Pretty simple: the prosecutor pledges not to charge the victim with any crime related to his testimony, and can thus compel said testimony since there is no chance of self-incrimination.
Yup. It's a risky strategy, though. Blanket immunity like that is dangerous. If the dude then gets on the stand and says "yeah, I killed a bunch of people," the DA won't be winning re-election.
That would be awesome though. I would make something up just to be spiteful. "Oh and the DA's mother's body is buried under his porch."
There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.
There is not a societal interest in making sure every crime technically committed is prosecuted, doing so would bankrupt the country (not just monetarily either) which is not in society's best interest. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of the people, not to make sure they behave like perfect little angels at all times in all places.
These posts seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.
Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.
Really? You think we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state?
If I did, I would be arguing in favor of telling them things, which is the line where trust becomes relevant.
What I posted didn't imply that at all. I established that there is a societal interest, and that there is discretion. Much like a police force, prosecutorial discretion is a necessary evil.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.
Why should you have the right to refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding if that testimony will not incriminate you? Doesn't the state's interest in upholding the law outweigh whatever interest you have in avoiding reporters?
How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.
Why should you have the right to refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding if that testimony will not incriminate you? Doesn't the state's interest in upholding the law outweigh whatever interest you have in avoiding reporters?
Sooo.....you're in favor of rescinding the right to privacy? What if your testimony includes details that are likely to get you ostracized from your community? Why should an individual be made to pay the price unwillingly and alone?
Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.
In many jurisdictions, the DA is an elected official. Don't like him? Vote him out.
The District Attorney may be the elected, but the hundreds of Deputy District Attorneys underneath him/her who actually prosecute the crimes sure aren't.
If the cops know or suspect that the victim didn't do anything, they can have the prosecutor immunize the victim, which prevents him from pleading the fifth.
And then the victim goes to jail for not voluntarily putting their entire private life on national TV-news.
No, they go to jail for obstruction of justice. Or are held as a material witness. You do not have the right to refuse to testify unless your testimony would incriminate yourself.
How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.
This very rarely happens outside of people participating in organized crime.
More or less likely than me getting shot in the first place?
Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.
In many jurisdictions, the DA is an elected official. Don't like him? Vote him out.
The District Attorney may be the elected, but the hundreds of Deputy District Attorneys underneath him/her who actually prosecute the crimes sure aren't.
Also I'm not sure how I go about single-handedly voting any public official out of office.
How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.
Why should you have the right to refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding if that testimony will not incriminate you? Doesn't the state's interest in upholding the law outweigh whatever interest you have in avoiding reporters?
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
There is a societal interest in prosecuting crime. There is no possible way for every crime to be prosecuted, so there is a lot of discretion in what gets prosecuted, but hospitals are required to at least report gunshot victims, since it is likely that a crime took place.
There is not a societal interest in making sure every crime technically committed is prosecuted, doing so would bankrupt the country (not just monetarily either) which is not in society's best interest. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of the people, not to make sure they behave like perfect little angels at all times in all places.
These posts seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.
Except that one assumes we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state.
Really? You think we can trust the discretion of people employed by the state?
If I did, I would be arguing in favor of telling them things, which is the line where trust becomes relevant.
What I posted didn't imply that at all. I established that there is a societal interest, and that there is discretion. Much like a police force, prosecutorial discretion is a necessary evil.
What you posted didn't imply that it had to be reported? I must have misunderstood the part where you explicitly stated that it had to be reported.
How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.
Why should you have the right to refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding if that testimony will not incriminate you? Doesn't the state's interest in upholding the law outweigh whatever interest you have in avoiding reporters?
Sooo.....you're in favor of rescinding the right to privacy? What if your testimony includes details that are likely to get you ostracized from your community? Why should an individual be made to pay the price unwillingly and alone?
Because we decided long ago that it was more important to prosecute crime than keep people comfortable. People can be compelled to testify via subpoena, just as it's been for hundreds of years, now. Congress can even do it without charging anyone with a crime (as can most state legislative bodies). It sucks, but it's there.
How does that "No, " make any sense at all? You basically went "No, yes exactly.", which is confusing. I do not legally have the right to opt not to put my entire private life on national TV-news unless I forgo proper medical assistance, I'm aware of that, that's what I'm saying is fucked up.
Why should you have the right to refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding if that testimony will not incriminate you? Doesn't the state's interest in upholding the law outweigh whatever interest you have in avoiding reporters?
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
It's not the only form of incrimination, just the only form of self-incrimination you're constitutionally protected against.
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
You don't have any protection against forced non-legal self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects you with regard to legal action, not any kind of social effect.
TL;DR for this whole argument: You have a responsibility, as part of your citizenship, to testify honestly and fully when subpoenaed by a court or by Congress. It's like jury duty - possibly unpleasant for the individual, but necessary for society.
Matrijs on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Because we decided long ago that it was more important to prosecute crime than keep people comfortable. People can be compelled to testify via subpoena, just as it's been for hundreds of years, now. Congress can even do it without charging anyone with a crime (as can most state legislative bodies). It sucks, but it's there.
Is there any kind of system in place to prevent publication of testimony? Or is it purely by judge discretion?
Because we decided long ago that it was more important to prosecute crime than keep people comfortable. People can be compelled to testify via subpoena, just as it's been for hundreds of years, now. Congress can even do it without charging anyone with a crime (as can most state legislative bodies). It sucks, but it's there.
Is there any kind of system in place to prevent publication of testimony? Or is it purely by judge discretion?
Judicial discretion. I would be amazed if most Democracies didn't have a similar system.
Victims "rights" will always be subject to constitutionally protected rights so I don't think we have to worry about that. The Federal Statute gives a blanket proscription against remedies against the state:
(d)(6) NO CAUSE OF ACTION.--Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for the breach of which the United States or any of its officers or employees could be held liable in damages. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.
This means the only real remedies for a victim are re-sentencing, restitution, and possibly breaking a plea (although I think breaking a plea could be construed to impair prosecutorial discretion).
My biggest problem with the law is the unintended consequence of gumming up the courts. The federal courts are already way understaffed for both political (who knows how many appointments are being held up) and financial reasons.
Edit: Actually, on further thought:
(a)(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
also poses some thorny issues mostly related to the term "clear and convincing" evidence. I don't see how this standard ever gets met in the real world.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
You don't have any protection against forced non-legal self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects you with regard to legal action, not any kind of social effect.
TL;DR for this whole argument: You have a responsibility, as part of your citizenship, to testify honestly and fully when subpoenaed by a court or by Congress. It's like jury duty - possibly unpleasant for the individual, but necessary for society.
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
You don't have any protection against forced non-legal self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects you with regard to legal action, not any kind of social effect.
TL;DR for this whole argument: You have a responsibility, as part of your citizenship, to testify honestly and fully when subpoenaed by a court or by Congress. It's like jury duty - possibly unpleasant for the individual, but necessary for society.
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
You don't have any protection against forced non-legal self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects you with regard to legal action, not any kind of social effect.
TL;DR for this whole argument: You have a responsibility, as part of your citizenship, to testify honestly and fully when subpoenaed by a court or by Congress. It's like jury duty - possibly unpleasant for the individual, but necessary for society.
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
Then don't go to a hospital.
Or argue that the law shouldn't be able to compel people to put themselves or their patients at risk of harm against their will.
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
You don't have any protection against forced non-legal self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects you with regard to legal action, not any kind of social effect.
TL;DR for this whole argument: You have a responsibility, as part of your citizenship, to testify honestly and fully when subpoenaed by a court or by Congress. It's like jury duty - possibly unpleasant for the individual, but necessary for society.
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
Then don't go to a hospital.
Or argue that the law shouldn't be able to compel people to put themselves or their patients at risk of harm against their will.
The good from that far, far outweighs the bad. Like, not even close. It's a bad fucking argument.
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
You don't have any protection against forced non-legal self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects you with regard to legal action, not any kind of social effect.
TL;DR for this whole argument: You have a responsibility, as part of your citizenship, to testify honestly and fully when subpoenaed by a court or by Congress. It's like jury duty - possibly unpleasant for the individual, but necessary for society.
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
Then don't go to a hospital.
Or argue that the law shouldn't be able to compel people to put themselves or their patients at risk of harm against their will.
The good from that far, far outweighs the bad. Like, not even close. It's a bad fucking argument.
I could make the same claim about suspending due-process rights and be just as unable to provide any useful metric of "the good" or "the bad".
Though to be fair I probably wouldn't go to a hospital for any reason anyway. I don't have health insurance, and would rather spend the next 50 years buried in the ground than buried in medical debt.
All three of those stand as much chance of getting the victim killed as getting the attacker put in jail. Because people are opposed to victim's rights like those in Medo's first post. Hence people wanting those protections. Frankly I know better, so all I want is the right to stay the fuck out of the system so long as I'm not suspected of a crime.
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
No, no, no. This is a social contract argument. You accept the protection of police, defense by the military, you use infrastructure built by government. These benefits come with responsibilities - paying taxes, obeying the law, testifying honestly and fully when subpoenaed. If you're a male and the nation came under attack you might be drafted - it's the same sort of thing. There's nothing here that says your citizenship doesn't occasionally require you to expose yourself to harm. Being on a jury is marginally dangerous, too. But you have to do it or the system would break down.
If you don't like it, you have recourse. You can try to get the law changed through the political system or you can renounce your citizenship and leave the country.
All three of those stand as much chance of getting the victim killed as getting the attacker put in jail. Because people are opposed to victim's rights like those in Medo's first post. Hence people wanting those protections. Frankly I know better, so all I want is the right to stay the fuck out of the system so long as I'm not suspected of a crime.
Killing witnesses? Really? That's why we have the Witness Protection Program. There are plenty of programs which protect victims of spousal abuse from their spouses. There's also a government system that takes care of victims of child abuse by separating them from their abusive parents.
The fact of the matter is, murder as revenge for court testimony is extremely rare. If you're worried about that, you should look into whether it's safe for you to drive to work.
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
No, no, no. This is a social contract argument. You accept the protection of police, defense by the military, you use infrastructure built by government. These benefits come with responsibilities - paying taxes, obeying the law, testifying honestly and fully when subpoenaed. If you're a male and the nation came under attack you might be drafted - it's the same sort of thing. There's nothing here that says your citizenship doesn't occasionally require you to expose yourself to harm. Being on a jury is marginally dangerous, too. But you have to do it or the system would break down.
If you don't like it, you have recourse. You can try to get the law changed through the political system or you can renounce your citizenship and leave the country.
Hey you know what happens to a contract after one party fails to provide the agreed-upon services?
Hey you know what happens to a contract after one party fails to provide the agreed-upon services?
You sue. Too bad the government is holding up its end of the bargain and providing police services, defense, infrastructure, etc., etc. Otherwise this might be a good point.
Killing witnesses? Really? That's why we have the Witness Protection Program. There are plenty of programs which protect victims of spousal abuse from their spouses.
The witness protection program of course pretty much requires that you abandon your entire life, which hey there's no way that could be construed as harm, and to the latter yeah you can get pretty adequate protection provided you're well-off financially or at least live in a nice neighborhood. I'm not aware of any programs like that operating in the projects or anything though.
The fact of the matter is, murder as revenge for court testimony is extremely rare. If you're worried about that, you should look into whether it's safe for you to drive to work.
Oh I'm not worried about those things. I'm not in a position of any real risk at all. Which of course makes it make even less sense for me to publicize my life for the sake of getting back at someone who in all likelihood, given what and where I am, managed to get like a buck fifty in change off me and cut me a bit. So not worth it.
Hey you know what happens to a contract after one party fails to provide the agreed-upon services?
You sue. Too bad the government is holding up its end of the bargain and providing police services, defense, infrastructure, etc., etc. Otherwise this might be a good point.
I'm sorry are you using the system to justify itself? You do know that that doesn't work out logically, right? No, what happens to a contract when one party fails to provide the agreed upon services is that it's void. The reason you sue is so that the state can verify that the services were indeed not rendered and that those services that were rendered were paid for. You can't rationally expect me to let the state judge itself as to how well it's held to the social contract, because then the state is allowed to merely serve itself at our expense instead of doing its fucking job.
Killing witnesses? Really? That's why we have the Witness Protection Program. There are plenty of programs which protect victims of spousal abuse from their spouses.
The witness protection program of course pretty much requires that you abandon your entire life, which hey there's no way that could be construed as harm, and to the latter yeah you can get pretty adequate protection provided you're well-off financially or at least live in a nice neighborhood. I'm not aware of any programs like that operating in the projects or anything though.
Well, when telling nobody magically makes it better, let me know. Everything I've heard suggests that not pressing charges is much more likely to result in bodily harm/death than pressing charges.
The fact of the matter is, murder as revenge for court testimony is extremely rare. If you're worried about that, you should look into whether it's safe for you to drive to work.
Oh I'm not worried about those things. I'm not in a position of any real risk at all. Which of course makes it make even less sense for me to publicize my life for the sake of getting back at someone who in all likelihood, given what and where I am, managed to get like a buck fifty in change off me and cut me a bit. So not worth it.
Some guy took your buck fifty in change and cut you? I thought we were talking about a crime somebody in the news media would care about. You make it sound like the paparazzi are going to fly helicopters around your house if you tell the cops some guy tried to mug you. Get real. Nobody gives a shit about everyday crime. At most, if your case is unusual (which it almost certainly wouldn't be), you might get a phone call from your local newspaper. Oh no. Hang up. Problem solved.
Hey you know what happens to a contract after one party fails to provide the agreed-upon services?
You sue. Too bad the government is holding up its end of the bargain and providing police services, defense, infrastructure, etc., etc. Otherwise this might be a good point.
I'm sorry are you using the system to justify itself? You do know that that doesn't work out logically, right? No, what happens to a contract when one party fails to provide the agreed upon services is that it's void. The reason you sue is so that the state can verify that the services were indeed not rendered and that those services that were rendered were paid for. You can't rationally expect me to let the state judge itself as to how well it's held to the social contract, because then the state is allowed to merely serve itself at our expense instead of doing its fucking job.
If you really think the state isn't doing its job and you could do better somewhere else, you have recourse. Sure, you can't sue, but you can "declare the contract void" by renouncing your citizenship and moving to whatever utopia you prefer.
What you can't do is refuse to hold up your end of the bargain while demanding that the government still protect you from threats both domestic and foreign, build and maintain public infrastructure, etc., etc.
Hey you know what happens to a contract after one party fails to provide the agreed-upon services?
You sue. Too bad the government is holding up its end of the bargain and providing police services, defense, infrastructure, etc., etc. Otherwise this might be a good point.
I'm sorry are you using the system to justify itself? You do know that that doesn't work out logically, right? No, what happens to a contract when one party fails to provide the agreed upon services is that it's void. The reason you sue is so that the state can verify that the services were indeed not rendered and that those services that were rendered were paid for. You can't rationally expect me to let the state judge itself as to how well it's held to the social contract, because then the state is allowed to merely serve itself at our expense instead of doing its fucking job.
If you really think the state isn't doing its job and you could do better somewhere else, you have recourse. Sure, you can't sue, but you can "declare the contract void" by renouncing your citizenship and moving to whatever utopia you prefer.
What you can't do is refuse to hold up your end of the bargain while demanding that the government still protect you from threats both domestic and foreign, build and maintain public infrastructure, etc., etc.
I paid my taxes, I get to keep my public infrastructure. I don't think they defend me from any threats foreign or domestic though. Seriously the minute I start talking outside of codified statutes you end up in Albequerue.
I paid my taxes, I get to keep my public infrastructure. I don't think they defend me from any threats foreign or domestic though. Seriously the minute I start talking outside of codified statutes you end up in Albequerue.
Do you really think we'd be safer without police? How about without a military? Also, how do you propose that government deny you (and only you!) the services of the police and the military? Seems to me you get all or most of the benefits (particularly deterrence) without any of the related costs.
In any case, you don't get to choose. Citizenship is a package deal. It's not a la carte. Take it or leave it.
That's not to say the deal can't change. It can - through the political process.
I paid my taxes, I get to keep my public infrastructure. I don't think they defend me from any threats foreign or domestic though. Seriously the minute I start talking outside of codified statutes you end up in Albequerue.
Do you really think we'd be safer without police? How about without a military? Also, how do you propose that government deny you (and only you!) the services of the police and the military? Seems to me you get all or most of the benefits (particularly deterrence) without any of the related costs.
In any case, you don't get to choose. Citizenship is a package deal. It's not a la carte. Take it or leave it.
That's not to say the deal can't change. It can - through the political process.
Which is exactly to say the deal can't change because legally the state does decide whether it has held to the social-contract. They're not paying for my hospital visit if I go to the hospital (which, hey, is because the police didn't happen to stop someone from shooting/stabbing me), why should they profit from it?
VC, you have made it clear over the course of your postings here and in other threads you are incredibly disenchanted with out criminal justice system, past all reason.
What the hell do you propose that'll be better? Get rid of the innocent until proven guilty idea? Just beat up the people you think are probably bad? What?
Posts
Cute.
? I thought it was a pretty good example of what was being discussed - the dangers of granting immunity in return for testimony against a defendant.
Why should you have the right to refuse to testify in a criminal proceeding if that testimony will not incriminate you? Doesn't the state's interest in upholding the law outweigh whatever interest you have in avoiding reporters?
No I mean she's cute. As in attractive.
Sooo.....you're in favor of rescinding the right to privacy? What if your testimony includes details that are likely to get you ostracized from your community? Why should an individual be made to pay the price unwillingly and alone?
The District Attorney may be the elected, but the hundreds of Deputy District Attorneys underneath him/her who actually prosecute the crimes sure aren't.
More or less likely than me getting shot in the first place?
Also I'm not sure how I go about single-handedly voting any public official out of office.
You seem to think that legal incrimination is the only form of incrimination. Allow me to introduce you to the world that exists outside of law-books.
What you posted didn't imply that it had to be reported? I must have misunderstood the part where you explicitly stated that it had to be reported.
You don't have any protection against forced non-legal self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects you with regard to legal action, not any kind of social effect.
TL;DR for this whole argument: You have a responsibility, as part of your citizenship, to testify honestly and fully when subpoenaed by a court or by Congress. It's like jury duty - possibly unpleasant for the individual, but necessary for society.
Is there any kind of system in place to prevent publication of testimony? Or is it purely by judge discretion?
This means the only real remedies for a victim are re-sentencing, restitution, and possibly breaking a plea (although I think breaking a plea could be construed to impair prosecutorial discretion).
My biggest problem with the law is the unintended consequence of gumming up the courts. The federal courts are already way understaffed for both political (who knows how many appointments are being held up) and financial reasons.
Edit: Actually, on further thought: also poses some thorny issues mostly related to the term "clear and convincing" evidence. I don't see how this standard ever gets met in the real world.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And as the state doesn't give a shit about me I'm no sure why I should expose myself to harm to help it do something I don't particularly want done. Or at least don't want done badly enough to needlessly expose myself to further harm.
Or argue that the law shouldn't be able to compel people to put themselves or their patients at risk of harm against their will.
You've hit on what games theorists, economists and whatnot call the "free rider" problem.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I could make the same claim about suspending due-process rights and be just as unable to provide any useful metric of "the good" or "the bad".
All three of those stand as much chance of getting the victim killed as getting the attacker put in jail. Because people are opposed to victim's rights like those in Medo's first post. Hence people wanting those protections. Frankly I know better, so all I want is the right to stay the fuck out of the system so long as I'm not suspected of a crime.
No, no, no. This is a social contract argument. You accept the protection of police, defense by the military, you use infrastructure built by government. These benefits come with responsibilities - paying taxes, obeying the law, testifying honestly and fully when subpoenaed. If you're a male and the nation came under attack you might be drafted - it's the same sort of thing. There's nothing here that says your citizenship doesn't occasionally require you to expose yourself to harm. Being on a jury is marginally dangerous, too. But you have to do it or the system would break down.
If you don't like it, you have recourse. You can try to get the law changed through the political system or you can renounce your citizenship and leave the country.
Killing witnesses? Really? That's why we have the Witness Protection Program. There are plenty of programs which protect victims of spousal abuse from their spouses. There's also a government system that takes care of victims of child abuse by separating them from their abusive parents.
The fact of the matter is, murder as revenge for court testimony is extremely rare. If you're worried about that, you should look into whether it's safe for you to drive to work.
Hey you know what happens to a contract after one party fails to provide the agreed-upon services?
You sue. Too bad the government is holding up its end of the bargain and providing police services, defense, infrastructure, etc., etc. Otherwise this might be a good point.
The witness protection program of course pretty much requires that you abandon your entire life, which hey there's no way that could be construed as harm, and to the latter yeah you can get pretty adequate protection provided you're well-off financially or at least live in a nice neighborhood. I'm not aware of any programs like that operating in the projects or anything though.
Yeah I've heard wonderful things about foster-care.
Oh I'm not worried about those things. I'm not in a position of any real risk at all. Which of course makes it make even less sense for me to publicize my life for the sake of getting back at someone who in all likelihood, given what and where I am, managed to get like a buck fifty in change off me and cut me a bit. So not worth it.
I'm sorry are you using the system to justify itself? You do know that that doesn't work out logically, right? No, what happens to a contract when one party fails to provide the agreed upon services is that it's void. The reason you sue is so that the state can verify that the services were indeed not rendered and that those services that were rendered were paid for. You can't rationally expect me to let the state judge itself as to how well it's held to the social contract, because then the state is allowed to merely serve itself at our expense instead of doing its fucking job.
Well, when telling nobody magically makes it better, let me know. Everything I've heard suggests that not pressing charges is much more likely to result in bodily harm/death than pressing charges.
Again, this is a no-brainer. Let's see, I can go back to my abusive parents or take a chance on foster care. Hmm.
Some guy took your buck fifty in change and cut you? I thought we were talking about a crime somebody in the news media would care about. You make it sound like the paparazzi are going to fly helicopters around your house if you tell the cops some guy tried to mug you. Get real. Nobody gives a shit about everyday crime. At most, if your case is unusual (which it almost certainly wouldn't be), you might get a phone call from your local newspaper. Oh no. Hang up. Problem solved.
If you really think the state isn't doing its job and you could do better somewhere else, you have recourse. Sure, you can't sue, but you can "declare the contract void" by renouncing your citizenship and moving to whatever utopia you prefer.
What you can't do is refuse to hold up your end of the bargain while demanding that the government still protect you from threats both domestic and foreign, build and maintain public infrastructure, etc., etc.
I paid my taxes, I get to keep my public infrastructure. I don't think they defend me from any threats foreign or domestic though. Seriously the minute I start talking outside of codified statutes you end up in Albequerue.
Do you really think we'd be safer without police? How about without a military? Also, how do you propose that government deny you (and only you!) the services of the police and the military? Seems to me you get all or most of the benefits (particularly deterrence) without any of the related costs.
In any case, you don't get to choose. Citizenship is a package deal. It's not a la carte. Take it or leave it.
That's not to say the deal can't change. It can - through the political process.
Which is exactly to say the deal can't change because legally the state does decide whether it has held to the social-contract. They're not paying for my hospital visit if I go to the hospital (which, hey, is because the police didn't happen to stop someone from shooting/stabbing me), why should they profit from it?
What the hell do you propose that'll be better? Get rid of the innocent until proven guilty idea? Just beat up the people you think are probably bad? What?