Standing is retarded and should never have existed.
Proving an illegal activity harmed you may be more difficult than proving it happened, but illegal activities should be punished regardless of whether they harmed someone. Standing gives crimes a pass where the harm is difficult to prove or is small or distributed across a large number of people (as in elections).
Many illegal activities arguably have no injured party such as drug abuse, using the bus without paying, piracy and other types of freeloading. But criminals should be punished regardless.
Standing gives a pass for criminals to target those they know will not sue (e.g., those without money, those without sufficient incentive, those trying to lay low, those who don't trust the legal system and those who will be too physically or mentally damaged as a result of the crime). They can do these crimes in broad daylight because only the injured party is allowed to sue. Standing also means that serious crimes like murder are likely to be unprosecutable. Criminal justice gets around this by abandoning the principle of standing but this is inconsistent and hypocritical. Moreover it prevents anyone from bringing the lawsuit other than the government, and the government may have reasons for covering up the crime. People should be convicted for murder by anyone with sufficient evidence, regardless of whether the government is willing to prosecute.
Standing also logically implies that a crime against many people can't be addressed as a whole but only piece-wise by injured parties who decide to sue on their own behalf.
Standing is therefore an impediment to justice. Removing it for sure would cause problems (consider double jeopardy), but are those problems really insurmountable and are they really a bigger issue than all the injustice that standing causes?
Edit: I forgot also that standing means that illegal laws and practices can't be stopped until after they have caused harm. So congress can just pass illegal laws that will harm people in the future and only later on after people have been harmed can the law be challenged. But crimes should be stopped as early as possible (like when police arrest someone who is about to attempt murder) not given a pass until after the damage has already been done.
Standing is retarded and should never have existed
2nd order consequences.
The reason the civil rights act is so bad is because it removed standing and allowed the federal government to sue if they saw something they didn't like.
I was making a point of an example that you'd understand.
If you removed "standing" then anyone could seek redress through courts for any potential frivolous crime they witnessed, or thought they witnessed, or imagined. Think it through.
"Frivolous crime". There shouldn't be such a thing as a frivolous crime. Maybe the reason anything can be a crime these days is because we have a retarded legal system that relies on things like standing to selectively ignore the consequences of retarded laws.
anyone could seek redress through courts for any potential...crime they witnessed, or thought they witnessed, or imagined.
Exactly. That's what a just system is supposed to do. Let anyone bring a case and hear what they have to say. If they don't have good evidence then the case will be dismissed, but we at least need to hear the evidence. I can't believe you would advocate we do otherwise.
That's not at all what you have to prove. You simply have to prove that a court case is /likely/ to produce a result in remedy for your case.
They can do these crimes in broad daylight because only the injured party is allowed to sue.
Courts are about remedies. If there is no remedy for you then why are you wasting their time? Justice isn't about tattling to the principal about every "illegal" thing that occurred in America today. It's about recovering, in whole, or in part, some of the value that was taken from you.
Courts cannot bring back the dead, so, you have to do something awful, and put a value on the corpse.
Removing it for sure would cause problems
It would clog the courts to the point of uselessness, so even your people who "can't" sue just will never be able to, since no docket could accept them within their lifetime.
but are those problems really insurmountable
You've never spent time around actual people, have you?
You simply have to prove that a court case is /likely/ to produce a result in remedy for your case.
I think the actual definition of standing in a legal dictionary is pretty vague. In practice it's almost always proving that you have been or would be harmed. But proving that you would be harmed in the future is often difficult so then it requires waiting for the harm to happen first. Wikipedia's definition is therefore a good one in practice:
"In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
Courts are about remedies. If there is no remedy for you then why are you wasting their time?
Courts shouldn't just be about remedies. If I see someone murder someone else and have evidence beyond reasonable doubt then I want the murderer punished because that's justice and it benefits society. Courts should be about justice first and foremost. If courts are only about remedies then there can be no case against he that murders a hermit with no family or he that stole an election 20 years ago. But justice demands punishment and that punishment deters evil.
It would clog the courts to the point of uselessness
Do you really think that's an insurmountable problem? We couldn't possibly fix this problem by changing the nature of the legal system? Say by having a lot more judges and less bureaucracy? Is it any wonder that it's so difficult to get your fair say in court when the current system is scared to death of too many court cases? This fear incentivizes making lawsuits expensive, onerous and rushed with little oversight and judges getting away with murder (figuratively).
I imagine 1000 years ago the great legal minds would talk similarly to you, saying that we can't possibly let peasants bring lawsuits, as it would overwhelm the system with frivolous cases.
So that Justice can be recorded and precedent can be set. Even if the nigger is dead and his estate has no way of paying for my new kidney, the record must show that he was wrong when he stabbed me regardless of what his ho girlfriend says.
Standing is retarded and should never have existed.
Proving an illegal activity harmed you may be more difficult than proving it happened, but illegal activities should be punished regardless of whether they harmed someone. Standing gives crimes a pass where the harm is difficult to prove or is small or distributed across a large number of people (as in elections).
Many illegal activities arguably have no injured party such as drug abuse, using the bus without paying, piracy and other types of freeloading. But criminals should be punished regardless.
Standing gives a pass for criminals to target those they know will not sue (e.g., those without money, those without sufficient incentive, those trying to lay low, those who don't trust the legal system and those who will be too physically or mentally damaged as a result of the crime). They can do these crimes in broad daylight because only the injured party is allowed to sue. Standing also means that serious crimes like murder are likely to be unprosecutable. Criminal justice gets around this by abandoning the principle of standing but this is inconsistent and hypocritical. Moreover it prevents anyone from bringing the lawsuit other than the government, and the government may have reasons for covering up the crime. People should be convicted for murder by anyone with sufficient evidence, regardless of whether the government is willing to prosecute.
Standing also logically implies that a crime against many people can't be addressed as a whole but only piece-wise by injured parties who decide to sue on their own behalf.
Standing is therefore an impediment to justice. Removing it for sure would cause problems (consider double jeopardy), but are those problems really insurmountable and are they really a bigger issue than all the injustice that standing causes?
Edit: I forgot also that standing means that illegal laws and practices can't be stopped until after they have caused harm. So congress can just pass illegal laws that will harm people in the future and only later on after people have been harmed can the law be challenged. But crimes should be stopped as early as possible (like when police arrest someone who is about to attempt murder) not given a pass until after the damage has already been done.
2nd order consequences.
The reason the civil rights act is so bad is because it removed standing and allowed the federal government to sue if they saw something they didn't like.
Sounds like a problem with that law not a problem with lack of standing
I was making a point of an example that you'd understand.
If you removed "standing" then anyone could seek redress through courts for any potential frivolous crime they witnessed, or thought they witnessed, or imagined. Think it through.
"Frivolous crime". There shouldn't be such a thing as a frivolous crime. Maybe the reason anything can be a crime these days is because we have a retarded legal system that relies on things like standing to selectively ignore the consequences of retarded laws.
Exactly. That's what a just system is supposed to do. Let anyone bring a case and hear what they have to say. If they don't have good evidence then the case will be dismissed, but we at least need to hear the evidence. I can't believe you would advocate we do otherwise.
That's not at all what you have to prove. You simply have to prove that a court case is /likely/ to produce a result in remedy for your case.
Courts are about remedies. If there is no remedy for you then why are you wasting their time? Justice isn't about tattling to the principal about every "illegal" thing that occurred in America today. It's about recovering, in whole, or in part, some of the value that was taken from you.
Courts cannot bring back the dead, so, you have to do something awful, and put a value on the corpse.
It would clog the courts to the point of uselessness, so even your people who "can't" sue just will never be able to, since no docket could accept them within their lifetime.
You've never spent time around actual people, have you?
I think the actual definition of standing in a legal dictionary is pretty vague. In practice it's almost always proving that you have been or would be harmed. But proving that you would be harmed in the future is often difficult so then it requires waiting for the harm to happen first. Wikipedia's definition is therefore a good one in practice:
"In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
Courts shouldn't just be about remedies. If I see someone murder someone else and have evidence beyond reasonable doubt then I want the murderer punished because that's justice and it benefits society. Courts should be about justice first and foremost. If courts are only about remedies then there can be no case against he that murders a hermit with no family or he that stole an election 20 years ago. But justice demands punishment and that punishment deters evil.
Do you really think that's an insurmountable problem? We couldn't possibly fix this problem by changing the nature of the legal system? Say by having a lot more judges and less bureaucracy? Is it any wonder that it's so difficult to get your fair say in court when the current system is scared to death of too many court cases? This fear incentivizes making lawsuits expensive, onerous and rushed with little oversight and judges getting away with murder (figuratively).
I imagine 1000 years ago the great legal minds would talk similarly to you, saying that we can't possibly let peasants bring lawsuits, as it would overwhelm the system with frivolous cases.
So that Justice can be recorded and precedent can be set. Even if the nigger is dead and his estate has no way of paying for my new kidney, the record must show that he was wrong when he stabbed me regardless of what his ho girlfriend says.