|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lucas
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I read about that and wonder how it would actually work. You get paid if you've been bullied, etc.? Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucas
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
Or a new face.
They should just give vouchers for surgery, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| I read about that and wonder how it would actually work. You get paid if you've been bullied, etc.? Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
It's really not that difficult. As certain crimes no longer become private crimes (like sexual assaults) they are no longer eligible for cash compensation as a means of justice. In the past, people would have gotten huge amounts of cash for being the victims of certain kinds of crimes. Now, there is no incentive for the criminal to pay in those situations. The government could legislate fines to the criminal in addition to jail time, but what happens if the person can't pay? The victim can get nothing.
This insurance scheme would compensate for any real financial loss (time in hospital where you couldn't work, as well as medical bills) and things like therapy after if needed. the victim would no longer need to receive money from the criminal directly and could apply to the insurance agencies to get compensation to take care of their needs. The government could still levy a fine, but have it paid to the insurance companies and let them deal with getting the money out of the person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| I read about that and wonder how it would actually work. You get paid if you've been bullied, etc.? Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
It's really not that difficult. As certain crimes no longer become private crimes (like sexual assaults) they are no longer eligible for cash compensation as a means of justice. In the past, people would have gotten huge amounts of cash for being the victims of certain kinds of crimes. Now, there is no incentive for the criminal to pay in those situations. The government could legislate fines to the criminal in addition to jail time, but what happens if the person can't pay? The victim can get nothing.
This insurance scheme would compensate for any real financial loss (time in hospital where you couldn't work, as well as medical bills) and things like therapy after if needed. the victim would no longer need to receive money from the criminal directly and could apply to the insurance agencies to get compensation to take care of their needs. The government could still levy a fine, but have it paid to the insurance companies and let them deal with getting the money out of the person. |
If you're putting it in the hands of the insurance companies, it seems like you're privatizing it rather than the other way around.
As for the insurance companies doing the collecting, what means do they have to force someone to pay?
Would it be fair to say this institutionalizes the concept of blood money? Has anything really changed here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| I read about that and wonder how it would actually work. You get paid if you've been bullied, etc.? Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
It's really not that difficult. As certain crimes no longer become private crimes (like sexual assaults) they are no longer eligible for cash compensation as a means of justice. In the past, people would have gotten huge amounts of cash for being the victims of certain kinds of crimes. Now, there is no incentive for the criminal to pay in those situations. The government could legislate fines to the criminal in addition to jail time, but what happens if the person can't pay? The victim can get nothing.
This insurance scheme would compensate for any real financial loss (time in hospital where you couldn't work, as well as medical bills) and things like therapy after if needed. the victim would no longer need to receive money from the criminal directly and could apply to the insurance agencies to get compensation to take care of their needs. The government could still levy a fine, but have it paid to the insurance companies and let them deal with getting the money out of the person. |
If you're putting it in the hands of the insurance companies, it seems like you're privatizing it rather than the other way around.
As for the insurance companies doing the collecting, what means do they have to force someone to pay?
Would it be fair to say this institutionalizes the concept of blood money? Has anything really changed here? |
only if you don't understand the concept of blood money. The point of blood money was so that with certain crimes instead of going through the court system the victims could arrange their own justice directly with the person committing the offense. Anyone who has an issue with the system clearly has no understanding of it.
The system is completely voluntary and at any point a victim can reject any offer and send them to court. They also aren't limited solely to money as compensation as they could arrange whatever compensation they'd want. They person committing the crime can either accept the offer or take their chances in court. So long as it's applied to the right kind of crimes the system makes a lot of sense and is effective in properly solving issues.
In this case they're giving someone the best of both worlds. The person goes to the courts and the victim can still get compensation, before it was one or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| I read about that and wonder how it would actually work. You get paid if you've been bullied, etc.? Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
It's really not that difficult. As certain crimes no longer become private crimes (like sexual assaults) they are no longer eligible for cash compensation as a means of justice. In the past, people would have gotten huge amounts of cash for being the victims of certain kinds of crimes. Now, there is no incentive for the criminal to pay in those situations. The government could legislate fines to the criminal in addition to jail time, but what happens if the person can't pay? The victim can get nothing.
This insurance scheme would compensate for any real financial loss (time in hospital where you couldn't work, as well as medical bills) and things like therapy after if needed. the victim would no longer need to receive money from the criminal directly and could apply to the insurance agencies to get compensation to take care of their needs. The government could still levy a fine, but have it paid to the insurance companies and let them deal with getting the money out of the person. |
If you're putting it in the hands of the insurance companies, it seems like you're privatizing it rather than the other way around.
As for the insurance companies doing the collecting, what means do they have to force someone to pay?
Would it be fair to say this institutionalizes the concept of blood money? Has anything really changed here? |
only if you don't understand the concept of blood money. The point of blood money was so that with certain crimes instead of going through the court system the victims could arrange their own justice directly with the person committing the offense. Anyone who has an issue with the system clearly has no understanding of it.
The system is completely voluntary and at any point a victim can reject any offer and send them to court. They also aren't limited solely to money as compensation as they could arrange whatever compensation they'd want. They person committing the crime can either accept the offer or take their chances in court. So long as it's applied to the right kind of crimes the system makes a lot of sense and is effective in properly solving issues.
In this case they're giving someone the best of both worlds. The person goes to the courts and the victim can still get compensation, before it was one or the other. |
That makes sense, except for the part about properly solving issues. If you can buy your way out of criminal activity, IMO that's not a proper solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| I read about that and wonder how it would actually work. You get paid if you've been bullied, etc.? Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
It's really not that difficult. As certain crimes no longer become private crimes (like sexual assaults) they are no longer eligible for cash compensation as a means of justice. In the past, people would have gotten huge amounts of cash for being the victims of certain kinds of crimes. Now, there is no incentive for the criminal to pay in those situations. The government could legislate fines to the criminal in addition to jail time, but what happens if the person can't pay? The victim can get nothing.
This insurance scheme would compensate for any real financial loss (time in hospital where you couldn't work, as well as medical bills) and things like therapy after if needed. the victim would no longer need to receive money from the criminal directly and could apply to the insurance agencies to get compensation to take care of their needs. The government could still levy a fine, but have it paid to the insurance companies and let them deal with getting the money out of the person. |
If you're putting it in the hands of the insurance companies, it seems like you're privatizing it rather than the other way around.
As for the insurance companies doing the collecting, what means do they have to force someone to pay?
Would it be fair to say this institutionalizes the concept of blood money? Has anything really changed here? |
only if you don't understand the concept of blood money. The point of blood money was so that with certain crimes instead of going through the court system the victims could arrange their own justice directly with the person committing the offense. Anyone who has an issue with the system clearly has no understanding of it.
The system is completely voluntary and at any point a victim can reject any offer and send them to court. They also aren't limited solely to money as compensation as they could arrange whatever compensation they'd want. They person committing the crime can either accept the offer or take their chances in court. So long as it's applied to the right kind of crimes the system makes a lot of sense and is effective in properly solving issues.
In this case they're giving someone the best of both worlds. The person goes to the courts and the victim can still get compensation, before it was one or the other. |
That makes sense, except for the part about properly solving issues. If you can buy your way out of criminal activity, IMO that's not a proper solution. |
You can, only if the victim allows it. Think about it.
If the crime is very personal in nature, what's gained by locking the person up and having no restitution payed to the victim? Something like property damage. As a victim, would you feel better that the guy who threw a rock through your window bought you a new window and paid to have your house fixed, or would you prefer you paid out of pocket for that, because screw the deductible, and he got a slap on the wrist because that's all you're going to get for a broken window?
Many people misunderstand bloody money and think that if you commit a crime you can just pay $X and get out of it. It doesn't work that way. It only works if the victim first agrees to set terms and if the criminal agrees to meet those terms, and it only works for crimes considered personal crimes.
Crimes which are not personal cannot be settled, they must go to the police and the prosecutor and eventually court.
For some people the idea of justice might involve restitution for themselves rather than simply throwing a guy in jail for a short time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| I read about that and wonder how it would actually work. You get paid if you've been bullied, etc.? Maybe you could use the money to move, I guess. |
It's really not that difficult. As certain crimes no longer become private crimes (like sexual assaults) they are no longer eligible for cash compensation as a means of justice. In the past, people would have gotten huge amounts of cash for being the victims of certain kinds of crimes. Now, there is no incentive for the criminal to pay in those situations. The government could legislate fines to the criminal in addition to jail time, but what happens if the person can't pay? The victim can get nothing.
This insurance scheme would compensate for any real financial loss (time in hospital where you couldn't work, as well as medical bills) and things like therapy after if needed. the victim would no longer need to receive money from the criminal directly and could apply to the insurance agencies to get compensation to take care of their needs. The government could still levy a fine, but have it paid to the insurance companies and let them deal with getting the money out of the person. |
If you're putting it in the hands of the insurance companies, it seems like you're privatizing it rather than the other way around.
As for the insurance companies doing the collecting, what means do they have to force someone to pay?
Would it be fair to say this institutionalizes the concept of blood money? Has anything really changed here? |
only if you don't understand the concept of blood money. The point of blood money was so that with certain crimes instead of going through the court system the victims could arrange their own justice directly with the person committing the offense. Anyone who has an issue with the system clearly has no understanding of it.
The system is completely voluntary and at any point a victim can reject any offer and send them to court. They also aren't limited solely to money as compensation as they could arrange whatever compensation they'd want. They person committing the crime can either accept the offer or take their chances in court. So long as it's applied to the right kind of crimes the system makes a lot of sense and is effective in properly solving issues.
In this case they're giving someone the best of both worlds. The person goes to the courts and the victim can still get compensation, before it was one or the other. |
That makes sense, except for the part about properly solving issues. If you can buy your way out of criminal activity, IMO that's not a proper solution. |
You can, only if the victim allows it. Think about it.
If the crime is very personal in nature, what's gained by locking the person up and having no restitution payed to the victim? Something like property damage. As a victim, would you feel better that the guy who threw a rock through your window bought you a new window and paid to have your house fixed, or would you prefer you paid out of pocket for that, because screw the deductible, and he got a slap on the wrist because that's all you're going to get for a broken window?
Many people misunderstand bloody money and think that if you commit a crime you can just pay $X and get out of it. It doesn't work that way. It only works if the victim first agrees to set terms and if the criminal agrees to meet those terms, and it only works for crimes considered personal crimes.
Crimes which are not personal cannot be settled, they must go to the police and the prosecutor and eventually court.
For some people the idea of justice might involve restitution for themselves rather than simply throwing a guy in jail for a short time. |
For a broken window, sure. You probably know the kid that did it, can talk to his parents about it, have him mow your lawn, etc. But for a teacher who sexually abuses his students, I don't think a payoff is the way to go. But that's just my opinion.
Besides, the victim might agree for a myriad of reasons other than thinking justice is being served.
When is a crime not personal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
For a broken window, sure. You probably know the kid that did it, can talk to his parents about it, have him mow your lawn, etc. But for a teacher who sexually abuses his students, I don't think a payoff is the way to go. But that's just my opinion.
Besides, the victim might agree for a myriad of reasons other than thinking justice is being served.
When is a crime not personal? |
When a crime is committed against several people or it is one of several crimes which are "public interest" public interest crimes are usually more serious crimes like murder. What you feel is justice and what the victim feels is justice may differ greatly. Whatever reason the victim has to make the agreement needs to be considered justice for them for the wrong done to them, otherwise, why make the agreement when they hold all the power?
The government agreed with you and sexual abuse is no longer a private crime, that's one of the reasons that this insurance is being introduced. Previously if the victim, or their family, chose, they could take money which could be used for anything include therapy or the like. Now, that's gone. The person gets referred to the police, but there is no longer any compensation for the victim. With this insurance scheme they will get both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
For a broken window, sure. You probably know the kid that did it, can talk to his parents about it, have him mow your lawn, etc. But for a teacher who sexually abuses his students, I don't think a payoff is the way to go. But that's just my opinion.
Besides, the victim might agree for a myriad of reasons other than thinking justice is being served.
When is a crime not personal? |
When a crime is committed against several people or it is one of several crimes which are "public interest" public interest crimes are usually more serious crimes like murder. What you feel is justice and what the victim feels is justice may differ greatly. Whatever reason the victim has to make the agreement needs to be considered justice for them for the wrong done to them, otherwise, why make the agreement when they hold all the power?
The government agreed with you and sexual abuse is no longer a private crime, that's one of the reasons that this insurance is being introduced. Previously if the victim, or their family, chose, they could take money which could be used for anything include therapy or the like. Now, that's gone. The person gets referred to the police, but there is no longer any compensation for the victim. With this insurance scheme they will get both. |
Since there's evidence of many such crimes being swept under the rug, I thing saying that the victims hold all the power is an overstatement. Then there's the pressure that can be brought to bear on them to accept whatever is offered and remain quiet. As long as they've got the cash, the perpetrator in many cases just skates. Obviously that reduces deterrence.
In some cases, I'm sure it's a reasonable solution. I just think you overstate its effectiveness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
