I would respectfully disagree with you on that point. The primary reasonability of the state, in it's operation of the criminal justice system, is to protect society from those who would do us harm. After that, we might be able to negotiate what other extended obligations they have.
”I would posit, that in many crimes against people, recompense is not pursued at all. And society, not to mention the victims, suffers harm because of it. “
And I would counter with why not? As I pointed out in my previous post people have always had the right, and the mechanism in place, to go after those who commit crimes against them for financial compensation. It is through filing an action on the civil side of the court against the person who has caused you loss. In addition, I would submit that the main reason that they don’t do such is they probable don’t have any idea that they can or, as a bumper sticker I saw on a car once said, “You think education is expensive, try ignorance.
”In the end, the prosecutors just tried to get rid of him, the victim. They told him he to forget it.”
Which does not surprise me. Prosecutors are elected officials that get themselves elected by getting convictions. They do not get elected by being a successful collection agency, and even if they were successful at it, no one is ever going to take a look at those stats. So consequently they are going to spend their time engaged in activities that are going to get them reelected, and that is accomplished through getting convictions. And why you would want to engage the state as your personal advocate is beyond me. But then again I am a firm believe in the axiom that “if you want to screw something up real good, get the government involved,” as I have found that to be true on more than one occasion. Hell I’m just trying to work with the local police department this morning to get them to coral a coyote that is running around the neighborhood, an undertaking that seems to beyond their abilities. Like I was talking with my neighbor last night, if we didn’t have laws against discharging guns within the city limits, we could get the 12 gauge out and take care of this coyote problem real fast.
I suppose the thing that bothers me most about your position is that at the root of it is the idea that the state as an obligation to take care of you and\or act on your behalf. I don’t need the state to look out for my interest, aside from providing me with the courts to pursue those interest in, and would much prefer that they stay out of it.
The only rightful role of government in a free society is to defend rights. The only one. In the absence of that, I have no need of them whatsoever.
The primary reasonability of the state, in it's operation of the criminal justice system, is to protect society from those who would do us harm.
You said it yourself. Where you get the idea that I think the government should "take care of me" is a mystery to me.
Your idea about civil courts is partially right, but it runs into trouble when you mix criminal activity with civil tort disagreements. And as to taking care of yourself, no problem, but the only reason most people consent to governments is to give them the power to use force on their behalf. Otherwise, chaos.