Judicial priorities: Possessions over people

[Skandi]

Came across this while being bored on Yahoo.



he would have served a smaller sentence for assaulting a man than Aaron Billington will for damaging a car.


It's no secret that our laws are centred on possessions more than people but these examples just highlight how wrong they can be. Why is the legal system still deeming crime against people a lower priority than crimes against material objects?


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/editors_corner/article/25504/
Should posessions be worth more than people in the eyes of the law? Or are people more valuable, one is an inanimate object, but the other heals.

[anonymaus]

It's no secret that our laws are centred on possessions more than people

Thankfully you quoted this for us! Since it was buried at the bottom of the article, I would have read all the way down there before getting a clear picture of how silly this man is.

Laws in the Western world are based on property, and they are necessary for the protection of our right to life (property being the product of it in one way or another). The author is describing the problem incorrectly, and is completely missing the point.

I agree that the UK has a serious problem in its legal valuation of human life, and that it discourages self-defense in every meaningful way -- including defense of property -- but this is not indicative of a love of 'things' over people.

The nanny-state mentality pervasive on that island is responsible for these judicial pitfalls and has, over a couple of very short decades, rendered English law all but unrecognizable to those (philosophers esp.) whose ideas had nurtured and supported it for centuries.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Both sentences seem way too light. Those particular cases seem more to do with the legal system's treatment pop-culture celebrities, the guy in the assault case was apparently the husband of some kind of celebrity. Some kind of actress or singer, idk, but part-black I guess (panf used to have a bunch of threads about her)

I think the problem in general is more a promotion of state property/persons over personal/individual property and persons. For example, you will get a much higher sentence for victimless crimes such as tax evasion and manufacture/distribution of certain substances (drugs), engaging in various activities without a license (driving, gun ownership, certain professions). Violating all of those laws will get you much more time in prison than many assaults, vandalisms, and thefts.

Even the hyperactive overreaction of modern governments against self defense could be seen as an objection to the government's monopoly of 'law enforcement'.