Post by: Ben on August 11, 2007, 05:39:34 AM
-------------------------
Woman Must Forfeit $1 Million Jackpot
AP
Posted: 2007-08-10 19:23:14
Filed Under: Crime News, Nation News
MEDFORD, Ore. (Aug. 10) - A judge ruled that a woman who used a stolen credit card to buy a winning scratch-it ticket has no right to the $1 million prize.
Jackson County Judge Ray White ruled Thursday that the winnings were the proceeds of illegal activity and must be forfeited under Oregon law.
Prosecutors say Christina Goodenow of White City used a credit card that belonged to her then-boyfriend's dead mother to buy the lucky lottery ticket at a market in Central Point in October 2005.
Goodenow asked lottery officials to keep her win quiet, claiming to be a victim of domestic violence. But police learned of the crime about two weeks later as Goodenow continued to use the stolen credit card.
The Oregon Lottery had already paid Goodenow $33,500, the first of 20 annual payouts. She spent the majority of the money, including a big chunk that went to pay off nearly $12,000 owed on the credit card.
Goodenow, who pleaded no contest to forgery, cheating and aggravated theft, maintains she bought the winning ticket with cash from her own pocket. Goodenow said she plans to appeal.
Besides stripping Goodenow of her winnings, the judge sentenced Goodenow to a month in jail. But White gave her credit for the six months she served earlier this year for possessing methamphetamine.
Goodenow must spend two years on probation.
Post by: Devonai on August 11, 2007, 05:41:55 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 11, 2007, 05:52:46 AM
Doesn't matter if she "paid" back the money. She still stole and used the credit card.
Post by: Vile Nylons on August 11, 2007, 06:00:01 AM
Post by: Devonai on August 11, 2007, 06:05:19 AM
The ends rarely justify the means, but sometimes the outcome can't be ignored. Who was harmed by the theft? What were the damages? What is the appropriate punishment? What's the appropriate compensation?
"You are hereby ordered to pay off the balance of the credit card. Wait a minute, you did that before you were caught. Well, uh, don't do it again! I mean the stealing part."
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 11, 2007, 06:18:14 AM
Post by: Devonai on August 11, 2007, 08:35:02 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 11, 2007, 09:26:59 AM
Quote
MEDFORD, Ore. (Aug. 10) - A judge ruled that a woman who used a stolen credit card to buy a winning scratch-it ticket has no right to the $1 million prize.
Karma's a b**ch sometimes.
Post by: Standing Wolf on August 11, 2007, 01:27:25 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 11, 2007, 06:41:07 PM
Doesn't matter if she "paid" back the money. She still stole and used the credit card.
Well, that's an interesting question. Under libertarian law (as opposed to US law), if I steal money and use it to buy the car, the one I robbed has a claim against me, but the one who sold me the car does not. The victim might win a money judgment against me, or he might convince the judge to transfer the car to him, or to compel me to return it so as to repay what I stole. But that's all between me and my victim. The car dealer isn't actually involved.
Similarly, if I steal a dollar from you, use it to buy a raffle ticket, and then win a Harley, guess what? I owe you a dollar. Unless the raffle contract makes provision for such a case, the guy running the raffle has no claim against me whatsoever. The Harley is still mine, and you aren't entitled to the raffle ticket or the Harley--only to your dollar back (plus interest, recovery costs, etc.). I didn't steal a Harley from you; I stole a dollar from you.
In this case, the "victim" is the boyfriend's dead mother, who of course is in no position to press charges--and besides, was apparently repaid what was stolen. The boyfriend might count as a victim depending on the nature of his inheritance from his mother. The credit card issuer is probably the victim of fraud by the terms of the credit contract. But since the bill was repaid, neither they nor the boyfriend have any claim against her (beyond interest and recovery costs). And finally, the lottery has no claim at all; there is almost certainly no contractual provision for them to take the winnings back under these circumstances. The winning ticket was bought by the woman, and where she got the money is between her and her victim(s).
So it seems to me that justice requires that she pay off the credit card, reimburse the issuer for any costs associated with her fraudulent use of the card, repay the boyfriend for any costs her actions have imposed on him--and keep her lottery winnings. Most people would insist--without even thinking about it--that she should be stripped of the winnings and just generally smacked around a bit. That's also my first reaction, but when I think about it I'm rather torn on the question.
What leaves me torn can be illustrated with the raffle. Suppose that I stole a dollar and spent it on an unusual raffle: instead of getting a Harley or nothing, buyers of a raffle ticket either win $1,000,000,, or else have their right kneecap shattered by a thug. A handful of hardy souls want that billion so badly that they're willing to take the risk, and I'm one of them. But since I don't have a dollar, I steal one from you. Now, if I win, everyone would probably agree you should get the billion because "it was your dollar." But if I lose, nobody would agree that you should get your kneecap shattered because "it was your dollar." So if you get all the reward and none of the risk, it must not be true that using your dollar made it your ticket, and you aren't really entitled to whatever comes out of it.
--Len.
Post by: Bigjake on August 11, 2007, 07:39:37 PM
Quote
The winning ticket was bought by the woman, and where she got the money is between her and her victim(s).
you missed the point. what she did was ILLEGAL, a CRIME. (not to mention, a shitty thing to do, no matter if she paid the CC balance or not.) do you honestly think she would've paid it had the ticket been a loser?
equivocate all you want, it's still morally and legally wrong.
Post by: Len Budney on August 12, 2007, 04:12:08 AM
you missed the point. what she did was ILLEGAL, a CRIME. (not to mention, a shitty thing to do, no matter if she paid the CC balance or not.) do you honestly think she would've paid it had the ticket been a loser?
That's right. All of what you say is true. But the crime in this case was stealing a dollar, and the penalty for stealing a dollar is not $1M.
Lots of people do immoral, crappy things. The world is full of jackasses. But the fact that they're contemptible, vile, low-down people doesn't make them fair game for whatever revenge we cook up in our heads. They can still only be punished for their actual crimes. Lots of jackasses do enough immoral things that karma says they should come back as a genital wart for it. But unfortunately, we aren't karma. We can only punish the actual crimes. We can't take vengeance on them for just generally being anal orifices.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 12, 2007, 12:20:13 PM
Yep, and that's what's happening here. She's being punished for a crime.
Do you actually think that a burglar is allowed to keep the crap he's pilfered when he's caught in an apartment of stolen goods?
That's essentially the case here. She's trying to profit from an illegal activity, and virtually ever state has laws that prevent criminals from profiting from the illegal activities.
In other words, the proceeds (the lottery winnings) were the fruit of an illegal activity. Therefore they are subject to forfeiture as the proceeds of an illegal activity.
I see no problem at all.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 12, 2007, 12:28:26 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 12, 2007, 12:42:57 PM
"They can still only be punished for their actual crimes."
Yep, and that's what's happening here. She's being punished for a crime.
Do you actually think that a burglar is allowed to keep the crap he's pilfered when he's caught in an apartment of stolen goods?
Yep, and that's what's happening here. She's being punished for a crime.
Do you actually think that a burglar is allowed to keep the crap he's pilfered when he's caught in an apartment of stolen goods?
She didn't steal a million dollars. She stole ONE dollar. (In connection with the lottery, that is. According to the article, she seems to have stolen about $12K in transactions having nothing to do with the lottery.)
She's a contemptible human being, if the report is doing her justice. But being a contemptible human being is not punishable with a million-dollar fine. And neither is stealing $1.
Quote
That's essentially the case here. She's trying to profit from an illegal activity, and virtually ever state has laws that prevent criminals from profiting from the illegal activities.
That's the interesting issue. There's good logic behind the principle that the criminal shouldn't profit from his crime; profiting from crime is an incentive to commit it.
On the other hand, I suspect the logical case is not our main reason for wanting her stripped of the money: it's simple vengeance. I'd consider it karmic justice if this lady lost all her money, or caught a rare disease, or was robbed by her boyfriend. But I'd also like to see Paris Hilton reduced to flipping burgers simply because she's a contemptible skank and I think karma owes her at least that much of a comeuppance--but unfortunately it isn't a crime to be a contemptible skank. Vengeance isn't justice, and we do need to be careful not to use "justice" as a fig-leaf for vengeance.
On the issue of justice, we note that "profiting from crime" is a broad notion. It's most often enforced to prevent criminals from writing a book about their crimes--but it didn't prevent G Gordon Liddy from profiting from his autobiography, which centers on his Watergate burglary. If they did strip him of the proceeds of that book, there's the fact that he hosts a radio show. His fame stems from Watergate, so shouldn't he be prevented by law from making any money from radio or television acting? Clinton's autobiography covered the actions that led to his perjury conviction and disbarment, so at least some of the proceeds should have been garnished on that basis. There are former drug lords who, after finishing their prison terms, went to work for major corporations--specifically claiming that their drug-smuggling experience made them expert in international trade law. And so on.
In general, there's no way to fairly and impartially enforce a law that "the criminal may not profit from his crime." That being the case, it's debatable that such a law should exist at all. The obvious cases where a rule like that makes sense--such as life insurance--can cover it contractually without needing any special law. They can, should and do specify right in their policies that a beneficiary is disqualified by any guilty involvement in the insured's death. The lottery can do make a similar rule if they wish. So we can accomplish the desired goal without making laws that are impossible to enforce fairly.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 12, 2007, 01:25:41 PM
The legal issues at hand are not.
Do I personally want to see someone profit from illegal activites? No.
Do I personally want to see the criminal lose any profits he/she might have acquired from their illegal activities?
Yes.
Does that make me vengeful?
No.
That makes me someone who believes that criminals should NEVER be rewarded for their activities, no matter how small of a reward there would be.
I suspect that you'll find that that sentiment is exactly what is driving the other posters to this thread, as well.
"I'd consider it karmic justice if this lady lost all her money..."
That sentiment alone could make it seem as if you are being vengeful.
"but it didn't prevent G Gordon Liddy from profiting from his autobiography"
At the time that Liddy wrote his book there were no laws to prevent him from doing so. In part because of his earnings laws were passed, and have been upheld in court, to prevent exactly that. Liddy essentially exploited a loophole in the law.
"In general, there's no way to fairly and impartially enforce a law that "the criminal may not profit from his crime."
This is, however, not a general instance. It's a very specific scenario for which laws have already been written.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 12, 2007, 01:42:55 PM
Quote
She didn't steal a million dollars.
She bought the ticket with stolen money. The ticket doesn't belong to her, so she cannot keep the lottery money. End of story. It is that simple. She is not being fined 1 million dollars, she is being made to return one million dollars that does not belong to her. She was awarded the money under false pretenses.
Post by: K Frame on August 12, 2007, 01:50:50 PM
Oh, what the hell...
+1
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 12, 2007, 02:38:39 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 12, 2007, 03:34:32 PM
Post by: K Frame on August 12, 2007, 07:22:28 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 13, 2007, 01:58:52 PM
Post by: Antibubba on August 14, 2007, 09:15:05 PM
Quote
possessing methamphetamine.
--that should go a great distance in explaining things.So here's another legal question: Why would the dead woman's heirs not have a valid claim to the lottery winnings?
Post by: LadySmith on August 15, 2007, 12:22:07 AM
Post by: griz on August 15, 2007, 05:08:01 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 10:18:35 AM
Our feelings on the issue are immaterial.
Agreed. That's why I'm second-guessing my own feelings on the matter: my feelings not only suggest that the woman should be stripped of her winnings, but horsewhipped and otherwise publicly humiliated.Quote
Do I personally want to see someone profit from illegal activites? No.
Do I personally want to see the criminal lose any profits he/she might have acquired from their illegal activities? Yes.
100% agreed.Do I personally want to see the criminal lose any profits he/she might have acquired from their illegal activities? Yes.
However, I've pointed out that in general it's impossible to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. I mentioned G Gordon Liddy, convicted of the Watergate break-in, and Bill Clinton, convicted of perjury. Sometimes, of course, we can do something about it. But the fact that we can't apply such a law uniformly does give me pause.
Quote
Does that make me vengeful? No.
I believe you; that's a question only you can answer. I think my own instincts on the matter are definitely of the vengeful sort. I also have a vengeful predilection for staking drivers to anthills who create snarlups by hitting their brakes for no reason during rush hour.Quote
That makes me someone who believes that criminals should NEVER be rewarded for their activities, no matter how small of a reward there would be. I suspect that you'll find that that sentiment is exactly what is driving the other posters to this thread, as well.
I'm sure; it's my own sentiment as well. I agree with you. I'm unconvinced concerning this woman's lottery winnings, but my sentiments want to kick sand in my own face for even expressing doubt.Quote
"I'd consider it karmic justice if this lady lost all her money..." That sentiment alone could make it seem as if you are being vengeful.
I am. I admit it. I'd like to see bad drivers smash into phone poles, too.Quote
"but it didn't prevent G Gordon Liddy from profiting from his autobiography"
At the time that Liddy wrote his book there were no laws to prevent him from doing so. In part because of his earnings laws were passed, and have been upheld in court, to prevent exactly that. Liddy essentially exploited a loophole in the law.
Didn't know that--thanks for the info!At the time that Liddy wrote his book there were no laws to prevent him from doing so. In part because of his earnings laws were passed, and have been upheld in court, to prevent exactly that. Liddy essentially exploited a loophole in the law.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 15, 2007, 10:31:48 AM
Say my neighbor legally buys all the material needed for a house, then steals my hammer and saw to build the house. When he gets caught, to whom does the house belong?
Silly question. The house belongs to him.
Your recourse is to demand your hammer back, or demand compensation for your hammer.
Given that his building materials were obtained legally, you have no rightful claim to them or the finished product.
If, however, he stole the materials and the hammer from you, it becomes a much different situation.
Post by: K Frame on August 15, 2007, 10:36:27 AM
Which is where the entire concept of judicial punishment comes in.
Often it is impossible to prevent a criminal from profiting from a crime, at least temporarily.
Say, for example, a clerk embezzles $10,000 from her employer while legally employed there, and then spends the money before it's found missing.
She's profited from her illegal activites.
At that point it becomes a two-part question -- what will the state do to her for her crimes, and what additional legal recourse might her company have?
In cases such as these, the individual can be sentenced to jail AND saddled with a judgement for the amount embezzled, plus fines and court costs, to be paid out of future earnings.
If the court doesn't do that, the employer could also bring a civil suit against the employee to obtain a judgement.
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 10:48:47 AM
"However, I've pointed out that in general it's impossible to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes."
Which is where the entire concept of judicial punishment comes in.
Right. But if you believe in restorative justice (raises hand) then "punishment" is mostly off the table. You can force the bad guy to make restitution, plus pay any costs brought on as a result of his crime, but you can't toss in a flogging or incarceration just to "teach him a lesson." It makes precisely such cases as this one, a little tricky.Which is where the entire concept of judicial punishment comes in.
Quote
Say, for example, a clerk embezzles $10,000 from her employer while legally employed there, and then spends the money before it's found missing. She's profited from her illegal activites.
That's a case where restorative justice actually has an edge: she can be held liable for the whole $10K. It can be recovered by attaching her wages, confiscating her property, or potentially by commitment to a work program analogous to jail with labor. But one way or another, the victim is entitled to it. Our judicial system will do its darndest to punish the thief, but will do nothing whatsoever to compensate the victim (although compensation can be sought through civil court). Restorative justice is about compensating the victim, using force against the thief if necessary.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 15, 2007, 10:56:32 AM
If anything it makes this case far easier.
We already know that the winnings had their foundation in an illegal act.
Because of that, any potential profit to her is out the window; the logical recipient of the lottery winnings is the dead woman's estate.
We're right back to square one.
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 11:06:28 AM
"It makes precisely such cases as this one, a little tricky."
If anything it makes this case far easier.
We already know that the winnings had their foundation in an illegal act.
Because of that, any potential profit to her is out the window; the logical recipient of the lottery winnings is the dead woman's estate.
We're right back to square one.
Restorative justice doesn't allow the victim to claim more than they've been robbed of (plus administrative overhead). The victim wasn't robbed of a million bucks, and so isn't entitled to a million bucks.If anything it makes this case far easier.
We already know that the winnings had their foundation in an illegal act.
Because of that, any potential profit to her is out the window; the logical recipient of the lottery winnings is the dead woman's estate.
We're right back to square one.
The most just solution I can suggest at this point is for the lottery to act as if the ticket were never purchased. I.e., they can at their discretion refuse to pay the woman, and they can, again at their discretion, give the money to the dead woman's estate if they so please. This satisfies justice from every direction I can see, with only one loose end: since the lottery commission didn't spell any of this out by contract, it's open to argument whether they are defaulting on their contract with the ticket holder in this case.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2007, 12:15:03 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 12:24:02 PM
The article says that the woman already received a portion of the winnings. No contract should be needed here.
If the lottery is justified in revoking her winnings, then she becomes liable for the portion she received. If they're not, then the money she received was hers, and they owe her the rest of it.Quote
Again, the money is not hers because the ticket does not belong to her...
If you steal $0.50, buy a banana with it, and eat the banana, you robbed the owner of the $0.50, but you didn't rob the grocery store. The $0.50 wasn't yours, and now you owe the owner $0.50 plus overhead, but the banana was yours and the grocery store can't prosecute you for banana theft.--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 15, 2007, 12:30:33 PM
Quote
but the banana was yours and the grocery store can't prosecute you for banana theft.
Try buying a gun, a car, or a house with stolen money and see how far that argument gets you.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 01:11:31 PM
Try buying a gun, a car, or a house with stolen money and see how far that argument gets you.
US law is not indicative of libertarian law. Items purchased with stolen money would at least be seized "as evidence" under US law. The government has broad powers to confiscate. So the fact that it would confiscate doesn't really speak to the property rights involved.
If I steal the price of a house, and buy the house, I'm liable under libertarian law for the money I stole plus overhead (which includes, at minimum, collection, investigation and enforcement costs). If I have the money, and fork it over, then nobody can touch the house--it's mine. If I don't have the money, then different outcomes are possible, depending on the nature of contracts involving me, my victim, our respective insurers, our respective defense agencies, etc. It's likely that the house would be seized by or on behalf of the victim, to be applied toward the judgment against me. But that's a foreclosure, not an example of law "barring profit from crime." It's a seizure of assets to pay a debt. If I hadn't bought the house, but instead used the stolen money to buy dinner at the world's most expensive restaurant, my house could still be seized in order to pay the judgment against me.
In general, however, it would not be legal to force the seller of the house to refund the money. This illustrates that the transaction is deemed legitimate, even if the property is then seized in payment.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 15, 2007, 01:31:12 PM
Quote
In general, however, it would not be legal to force the seller of the house to refund the money.
Not according to federal court. In the case of Jonathan D. (Jody) Nelson (embezzled 77 million from Patterson-UTI) Nelson was found guilty of the crime and liable for damages. The federal court, in seizing his assets, also forced his wife and wife's attorney to refund all the monies already awarded to her in a divorce settlement. Using your argument, the monies that had changed hands would have been hers and hers alone.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 02:07:55 PM
Quote
In general, however, it would not be legal to force the seller of the house to refund the money.
Not according to federal court. In the case of Jonathan D. (Jody) Nelson (embezzled 77 million from Patterson-UTI) Nelson was found guilty of the crime and liable for damages. The federal court, in seizing his assets, also forced his wife and wife's attorney to refund all the monies already awarded to her in a divorce settlement. Using your argument, the monies that had changed hands would have been hers and hers alone.
Remember, I'm talking about libertarian law, not US law. If a man is judged to owe his ex-wife $X, and is also judged to owe his robbery victim $Y, there might arise a dispute over whose claim is senior; I can imagine that a payment to the ex-wife might be ordered redirected to the robbery victim. In general, however, the payments to the ex-wife are hers, and the payments to the robbery victim are his, and neither can confiscate the monies paid the other.
I suspect that in the case you mention there's an additional wrinkle: if the man had no assets apart from stolen money, then the court award of part of those assets to the wife would be in error, and the judgment would be overturned. She would then have to cough up the money because it wasn't hers. If you like, you can say that by dividing the spoils she became a party to the crime, and therefore owed the victim restitution to the extent of her participation.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 02:10:56 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 03:58:35 PM
This 'libertarian law' (whatever it is) seems to be shallow and limited. It apparently carries no penalty for crime...
It's naturally difficult to get a full picture from passing references. Libertarian law only considers crimes in which harm is inflicted on a person or property. Victimless "crimes" don't exist, so the idea of "punishing" them is less important than you realize. US law "punishes" people for violating rules, such as: not wearing seat belts; smoking marijuana; cutting hair without a license; etc. There are no such crimes under libertarian law. There are only harms against a person, like assault, murder or rape, or against property, like theft, vandalism or trespassing. The job of the justice system is to make the injured party whole again, at the expense of the criminal.
Quote
What about crimes where 'restorative justice' is impossible? Rape, assault, murder, etc.?
As you might imagine, that's an area of active discussion. Some, including me, would argue that the murderer has waived his right not to be murdered--so in effect, anyone can kill a murderer with impunity. However, anyone who kills a murderer must be prepared to prove it was a murderer, or else others are justified in deeming him a murderer, and as I've noted, anyone can kill a murderer... And before you say it, that doesn't lead to chaos; it leads to an orderly private judicial system. People are intelligent enough to grasp that feuds are expensive and dangerous, and will adopt mutually-agreed conflict resolution.
In the case of rape and assault, some restoration is indeed possible. At the very least, all medical bills, including psychological counseling, will be paid by the criminal. Any wages lost as a result of the attack would also be owed by the perp. Measures like replacing locks, installing security, etc., can also be billed to the perp. Instead of facing anything from a slap on the wrist to a couple years in jail, the assailant would face expenses ranging from a few hundred to millions of dollars. The victim receives compensation, unlike our system which takes vengeance on the criminal but leaves the victim hanging. And the taxpayer pays nothing under libertarian law, whereas today he pays literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars per criminal.
Not a perfect system, by any means, and there are still unsolved questions within it--but it's not nearly as bad as it sounds on first brush, and it compares favorably with what we've got now.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 15, 2007, 04:38:16 PM
Quote
In the case of rape and assault, some restoration is indeed possible. At the very least, all medical bills, including psychological counseling, will be paid by the criminal. Any wages lost as a result of the attack would also be owed by the perp. Measures like replacing locks, installing security, etc., can also be billed to the perp. Instead of facing anything from a slap on the wrist to a couple years in jail, the assailant would face expenses ranging from a few hundred to millions of dollars. The victim receives compensation, unlike our system which takes vengeance on the criminal but leaves the victim hanging.
No, that doesn't restore the dignity of the victim, nor compensate for the invasion of, and the loss of privacy. And where is this criminal going to get the money to even begin to compensate for his crimes? You seem to be assuming he has a large cash reserve somewhere.
Post by: Len Budney on August 15, 2007, 04:52:29 PM
Quote
In the case of rape and assault, some restoration is indeed possible. At the very least, all medical bills, including psychological counseling, will be paid by the criminal. Any wages lost as a result of the attack would also be owed by the perp. Measures like replacing locks, installing security, etc., can also be billed to the perp. Instead of facing anything from a slap on the wrist to a couple years in jail, the assailant would face expenses ranging from a few hundred to millions of dollars. The victim receives compensation, unlike our system which takes vengeance on the criminal but leaves the victim hanging.
No, that doesn't restore the dignity of the victim, nor compensate for the invasion of, and the loss of privacy.
Nothing can restore those things. Rape is as irreversible as murder.
Quote
And where is this criminal going to get the money to even begin to compensate for his crimes? You seem to be assuming he has a large cash reserve somewhere.
Naturally what cash and assets he does have can be confiscated, and his future earnings can be garnished until the debt is paid. There are additional free-market mechanisms for dealing with a moneyless perp. Of many possible scenarios, here's one: the criminal is effectively sold into slavery by the victim until the debt is paid. Slavery in the old-fashioned sense isn't legal, of course, but the net effect is comparable. In a free market society under libertarian law, the details might be arranged like this:
The victim's insurance company buys the debt. That is, it compensates the victim now, and thereby owns the right to claim compensation from the criminal, with interest, expenses, etc. The interest rate is of course fairly high, which motives the insurance company to do this. The insurance company has contracts with security providers, and the security providers have contracts with their customers, stipulating that services shall be denied anyone who is in default on a criminal judgment. When the insurance company activates this clause, the criminal is blacklisted by everyone who uses security--and so effectively can't get a job, can't buy groceries, has his utilities shut down, and is banned from using any roads. A representative of the insurance company then points out that he's free to starve to death as a virtual prisoner in his own home, or he can sign a work contract with the insurance company to work off his debt. If he chooses the latter, he will voluntarily work off his debt; if he chooses the former, he will be an unperson living on tree bark and rats.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2007, 07:30:06 PM
If you steal $0.50, buy a banana with it, and eat the banana, you robbed the owner of the $0.50, but you didn't rob the grocery store. The $0.50 wasn't yours, and now you owe the owner $0.50 plus overhead, but the banana was yours and the grocery store can't prosecute you for banana theft.
--Len.
--Len.
"The banana was yours"? Absolutely dead wrong. I mean, you can't honestly have meant to say that. The banana was never yours. Or mine, or whoever is indicated by the pronouns here. The thief owes the original victim 50 cents and owes the store one banana. Of course, in reality no one cares about one banana, especially after it is consumed. For that matter no one cares about 50 cents. But in principle, the stolen money or credit belongs to the original owner. Whatever is fraudulently purchased belongs to its original owner.
And this attempt to speak as Libertarianism come in flesh IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD - well, it gets annoying. Just give us your opinion without all the ceremonial trappings.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 02:30:28 AM
"The banana was yours"? Absolutely dead wrong. I mean, you can't honestly have meant to say that. The banana was never yours. Or mine, or whoever is indicated by the pronouns here. The thief owes the original victim 50 cents and owes the store one banana.
So if I steal $0.50 and buy a $0.50 banana with it, I owe both $0.50 and a banana? And if I trade the banana for an apple, and the apple for an orange, and the orange for a grapefruit, I now owe a total of $2.50 worth of money and fruit?It seems to me that if you steal $0.50, then you owe $0.50 (plus overhead). A series of transactions has no impact on this, except possibly to change who the restitution is owed to.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 16, 2007, 06:24:50 AM
Quote
Naturally what cash and assets he does have can be confiscated, and his future earnings can be garnished until the debt is paid.
All these passive verbs create an atmosphere of abstract surrealism. Who is doing the confiscating and garnishing? Some government agency? Quote
In a free market society under libertarian law, the details might be arranged like this:
The victim's insurance company buys the debt. That is, it compensates the victim now, and thereby owns the right to claim compensation from the criminal, with interest, expenses, etc. The interest rate is of course fairly high, which motives the insurance company to do this. The insurance company has contracts with security providers, and the security providers have contracts with their customers, stipulating that services shall be denied anyone who is in default on a criminal judgment. When the insurance company activates this clause, the criminal is blacklisted by everyone who uses security--and so effectively can't get a job, can't buy groceries, has his utilities shut down, and is banned from using any roads. A representative of the insurance company then points out that he's free to starve to death as a virtual prisoner in his own home, or he can sign a work contract with the insurance company to work off his debt. If he chooses the latter, he will voluntarily work off his debt; if he chooses the former, he will be an unperson living on tree bark and rats.
Bizarre enough to be simply rejected out of hand. And how would you enforce such a scheme? The criminal goes to the grocery store to buy a banana. How does the store know he's blacklisted? Does every store check every customer on every transaction? How does the store know who he is or is not?The victim's insurance company buys the debt. That is, it compensates the victim now, and thereby owns the right to claim compensation from the criminal, with interest, expenses, etc. The interest rate is of course fairly high, which motives the insurance company to do this. The insurance company has contracts with security providers, and the security providers have contracts with their customers, stipulating that services shall be denied anyone who is in default on a criminal judgment. When the insurance company activates this clause, the criminal is blacklisted by everyone who uses security--and so effectively can't get a job, can't buy groceries, has his utilities shut down, and is banned from using any roads. A representative of the insurance company then points out that he's free to starve to death as a virtual prisoner in his own home, or he can sign a work contract with the insurance company to work off his debt. If he chooses the latter, he will voluntarily work off his debt; if he chooses the former, he will be an unperson living on tree bark and rats.
It's unworkable.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 07:24:06 AM
Quote
Naturally what cash and assets he does have can be confiscated, and his future earnings can be garnished until the debt is paid.
All these passive verbs create an atmosphere of abstract surrealism. Who is doing the confiscating and garnishing? Some government agency? Remember, anyone is allowed to kill a murderer, and anyone is allowed to take stolen property away from a thief. The only limitation on that is that the guy who kills a murderer or robs a thief must make sure that he is not in turn mistaken for a murderer or a thief--and so he must be prepared to prove that the guy he killed was a murderer, or the property he confiscated was really stolen. In practice, security agencies will do the actual confiscating, although nothing stops free-market bounty-hunting.
Quote
Bizarre enough to be simply rejected out of hand.
In a logical discourse, it's never acceptable to reply, "You're so wrong I don't even have to try and say why you're wrong."
Quote
And how would you enforce such a scheme? The criminal goes to the grocery store to buy a banana. How does the store know he's blacklisted?
Please reread the paragraph. I realize it packs a lot of new ideas into a few sentences, but I said that the grocery store's security provider has a contract with the store that requires them to deny service to "evaders of justice." The security agency will provide the necessary information to the store. As for stores being unable to enforce blacklists, I recall quite well from my cashier days that we blacklisted people who bounced checks, or who were known shoplifters. Usually a manager would sidle up to me and murmur, "no checks," or, "make sure she empties the cart." There's nothing especially new about that. And since libertarian law doesn't allow you to abridge my free speech, even when I'm talking about you, I can post your picture prominently in the store.
--Len.
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 16, 2007, 09:28:03 AM
If I had a dollar in my pocket, and I stole a dollar from fistful, and I (with two crisp dollar bills in paw) went into the Kwik-e-Mart and handed the clerk the dollar that was mine at the beginning, saying, "Here, sir, is a dollar, with which I should like to purchase one of your fine apples." And then, in a separate transaction immediately thereafter, I use the illicit dollar to purchase a winning lottery ticket, why, then, how is that different from the exact situation, except for that the specific dollar I used for each transaction is swapped?
In the one case, some of you would hold that I owe fistful my lottery winnings, because I used the dollar I stole from him to buy the ticket. But what about the second situation? I owe fistful an apple, but get to keep my winnings? How about if I spend both dollars at once, purchasing an apple and a lottery ticket. Which portion is owed to whom? Do I owe fistful half an apple and half my winnings? Do I owe the store anything?
In all three cases, the store has lost nothing; it received two dollar notes for two tangible items valued at a dollar each. My transaction with them is complete, and I owe them nothing.
I have taken a dollar from fistful, illegally, however, and he is entitled to his dollar back (plus overhead, as Len mentions). That is his recourse. Then, as I have broken the law, the state may prosecute me for the magnitude of my crime: that is, the theft of a dollar.
Suppose that I had $99 in my pocket, and I stole fistful's dollar. Then I bought a lottery ticket for a dollar. Who can say whose dollar the lottery commission received? Did it receive mine? Or fistful's? Or did it receive 99 cents from me and one cent from fistful?
Suppose the dollar was borrowed, and not stolen? In this case, there is the obligation of repayment of the loan itself (plus interest if applicable), not of the windfall value that was acquired using that dollar. If I borrow a dollar from fistful, and buy a winning ticket with it, do I owe him the winnings, because it was "his" dollar I used? No. Because I only have obligation to repay him the amount I initially obligated myself to him for.
While theft causes one person's resources to be taken away without their permission, and this creates an intrinsic obligation of repayment, this obligation is, like a loan, for the value of what was taken (plus interest and administrivia, of course), not for the value of the windfall that resulted after the fact.
Whether I get to keep my winnings is something else. But they're absolutely not owed to the victim of the theft. And they're not legitimately the property of the lottery commission, either; they contracted one chance at winning the prize, in return for one dollar. They received the dollar, they gave turned over the chance to win the prize. The transaction is now complete and legitimate. The fact that the chance happened to be the winning chance does not invalidate the already-complete transaction.
-BP
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 09:30:32 AM
Money is a fungible thing. There is no way to distinguish between "this" dollar and "that" dollar; a dollar is an ephemeral representation of purchasing power.
That's correct. And when you steal a dollar, you owe a dollar. Simple as that.
Quote
If I had a dollar in my pocket, and I stole a dollar from fistful, and I (with two crisp dollar bills in paw) went into the Kwik-e-Mart and handed the clerk the dollar that was mine at the beginning, saying, "Here, sir, is a dollar, with which I should like to purchase one of your fine apples." And then, in a separate transaction immediately thereafter, I use the illicit dollar to purchase a winning lottery ticket, why, then, how is that different from the exact situation, except for that the specific dollar I used for each transaction is swapped?
Precisely! That's why the woman owes the dollar she stole (plus overhead), and that's it. The case can't even begin to be made to confiscate her winnings unless she actually paid for the ticket with the stolen credit card.
Quote
I have taken a dollar from fistful, illegally, however, and he is entitled to his dollar back (plus overhead, as Len mentions). That is his recourse. Then, as I have broken the law, the state may prosecute me for the magnitude of my crime: that is, the theft of a dollar.
Yep. Exactly.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on August 16, 2007, 10:29:41 AM
AFAIK, you can't buy a lottery ticket with a credit card in California.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 10:31:47 AM
Well, the judge ruled that the winnings were the 'proceeds of an illegal activity', so he tied the lottery ticket to the stolen credit card.
Could be, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. It'd be the first I ever heered of people being allowed to buy a lottery ticket with a credit card. I'm betting she got a cash advance and went to the store. If she had at least a dollar on her before getting the cash advance, she at least has an arguable case.
--Len.
Post by: Tallpine on August 16, 2007, 10:50:28 AM
Quote
I stole a dollar from fistful
Don't worry - he has a whole fistful of them. He'll never miss just one
Post by: BrokenPaw on August 16, 2007, 11:05:56 AM
Quote
I stole a dollar from fistful
Don't worry - he has a whole fistful of them. He'll never miss just one
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 16, 2007, 11:11:29 AM
Quote
AFAIK, you can't buy a lottery ticket with a credit card in California.
Same here in Texas. I don't know if it's a state thing or a merchant's decision, but any place I've seen selling Lotto Texas tickets it's cash or nuthin'.
Brad
Post by: Tallpine on August 16, 2007, 11:15:23 AM
Quote
I don't know if it's a state thing or a merchant's decision, but any place I've seen selling Lotto Texas tickets it's cash or nuthin'.
What is probably the deal is that the merchant makes little or nothing on the sale of the lotto tickets - they are just something to draw business into the store. But on a credit card sale, the merchant has to pay a fee - IOW the store only gets 9x.x% of the rung-up sale value credited to their bank acct from the cc company.
It was the same deal with hunting/fishing licenses at a place where I used to work.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2007, 12:39:22 PM
Quote
The transaction is now complete and legitimate.
No. Do you have a better source than the judge's ruling, which states the lottery ticket was purchased with a stolen credit card? The judge knows more of the details than we do. If it wasn't purchased with stolen funds, the whole discussion is moot. Anyhoo, the transaction was clearly not legitimate, (by US or libertarian law) as the ticket was purchased with stolen funds. The lotto commission was scammed out of the winning ticket, so they get it back. The "chance to win the prize" was never legitimately purchased, so it still belongs to the lottery folks. So do the winnings. TANSTAAFL.
In the future, though, if you need money, just ask. I'd front you a dollar if you needed one, man.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2007, 01:15:36 PM
Quote
So if I steal $0.50 and buy a $0.50 banana with it, I owe both $0.50 and a banana? And if I trade the banana for an apple, and the apple for an orange, and the orange for a grapefruit, I now owe a total of $2.50 worth of money and fruit?
If third-grade exercises make you more comfortable, I will oblige you. To put it simply, all the items were illegally purchased, so they must be returned to their rightful owners. (Or equivalent, if they have been consumed. Or cash value thereof, if that suits the parties concerned.) You owe one grapefruit to its previous owner. And you owe the orange to its original owner. And you owe the apple to its original owner. And you owe the banana to its original owner. And the fifty cents, of course, goes back to the original owner.
So how much is coming from your pocket? Not a dime. You give back the grapefruit, which was not yours. Then the other fruit is returned to the previous owners and the cash is handed over to the small child who's piggy bank you smashed, you scoundrel.
In principle, you owe it to each of these people to see that their property is returned. In principle, you take back the grapefruit to get the orange, then trade the orange for the apple, and so on. So, yes, you owe both $.50 and a banana, but the money isn't being taken from your paycheck, it's coming from the grocer's register.
Post by: Len Budney on August 16, 2007, 01:19:55 PM
To put it simply, all the items were illegally purchased, so they must be returned to their rightful owners. (Or equivalent, if they have been consumed. Or cash value thereof, if that suits the parties concerned.) You owe one grapefruit to its previous owner. And you owe the orange to its original owner. And you owe the apple to its original owner. And you owe the banana to its original owner. And the fifty cents, of course, goes back to the original owner.
Nope: once I pay back the $0.50 to the original victim, all is square. As you pointed out, money is fungible: the $0.50 I gave back to my victim, which was mine, and the $0.50 I gave to the grocer, which was not, are interchangeable. Once I put it in my victim's hand, it's his $0.50, and the $0.50 in the grocer's till is mine, and all debts are square.--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2007, 01:28:44 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 17, 2007, 02:55:38 AM
So you think stealing money works like a loan? Use it any way you want to, just pay it back?
Look at it from the other side. The guys that sold the banana, apple, orange, etc., are uninvolved innocents. Each traded in good faith. Unraveling all the transactions is pointless if the purchase price of the original banana can be redeemed by repaying the original victim.
But that's not the same as calling theft a "loan." Suppose each of those items were replaced with a priceless work of art--i.e., I stole the "Mona Lisa," traded it for "Whistler's Mother," and so on. The owner of the Mona Lisa wants it back, and will not accept payment as compensation. In that case, the chain of transactions must be unraveled, because the second guy, being forced to give up the "Mona Lisa," will want "Whistler's Mother" returned to him, and so on. To that extent I agree with you that all of the thief's transactions is potentially void.
In the case of stolen cash, however, that isn't a problem, because the original owner will accept any currency as repayment of the stolen money.
--Len.
Post by: LadySmith on August 17, 2007, 03:43:44 AM
Quote
In the case of stolen cash, however, that isn't a problem, because the original owner will accept any currency as repayment of the stolen money.
What if the money stolen was for housing? While the thief runs around trading up on ill-gotten gains, the victim gets evicted. The thief might eventually repay the money, but the victim is out on the street and the repaid amount isn't enough to put a roof over the victim's head. Will the victim be entitled to more money from the thief or the thief's domicile? Also, the victim might seek assurances that the thief won't do this again. Where's the prevention factor? Quote
Remember, anyone is allowed to kill a murderer, and anyone is allowed to take stolen property away from a thief. The only limitation on that is that the guy who kills a murderer or robs a thief must make sure that he is not in turn mistaken for a murderer or a thief--and so he must be prepared to prove that the guy he killed was a murderer, or the property he confiscated was really stolen.
Easy. Upon conviction, whack off the right hand of the thief for easy identification and immediately execute the murder. Hey, it works elsewhere and there would be no risk of mistaken identities.
Post by: Len Budney on August 17, 2007, 03:52:29 AM
Quote
In the case of stolen cash, however, that isn't a problem, because the original owner will accept any currency as repayment of the stolen money.
What if the money stolen was for housing? While the thief runs around trading up on ill-gotten gains, the victim gets evicted. The thief might eventually repay the money, but the victim is out on the street and the repaid amount isn't enough to put a roof over the victim's head...
The thief is required to make his victim whole, at his own expense. In this case, reimbursing the money doesn't cut it: in addition to paying any costs of investigation and enforcement, plus interest, he must also pay the cost of putting the victim in an apartment (either the original one or a new one), including any necessary deposits and fees, all moving costs, and replacement of any property lost in the eviction. If the old apartment was furnished and the new one is not, he must also furnish it.
--Len.