The two most important of all his proposals - and ones that actually cover most of the others:

- If there is no victim, then there is no crime.

- If the damages are in money or goods, then there is no crime - it's civil case.

Both of these would be hugely important changes to the legal system.

Just as food for thought: the IRS can throw you in jail for not paying taxes. But this is a monetary debt, just like your mortgage or car payment. Imagine if the IRS sent you a bill, and collected it like companies collect their debts. No need for an enforcement bureaucracy, SWAT teams, separate court system, etc. It would make for a much more civilized government.

McElroy may not be wrong about any of it. I saw a gruesome tangent to the third item yesterday.)

But this blog post reminds me of one from McArdle:

This is an important challenge for health care reformers on both left and right: even when given a direct choice, people seem to want a system that closely resembles the expensive and inefficient one we have; their main policy goal is simply to shift the bill onto someone else. Obviously, this is not a feasible solution at the national level.

Each of the (many) bullet points you offer is going to be resisted by various constituencies... And these things didn't just fall into place to begin with.

I don't want to say "fat chance", but... The optimism of these suggestions is tremendous. In times of hardship, big change in fundamental systems will be a tough sell.

Fownda nuthawin (Been on a McArdle kick for a couple days):

There's a reason it took centuries for the west to evolve modern economies, the kind where basically everyone is rich by global or historical standards. This stuff is really complicated. The simplest product you buy could not have been brought to your market without a thousand institutions and systems, from double-entry bookkeeping to anti-fraud statutes to telephones and commodity brokers and universal literacy and rail rights-of-way. This stuff cannot be developed overnight, and it cannot be developed by one person, one group, or one plan. And in the end, there is no substitute.

And one about birth control:

Over several billion years of evolution, the human body has learned to use hormones in multiple different pathways, the better to economize on DNA and productive capacity. What that means is that when you knock out the target you want, you very often (almost always?) run the risk of knocking something else out. For example, your body has apparently has pathways to make you more amorous and attractive when you're fertile; if you manipulate the hormones that make you fertile, it's not surprising that you may also knock out your libido.

A favorite aphorism goes "The difference between theory and reality is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. But in reality, there is a difference."

McElroy's intentions are spotless. Again, if there's a fault to her suggestion, it's that it's just too big. In an hour of near-global calamity and stressed systems in everything we call "environment", I'm worried that if anyone collects the authority to enact her changes, it will be because things are going badly and it was readily seized, not because they're going well and it was generously granted.

How would the system handle restitution where the sum stolen is large ( say a bank robbery and the amount is $25,000 )and the thief is broke, has no income, maybe has a substance abuse problem, and you and he both know he will never pay it back ?

Idiotic. 1) thieves rarely steal what they already have, so how would they restitute? 2)What price does ones put on a life? A rape? Molestation? If you kill someone's kid, do you have to give them one? 3) if lying to the police isn't a crime, no one will ever tell the truth. It would be impossible to find out WHO took that $100 in the first place (unless he's advocating for cameras everwhere, and i doubt he is). And I really love how he's only concerned with men jailed for contempt.

This is getting very close to the sort of anarchy that extreme libertarians espose-you have the rights you personally can enforce. Really sucks for the weak. Amy, better start lifting more weights!

I don't understand the weird ideas people have about what a libertarian world would be like. In so many paranoid imaginings, brain surgeons are dropping acid and listening to Foghat during procedures and every preschool is required to make room for at least two (2) barrels of toxic sludge near the swingset.

It's not the same as the mirthless lefty smirking about Tea Partiers, but it's similarly inexplicable.

I don't understand your issue with Foghat, Crid.

Ridiculous. Destruction is easier than creation. A mentally-handicapped man with a gallon of gasoline and a match can torch a house worth a million dollars. People who commit destructive crimes have neither the desire nor the means to pay restitution. They may be forced into providing some meagre amount, but even that requires the threat of corporal punishment. So restitution by itself can never take the place of corporal punishment.

Not to mention that goal of punishment is to provide a deterrent. If the only punishment is restitution, then I will immediately become a bank robber. If I get caught, I merely pay restitution - return the money. If I don't get caught, I profit. The restitution is merely the cost of doing business.

This is similar to what Wall Street is already doing. The penalties for fraud - such as the ones given to Angelo Mozillo, or the settlements with banks over the MERS real estate registry - are merely a cost of business. And a small, one at that.

No, the one thing that everybody fears - rich and poor alike - is being locked in a cage. It can deter the poor destructive man or the rich thief. And preventing crime through deterrence is better than any amount of restitution after the fact.

Take it easy.

You're my drivin' wheel, Cridster!

Thanks, Darlin'. The memory banks for "Famous Foghat Lyrics That Everyone Will Recognize" were pretty much empty....

to Jason.
First off many people are in jail for "victimless crimes" i.e. posession. Making them a drain on society instead of a bonus to society.

" People who commit destructive crimes have neither the desire nor the means to pay restitution."
Though true in some cases it is far from being always true. But more importaintly even if restitution is meager, it is way more than the victims recieve in the current justice system, which is nothing.
Yes getting $50,000 as payback for having husband killed may not be much, but when you are comparing it to the zero you get under the current system, actually the negative you get since your taxes go up since 1 more person is in jail.
As to restitution not being enough that is just an easily modifyable % of the amount taken or destoyed. Say 150% of what was stolen.

"No, the one thing that everybody fears - rich and poor alike - is being locked in a cage. "
Not everyone does and not to the same extent. As the joke goes what did the Unabomber say when he went to prison. " a bed and running water, luxury."

You know what always pissed me off about lying to cops and obstruction charges?

Cops are not able to be held criminally or civilly liable for failing to stop a crime in progress, they are not able to be held civilly or criminally liable for failing to investigate a crime and arresting the perpatraitors.

But you as a citizen can be held criminally liable for failing to help the police

"Cops are not able to be held criminally or civilly liable for failing to stop a crime in progress, they are not able to be held civilly or criminally liable for failing to investigate a crime and arresting the perpatraitors."

The most well-known case addressing this is Warren v. DC, and it remains TOTALLY REASONABLE, and for TWO reasons at least:

1) In reality, police CANNOT protect your person.
2) The first lawsuit for non-protection would strip the community of what police protection it has, AND crush support for re-establishing same.

While the environment for doing so varies wildly from place to place, it is still in the best interest of the citizen to be ready and willing to engage in self-defense.

Because if you are raped and/or murdered, your neighbors can elect to put the poor, misunderstood, saintly, struggling victim of society back on the street after a while.

Does this happen? Yes.

It's old, but look at these citations from The Bessette Quarterly Report on Crime and Justice, USA, (Crimes and Justice USA, 112 Harvard Ave., Room 203, Claremont, Calif. 91711), published in the Orlando Sentinel in 1995:

* Only 10 percent of those arrested for a felony violation of state law end up sentenced to a state prison for at least a year. Another 29 percent receive a sentence to a local jail for less than a year.

* Nearly three out of 10 convicted felons -- more than 240,000 a year -- receive no time behind bars.

* Half of the criminals released from state prison each year serve only 13 months or less.

Now, that's partly because there are a lot of felonies which aren't violent crimes. But for murderers, the median time served is five years and eight months; for rapists, it is three years and eight months.

An extensive survey of convicted felons in state prisons in 1991 yielded the following collective toll: They had killed 112,000 people, raped 90,000, robbed 299,000 and assaulted 94,500 people.

That's living felons and they killed nearly TWICE as many Americans as died in Vietnam! Regardless of anything you might think about their motivation or degree of personal responsibility, can you say the word, "restitution" in those cases?

Gosh, I hope no one's proposing restitution limited to the amount stolen. If so, that incentivizes some thieves to steal, secure in the knowledge that the only penalty is returning their ill-gotten gains, and only if caught. I write this as a creator whose work is routinely infringed. My infringers often propose settling for the licensing fee they'd have paid anyways if they'd felt like not infringing that day.

"Yes getting $50,000 as payback for having husband killed may not be much, but when you are comparing it to the zero you get under the current system, actually the negative you get since your taxes go up since 1 more person is in jail."

I must say, if someone killed my husband they could take that $50k and shove it up their ass. I want the motherfucker dead, not writing me a check. That's the only restitution I would care about-call it the restitution of my sense of justice in the world.

Not to mention, restitution merely puts a price on a life. As in, I really want someopne dead, is it worth $50 or $100k to me? Yes? Hand me my gun, please. Talk about special treatment for the rich! They could kill as they pleased.

There is research-I can't link it but anyone interested could google I'm sure-that monetary incentives or disincentives don't sway people. A mom who's told there is a $20 late pick up fee from daycare is more likely to pick up late-she feels she's paying for the service, not inconveniencing some teacher. Same with hotels-offer people a price break to reuse sheets and towels, most will pay the added to get fresh daily.

Rad, while I agree that cops cant(and in most cases shouldnt be) be held liable for failing to respond to a crime in progress I still find it repugnant that citizens can be held liable for failing to report crimes(accesory after the fact) and failing to aid in invetigations(obstruction). Also Warren v DC is an especially egregious case where the cops reposnding to a call about breaking and entering and rape of the residents left when noone answered their knocks on the front door.

Also given the recent push to criminally prosecute people who do defend themselves more and more of us are in a damned if you do damned if you dont position

"As to restitution not being enough that is just an easily modifyable % of the amount taken or destoyed. Say 150% of what was stolen."

And if the perp responds to that demand with a hearty "Fuck you", then what? That's the problem with this idea: it ignores the psychology of the criminal mind. It assumes that criminals can be shamed into behaving morally. They can't be because they are narcissists; they believe that they are entitled to do whatever they do, so shaming them isn't possible.

And you can't just go get whatever was taken back because crime and the mechanisms for distributing the fruits of crime are wealth-destroying. If a car thief steals your $50,000 car, you probably aren't getting it back even if the perp is caught; he probably has either already totalled it, or stripped it, or sold it to a chop shop that ripped out a few of the most valuable components and scrapped the rest. Most stolen goods fence for a small fraction of their legitimate market value, and the kind of people who buy stolen goods are unlikely to take good care of them.

Well momof4, Do you get that in our current justice system? AS was mentioned earlier the median time in jail for murder is 5 years? And death penalty, is very rarely given and may take decades to accomplish. I had heard 1 in 10,000.
Now self defense is perfectly in keeping with libertarian views.

And as for the monitay incentives they do incentivise things, just not always in the way you expect. If they had made the late kid pickup fee to be $500 instead of the $5. It is in Freakenomics. It would have had a completely differnt reaction. WHen they set the late fee that low, you are telling them that is what your time is worth.
Just as if you made parking tickets to be .05 parking violations would explode. Though it is a combination of the penalty times your percieved likelyhood of getting caught. If you don't think you will ever get caught, no penalty, fine or punishment will diswade anyone.

WHo said shaming was the only tool that could be used? Or even the main one to be used. People under house arrest arent kept there by shame.
Think indentured servitude or chain gang.

Joe, I live in Texas, so I'd have a good chance of getting it.

Think about this carefully.

If you are violently attacked and you kill your attacker, that person will never again commit a crime. After the investigation, provided you acted properly, the expense to the taxpayers is for indigent burial of the felon.

If you are NOT successful using deadly force against your attacker, your government may decide to release her. Some of your neighbors are even intent on prohibiting the state from finishing the job you attempted, because somehow a legal system charged with individual cases can never actually tell if they have the right prisoner.

What, again, is the recidivism rate? Who do you think is uppermost in the jailed felon's mind now?

Yes, the justice system gives the felon a second chance. To do what, now?