Laws for the benefit of who?

[Aristoddler]

I've just been made aware of a legal case where an inmate at a correctional facility had, after months of counseling from a criminal psychologist, taken his own life.
The psychologist had been treating him for a few months, and determined that he was a danger to society, but not to himself, and therefore should remain in the correctional facility in lieu of being transplanted into a home for mentally unstable persons.
The family of the "victim" in this case is suing the facility, the psychologist, and the jail for their loss.

The victim was in prison for setting his ex-wife's house on fire and causing the death of the ex-wife and their 2 daughters.


Laws were originally set into place to protect the people from criminals who would prey on them.
As far as I can see, their was no predator in this case, and therefore nobody to protect (but that's just my opinion)

In the case where people sue a third party for damages in the case of something such as the example I gave above...who is benefiting from this law, really? Who suffers?

A burglar comes into my house at night, and I hit him with a baseball bat because I have 3 kids and a pregnant wife who may be in danger...the burglar sues me for personal injury and court fees.
What kind of a world allows this perversion of justice to run rampant?

[Didymos Thomas]

A world in which greed is valued above justice. Our consumer culture reinforces greed. Its a 'damn the innocent, as long as I turn a buck' mentality. Unfortunately this sort of mentality is broad casted from every angle, the OC and like shows literally brainwashing our youth. Reality, and the suffering of reality is set aside in favor of illusion, personal discontent, and violence.

[Aristoddler]

So Law is superseded by Greed, which fuels laws.

So nice to see that our world is as morally corrupt as Orwell predicted.

[Didymos Thomas]

Orwell predicted something far worse than the current state of affairs.

[NeitherExtreme]

Personally I'd mix the "greed over justice" value with a breakdown in common sense within the beuracracy of our court system.

Yes, it is a pathetic state of affairs.

[Didymos Thomas]

But what would cause a breakdown in common sense, as you say? Such a thing would be odd if spontaneous.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

But what would cause a breakdown in common sense, as you say? Such a thing would be odd if spontaneous.

Good question... I'd say it partly of the very nature of beaurocracy to over time become encumbered with red tape and precedence at the expense of the ideals that founded it. I'd also say that common sense/critical thinking hasn't been a high priority among the American public for a while, though that might just be normal humanity that I'm noticing rather than anything new or especially "bad".

On some more thinking, I also think there's a certain value or ethic in our current society that favors the one who is being hurt over the one causing the hurt in any given situation, regardless of why it's happening. Maybe it could be called overzealous compassion or something. Not sure how that plays into the whole thing as well, or what it's causes would be.

[Didymos Thomas]

I suppose my point is that the breakdown in common sense you speak of (because this is certainly apparent to anyone who keeps up with politics) might be a symptom of the greed, and not a separate matter.

[PaulG]

If you are being attacked, it is legal to use reasonable force to protect yourself and others. Bragging to the Police about using the baseball bat that you keep beside your bed just in case someone breaks in can't be seen as using reasonable force. The laws are, allegedly, there to protect all of us. A welfare mentality has, however, created a generation of greed. Cases of people suing coffee shops because their coffee is too hot, suing Winnebago because the cruise control didn't drive the vehicle while you were in the back having a cup of coffee are just 2 examples. You're both right, common sense is lacking. Hopefully that will change in the near future.

[ciceronianus]

First, you must consider the difference between criminal and civil law. While civil law may function to protect people, by making, for example, the negligent actor liable for damages caused by his negligence, thereby arguably acting as a deterrent, it is not intend to "protect" society in the same sense as criminal law.

This appears to be a negligence action. Civil law provides that someone who negligently causes harm is liable in damages. In many states, there are statutes which grant those close to a person who dies due to the negligence of others a claim for damages, on the premise that the person who died had some value to, for example, a spouse or a child. The law cannot being the dead back, so it is limited to making damages available to compensate for this like "loss of society and companionship" and economic harm resulting from loss of income which the deceased would have likely produced.

I don't know what damages would be claimed in these circumstances. You may believe that the life of a convict has no "value" and that therefore no claim should exist, but the law does not make such an absolute assumption. Negligence generally is the failure to abide by a duty of care (if I run a red light and braodside another vehicle and people are injured, I caused those injuries by my negligence). I cannot say whether the defendants in this case would be negligent, but their negligence would have to be established before they could be found liable.