to expect everyone to stay away from the house indefinitely. And they still have a responsibility to make sure people can approach the house without getting injured.

Moreover, you had no particular criminal intent- you were doing something the homeowner didn't want, but the trespass was neither particularly intentional, nor particularly harmful.

I'm talking about the willful and conscious commission of a crime, here; If a person has already broken into a home, or if someone climbed a fence/cut a lock to get past it... that sort of thing. There is an expectation that a person approaching your front door in a calm/nonthreatening manner is *not* a trespasser, just by virtue of walking up to your door without explicit permission to do so...

[Borgholio]

I think the point is that if something could be a hazard to any ordinary person walking by, then it could be a hazard to a burgler as well and could still be considered negligence. If something is only a hazard to someone who willingly ignores plainly posted warnings or to someone who is not there for legitimate purposes, then they would not have a case.

[biostem]

I think the point is that if something could be a hazard to any ordinary person walking by, then it could be a hazard to a burgler as well and could still be considered negligence. If something is only a hazard to someone who willingly ignores plainly posted warnings or to someone who is not there for legitimate purposes, then they would not have a case.

What about in the case of injuries that *aren't* due to negligence - like a person slices their arm open on a piece of glass they broke, while breaking into your home, or if a robber falls down the stairs and injuries themselves while trying to make off with a TV? I'm not talking about stuff like you know the board to the 3rd stair in your house has a habit of slipping off or something...

[Borgholio]

What about in the case of injuries that *aren't* due to negligence - like a person slices their arm open on a piece of glass they broke, while breaking into your home, or if a robber falls down the stairs and injuries themselves while trying to make off with a TV?

I'd say that the burgler would not have the right to sue in that case, since the hazardous condition was a direct result of the criminal act. Had the act not taken place, the condition would not have existed, and the injury would have not occurred.

But I'm not a lawyer. I'm sure a sleazy enough attorney could get lucky once in awhile...

[biostem]

Somewhat related to the topic - have there ever been, or how feasible do you think it would be, to implement a justice system where it isn't prosecution vs defense, but simply a matter of all parties trying to come to the truth of the matter, (or as close as possible), in order to determine if someone committed a crime or not.

I suppose human bias and such would still be an issue, but if the police and lawyers simply tried to figure out what actually happened, instead of just building a case in their favor, how would things turn out?

[Borgholio]

I think that's what they do in Germany actually.

[jwl]

I think the point is that if something could be a hazard to any ordinary person walking by, then it could be a hazard to a burgler as well and could still be considered negligence. If something is only a hazard to someone who willingly ignores plainly posted warnings or to someone who is not there for legitimate purposes, then they would not have a case.

What about in the case of injuries that *aren't* due to negligence - like a person slices their arm open on a piece of glass they broke, while breaking into your home, or if a robber falls down the stairs and injuries themselves while trying to make off with a TV? I'm not talking about stuff like you know the board to the 3rd stair in your house has a habit of slipping off or something...

Would it be applicable if they did these things whilst not committing a crime? I think not. If you fall down the stairs or hurt you arm breaking glass in a legal context, I would hope that you can't sue someone for it.

This always bugged me - someone who is consciously committing a crime should essentially waive all rights to any sort of lawsuit or claims for damages. This especially bugs me with regard to trespassing - if you go somewhere you shouldn't/aren't permitted, then why should you have any right to sue for getting injured while doing so...

I dunno what the law is where you come from, but here trespassing is not criminally illegal except in Buckingham palace and Downing Street.

It occurs to me that you might be injured by something the homeowner is himself legally responsible for and which could have injured an innocent bystander. To take a stereotyped example:

For example, suppose you are a door-to-door salesman and you walk up to a house, failing to notice a sign on the front porch that says "no trespassing." Legally, you're a trespasser. You slip on a roller skate left on the porch, fall, and break your wrist.

Granted, you were on the property illegally. On the other hand, suppose you had had legitimate business there? That roller skate would be just as much a land mine for a neighbor coming over to borrow a cup of sugar, or a friend visiting the house, or a child coming to play with the owner of the roller skate, or a police officer investigating a disturbance in the neighborhood, or anyone else.

So in this case, while the homeowner has a right to expect you to not be there, they don't have a right to expect everyone to stay away from the house indefinitely. And they still have a responsibility to make sure people can approach the house without getting injured.

Moreover, you had no particular criminal intent- you were doing something the homeowner didn't want, but the trespass was neither particularly intentional, nor particularly harmful.

Could a neighbor coming to borrow a cup of sugar sue for falling over a roller skate? Really?

[Broomstick]

Could a neighbor coming to borrow a cup of sugar sue for falling over a roller skate? Really?

In the US? Yes, they certainly could.

[Elheru Aran]

Could a neighbor coming to borrow a cup of sugar sue for falling over a roller skate? Really?

In the US? Yes, they certainly could.

The vague logic behind this is that if the roller skate hadn't been there, the neighbor wouldn't have fallen over it, therefore it's the homeowner's fault...

Frivolous suits such as this are enabled by the legal structure here, unfortunately. It also doesn't help that lawyers can make obscene amounts of money off such trials, regardless of whether they win or lose.

[Purple]

Somewhat related to the topic - have there ever been, or how feasible do you think it would be, to implement a justice system where it isn't prosecution vs defense, but simply a matter of all parties trying to come to the truth of the matter, (or as close as possible), in order to determine if someone committed a crime or not.

I suppose human bias and such would still be an issue, but if the police and lawyers simply tried to figure out what actually happened, instead of just building a case in their favor, how would things turn out?

That's pretty much what a decent part of Europe and the world at large do. America is sort of unique when it comes to its justice system. Well, not completely unique. But about as unique as their use of imperial measurements instead of metric.

[Spoonist]

Somewhat related to the topic - have there ever been, or how feasible do you think it would be, to implement a justice system where it isn't prosecution vs defense, but simply a matter of all parties trying to come to the truth of the matter, (or as close as possible), in order to determine if someone committed a crime or not.

I suppose human bias and such would still be an issue, but if the police and lawyers simply tried to figure out what actually happened, instead of just building a case in their favor, how would things turn out?

That's pretty much what a decent part of Europe and the world at large do. America is sort of unique when it comes to its justice system. Well, not completely unique. But about as unique as their use of imperial measurements instead of metric.

To quantify Purple's assertion - most of the world are using Civil law

The blue color is civil law as opposed to common law (red) or religious law (yellow). The brownish are mixed systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_na ... al_systems

How things turn out is a matter dependent on how corrupt the local country is, but as a general rule civil law as a system works better than common law if it is justice one is concerned with. Most notably is the role of the Judge.

One thing to note for instance is that the scandinavian countries have their own legal tradition which is usually clumped together with civil law but which has a different origin story etc, and the scandinavian countries are usually counted among the least corrupt and where both corporations and people deem the courts to be of the most un-partial in the world.

Its a bit counter intuitive to also notice that in legal systems most affected by the people, like democratically voting for sherrifs, judges, prosecution etc is among those system which is easiest to corrupt (as in common law - see india as the grand example) while systems with legal proffessions based on merits are less prone to corruption.
Which in theory should be reverse but in practice isn't due to human nature.

[Grumman]

If the stairs were taped off with clearly posted "Condemned" signs on them warning people to stay off...then the store owner is not actually negligent. He clearly took steps (heh) to keep people off the stairs until they were repaired. If the thief still walks on them, then he should have no right to sue.

However, if the stairs have no clear warnings and are not blocked off, then what is to stop an innocent person wandering around from using them and being injured?

The stairs were blocked off. The thief only fell down the stairs because they deliberately bypassed the physical and legal barriers prohibiting access.

[Borgholio]

If the stairs were taped off with clearly posted "Condemned" signs on them warning people to stay off...then the store owner is not actually negligent. He clearly took steps (heh) to keep people off the stairs until they were repaired. If the thief still walks on them, then he should have no right to sue.

However, if the stairs have no clear warnings and are not blocked off, then what is to stop an innocent person wandering around from using them and being injured?

The stairs were blocked off. The thief only fell down the stairs because they deliberately bypassed the physical and legal barriers prohibiting access.

In that case there should be no compensation for the thief. Had he been obeying the law and exercising common sense, he would not have been injured.

[biostem]

Somewhat related to the topic - have there ever been, or how feasible do you think it would be, to implement a justice system where it isn't prosecution vs defense, but simply a matter of all parties trying to come to the truth of the matter, (or as close as possible), in order to determine if someone committed a crime or not.

I suppose human bias and such would still be an issue, but if the police and lawyers simply tried to figure out what actually happened, instead of just building a case in their favor, how would things turn out?

That's pretty much what a decent part of Europe and the world at large do. America is sort of unique when it comes to its justice system. Well, not completely unique. But about as unique as their use of imperial measurements instead of metric.

To quantify Purple's assertion - most of the world are using Civil law

The blue color is civil law as opposed to common law (red) or religious law (yellow). The brownish are mixed systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_na ... al_systems

How things turn out is a matter dependent on how corrupt the local country is, but as a general rule civil law as a system works better than common law if it is justice one is concerned with. Most notably is the role of the Judge.

One thing to note for instance is that the scandinavian countries have their own legal tradition which is usually clumped together with civil law but which has a different origin story etc, and the scandinavian countries are usually counted among the least corrupt and where both corporations and people deem the courts to be of the most un-partial in the world.

Its a bit counter intuitive to also notice that in legal systems most affected by the people, like democratically voting for sherrifs, judges, prosecution etc is among those system which is easiest to corrupt (as in common law - see india as the grand example) while systems with legal proffessions based on merits are less prone to corruption.
Which in theory should be reverse but in practice isn't due to human nature.

So I did a bit of reading, and it seems that civil law uses a strict interpretation of law, which can only be added to or changed by the legislature, while common law uses a judge's interpretation and previous rulings regarding said interpretation.

What I was talking about is something like this:

Person A is accused of a crime. They are arrested by and placed into the custody of law enforcement. Law enforcement and the legal system work together to search for evidence regarding the crime. The important point here is that this investigation only seeks to uncover evidence that pertains to the crime - NOT to specifically find the arrested party guilty or innocent. Only if the evidence points to the person they've arrested, then will said person be found guilty. Of course, the shortcoming of this type of approach would be that if law enforcement, those in the legal system, or anyone else involved in the process was corrupt, they could skew the results. Financial concerns might also cause the state to limit the time and scope of any investigation and/or not perform additional tests due to their cost.

[AniThyng]

Sounds more like what you are looking for is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system as opposed to the more common http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system . I suppose the confusion with Civil law is because the most obvious user of this system is France which is *also* a civil law country.

[Spoonist]

Sounds more like what you are looking for is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system as opposed to the more common http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system . I suppose the confusion with Civil law is because the most obvious user of this system is France which is *also* a civil law country.

Not really. You usually have an adversarial/accusatory system in courts looking for the truth as well. This is due to practical reasons, you need a legal council for the accused and you need a legal council for the victim (even if it is only the state or law that is the victim). Pragmatically this ends up as prosecution and defense, regardless of the labels you put on them. Instead its the difference of the role of the judge (and jury) which determine how those systems derive to a verdict. Those wiki links was really weak on the explanation front.
In civil cases in the US like those brought to fame by "Judge Judy" and other such shows, you can see an inquisitorial practice in common law. The judge represent the law, tries to determine the truth of claims and comes with a verdict. But there the problem lies in that the investigation part is done by the victim/accused themselves, not by the legal system. So it is still adversarial in nature.

What I was talking about is something like this:

Person A is accused of a crime. They are arrested by and placed into the custody of law enforcement. Law enforcement and the legal system work together to search for evidence regarding the crime. The important point here is that this investigation only seeks to uncover evidence that pertains to the crime - NOT to specifically find the arrested party guilty or innocent. Only if the evidence points to the person they've arrested, then will said person be found guilty.

That is what I was talking about as well. You are describing most european systems, however real systems have to be a bit more practical than your utopia. So the process is supported by appeals from both sides.