Just How Stupid Can Stupid Be?

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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!

--Len.

[K Frame]

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.

[K Frame]

"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.

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.

[Len Budney]

"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.

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.

[K Frame]

"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.

[Len Budney]

"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.

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.

[Perd Hapley]

The article says that the woman already received a portion of the winnings.  No contract should be needed here.  Again, the money is not hers because the ticket does not belong to her.  She procured it under false pretenses, with someone else's stolen credit. Therefore, any lottery winnings are forfeit, and belong to the lottery commission, not to the deceased.  No need to spell that out in any contract. 

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

[Brad Johnson]

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

[Len Budney]

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.

[Brad Johnson]

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

[Len Budney]

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.

[Paddy]

This 'libertarian law' (whatever it is) seems to be shallow and limited.  It apparently carries no penalty for crime; instead relying solely on 'restorative justice'.  What about crimes where 'restorative justice' is impossible?  Rape, assault, murder, etc.?

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

[Paddy]

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.

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

"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.

[Len Budney]

"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.

[Paddy]

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?

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?

It's unworkable.

[Len Budney]

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.

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."

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.

[BrokenPaw]

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.

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

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

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.

[Paddy]

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.  So all this speculation about "this dollar, that dollar, the stolen dollar, my dollar" etc., is just so much hypothetical fluff.

AFAIK, you can't buy a lottery ticket with a credit card in California.

[Len Budney]

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.

[Tallpine]

I stole a dollar from fistful

Don't worry - he has a whole fistful of them.  He'll never miss just one