Mastodawn

Is justice void when the perpetrator is gone in this case?

Is justice void when the perpetrator is gone in this case? - Lemmy.World

I’m talking about the one who killed themselves upon murdering others around them (as in the explosion kills both the perpetrator and victim) as the perpetrator is bound to explosives in which the destruction they caused murders others via falling debris or the fire it rages, hence the name suicide bomber (you can’t imprison a dead person in the first place, so there’s no trial). You know who the offender is, but he or she is already dead since they were killed upon them committing their own crime. Those who lost their relatives cannot sue the main perpetrator as they passed away (and his or her parents are deceased meaning they can’t be interrogated) but can they just find his or her aunt & uncle, siblings, cousins, nephews or nieces to interview? That is only applicable if they’re still alive (it’s a case to case basis: if the perpetrator’s direct familial heritage are all dead, then seek unrelated contacts who may know him or her such as their: neighbor, roommate, landlord, friends, coworkers, acquaintances) if investigators were to interrogate at least somebody who knew the perpetrator or what their profile is like. Although no “normal” justice can be served as the perpetrator died, can victims’ families consider a civil case (as a criminal trial is void when the defendant is gone) meaning they will sue based on the perpetrator’s last will & testament (estate) if they have one? That means they’ll would demand on behalf of their estate; the money shall be used to compensate those who’ve suffered. But if the perpetrator doesn’t have their own will: would they still find their dead parent’s last will & testament, inheritance or life insurance policy suing them based on that for compensation to not only pay for damages caused emotionally & physically towards victims, also to cover and repair structural damages from the bombing, the suicide bomber’s will is revoked from any beneficiary. However, even if there was a financial incentive: the souls of the dead still linger including the victims who were killed during the incident as their graves still remain. No amount of money can truly undo the terror inflicted by the suicide bomber or deaths incurred towards innocent people, so there is no victory at the end of the day even if they decided to pursue a civil lawsuit postmortem.

Show thread

Paragone 1d ago

You have hit-upon exactly the perfect proof of why Justice has to be left to karma, & harm-reduction has to be what humankind’s doing.

Murdercide is what New Scientist called the suicide-bombers, as murder is the point, & that needed to be in the term

Harm-reduction, correction, & preventing-future-harm are the 3 that humankind can do, but Justice is something that only karma ( “what a soul sows, that soul has no-alternative but to reap” ) can enforce, at ITS timescale ( many-many-lives, not mere-years ).

The details of different cases would have to be the basis of sorting-out how harm-reduction & correction ought be done, & eventually the principles required would become clear, & could be codified, but the underlying-fact is that Justice requires that ALL the guilty be corrected, & the rude fact that some remove themselves, so as to exempt themselves from accountability, means that at our timescale, Justice is only an aspiration/anchor/direction, not something that we can guarantee.

_ /\ _

Show thread

litchralee 1d ago

The absolute first thing is to establish the jurisdiction of this scenario. The answer will be vastly different if the jurisdiction is California/USA than if the jurisdiction were South Susan. No shade against South Sudan, but we are talking about criminal and civil law, so the details might be very different.

But supposing this is a jurisdiction that follows in the Anglo-American common law (such as California, and I’ll proceed using California as the setting), then we can make some generally-true statement, some of which confirm what you’re already written:

Criminal law exists to punish bad acts committed against society at-large

Criminal law can only punish the persons or entities which have committed an act or omission that is proscribed in law, and only those persons or entities within the territory

Dead people or dissolved corporations are beyond the reach of criminal law

The notion that the next-of-kin will “inherit” the criminal liability was abolished long ago; see US Constitution “Bill of Attainder” prohibition, and equivalent in other jurisdiction like the UK or Australia

Anyone that is still alive and collaborated to aid or supply the dead assailant can be pursued using criminal law

In parallel to the criminal law system, civil lawsuits can be filed against the remaining property of the dead assailant. This is known as the “estate” of that person, and the lawsuit would be captioned as "XYZ v the Estate of [dead assailant]"

A civil lawsuit can only win as much property as the respondent (ie person being sued) has, or any insurance policy they had which might apply, or any debt which was owed to the respondent at the time of their death.

Mass murder commonly result in civil lawsuits that do not obtain anywhere near the full amount to compensate for the victims’ families’ loss.

As a result, the target of civil lawsuits can be expanded to include adjacent parties, such as the manufacturer of the weapon or materials used, under a claim of product liability or something similar. This is not a guaranteed result, but they often have deeper pockets and good insurance policies.

Civil lawsuits can only bring a monetary compensation. The law cannot revive the dead, cannot erase or amend history, and cannot salve the void left when victims are removed from this world unjustly.

With all that said, the entire line of inquiry into the dead assailant’s will, or to their parent’s will, or anything like that, is entirely inapplicable. Children or parents do not inherit the sins of others, at least where criminal liability and civil lawsuits are concerned. Unless, of course, the parents participated somehow or willfully neglected a duty to report (very few of these exist in California, unless the victims were undoubtedly known to be children; see mandatory reporting laws). Thus, these other people cannot be sued nor criminally punished.

The other commenter correctly said that what we call the “justice system” is more accurately called “harm reduction”. That’s not wrong, but I would post that the crimimal law system is about harm reduction (nb: I do not endorse the carcereal state of imprisoning huge segments of the population, disproportionately by race), whereas civil lawsuits are about equity and compensation.

Both systems exist in tandem to prevent people from achieving a bloodier form of justice in the streets, like in days of yore: pistols at dawn, dueling in general, “bigger army” diplomacy, midnight slaughters of whole families, and other such unpleasantries. It’s definitely not perfect, and it needs reforms in many parts, but the structure serves a purpose and so far, it’s what we have and the best that we have.