prosecution for crime by someone other than the victim

Economics Political Theory
1

So, I remember seeing a question about this answered. The question was, simplified: say a person was murdered, obviously they cannot themselves pursue justice. The family, however, could on their behalf. If, say, a man who had no family was murdered, how would justice be pursued, or who would it be pursued by? Anyone, was the answer.

This all makes sense to me, or at least it feels right. However, this led to another question, which makes me want to pursue a more solid foundation for these ideas rather than seeing that it feels right and running with it.

My question is basically this: say the victim did not die, but they did not themselves press charges. In that case, could the family still pursue charges? In the case of a man without family, or even someone with family for that matter, could anyone pursue charges against someone for a crime they were not directly a victim of?

Those questions lead to these…

When a family presses charges against a man for a crime they were not the direct victim of, are they actually pressing charges on behalf of the victim, as if they were representing them, or are they pressing charges for damages done to the family by the loss of that loved one? Or in the case of a victim without family, essentially damages done to the community by loss of that member?

If the answer is no, that if victim is still alive they hold the sole right to prosecute for crimes against themselves, then perhaps it is that when the victim dies, that right to prosecute is inherited by the family, or community if no family exists?

Is there any literature regarding this issue? Basically, when do you have the right or authority to prosecute someone for a crime when you are not yourself a direct victim of that crime? and also important to me, why? What principles and fundamentals make the answer to this question truth?

Thanks for any help on this issue.

2

Perhaps the right to pursue justice is inherited by the next of kin. If so, it would stand to reason that the right could be willed to anyone.

Personally, I think that anyone should be able to pursue justice for any crime. This would be a measure to protect yourself from future aggression.

3

Possibly the dead person would leave behind a will. Thus he can act from beyond the grave. If he did not you can assume his views did not differ from the local norms and proceed accordingly. (Eg if he lived in a pacifist village then no one can ever pursue the criminal.)

Personally I wouldn’t be ecstatic about a place where the norm was that anyone can pursue the criminal. The norm that feels natural to me is that anyone who was closer to the victim than the criminal was may pursue him (or authorise someone else). But not someone who was more distant than the criminal.

So if the deceased was the victim of a stranger then any townspeople may pursue the stranger. But if he was the victim of his wife then the town should be minding its own business.

4

Think of the right to compensation just like any other property right. It comes into existence when a crime is committed. It is originally owned by the victim. No one else has the right but him.

If he is alive, he can seek compensation himself, pay someone to seek compensation on his behalf, or sell the right completely.

If he is dead, the right to compensation goes to the same person as gets the rest of his property, perhaps as specified in a will, or defaulting to next of kin (or whatever the custom is). Or if there really is nobody, the right to compensation, just like the rest of his property, is considered abandoned and can be homesteaded by anyone else.

5

No. They were free riding. They are not owed compensation for the lost free riding opportunity.

If a criminal burnt your neighbour’s garden that you enjoyed looking at, only your neighbour has a claim against him. Not you, the free rider.

6

So, when thinking of justice as being due compensation rather than punishment for crime, this question is easier to answer. A person doesn’t have any claim to compensation for a crime that he isn’t directly the victim of, therefore he can’t (in our theoretical world) take someone to court for that crime to claim compensation for himself or on behalf of the actual victim unless the victim has given him that authority. Agree? Disagree?

7

actually, I disagree. If neighbour is unable to take an action (is dead) or if he explicitely asks you to take action on his behalf, you can and are justified to prosecute criminal.

8

Yes, but look at the part I quoted and where it was taken from. You can act, but in your neighbour’s step, as his agent. Not as an aggravated party.

Or else you would have silly repercussions, you could claim to be the aggravated party even if your neighbour was stil alive. Eg, you could demand compensation from a thief that stole your neighbour’s television, because you used to on saturdays watch sports at his place and now you can not do that.

But objectively there can only be aggression against ownership. No ownership, no harm that can be measured.

Punishment is fine, but since the victim has the right to determine wether punishment will be applied or not it becomes a question of what would the victim have wanted.

And here it becomes all very context dependent. What were the victim’s values, and in what relation was he to the perpetrator?

Lets say that after a petty squabble you were poisoned by your very dear, but somewhat insane wife. If you died would you want for the town (ie people nowhere near close to you as the wife) to get together and lynch her? Probably not.

9

This issue too, as everything else, will have to be decided by the market of competing insurers and arbiters. What I’d do if this was happening with my client, is that I’d give him, and him alone the right to punish. If he overdid (killing you for breaking his arm) I’d hold him liable (in my case, increase his future premium since he’s a psycho or, at best, has some serious self-control issues) . If he is incapable of communicating (dead or in a coma) what I consider to be a person close to him would get the right (mostly family, but perhaps a friend of yours is closer that family).

If some third party carries out the punishment themselves, I would ask the wronged party to agree, post facto, to cede them their right to punish. If they do, its fine with me; if they deny the third part the right to punish in their name, than this third party is culpable of aggression, pure an simple.

The whole idea of strictly allowing only the wronged party (or his ‘heirs’ thereof) to punish the wrongdoer – besides what seem to me to be basic morals - is that, if they are the only ones who can justly meet our or delegate punishment, than I, the wrongdoer’s insurer, can pay them to forfeit that right (thus avoiding endless family feuds). The whole thing could not be done if anyone had the right to punish as he pleased.

But again, it remains to be seen whether such an insurer would be able to make a profit.