Notwithstanding some characterizations by more disingenuous opponents, reformers don’t oppose litigation and criminalization for the sake of opposing litigation and criminalization. Litigation and the tort system can play an important role in resolving disputes. Our objection is that the litigation system in the United States cuts too wide a swath, with too many issues under the litigation umbrella that courts are poorly placed to resolve, with inefficient and counterproductive results.

It is certainly possible for the system to tilt too far the other way. Witness Iran, where it is a defense against a charge of murder if “the victim was morally corrupt”—even if the killer is mistaken about the victim’s behavior. This being Iran, “morally corrupt” includes walking in public with one’s fiance, and permissible killings include stonings and sitting on a victim’s chest in a pond until she drowns. (Nazila Fathi, “Iran Exonerates Six Who Killed in Islam’s Name”, New York Times, Apr. 19] In the United States, at least, the only penalty a vigilante can legally impose with impunity on someone he or she mistakenly thinks is “morally corrupt” is millions of dollars of legal fees.

Filed under: crime and punishment