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.

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 laws can't be enforced against illegal laws and practices 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.

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 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 laws can't be enforced against illegal laws and practices 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.

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 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 laws can't be enforced against illegal laws and practices 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.

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 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 laws can't be enforced against illegal laws and practices 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 just addressed after the damage has already been done.

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 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 laws can't be enforced against illegal laws and practices 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 the police arrest someone who is about to attempt murder) not just addressed after the damage has already been done.

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 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 laws can't be enforced against illegal laws and practices until after they have caused harm. So congress can just pass illegal laws and begin harming people with them often for years before it gets stopped by a court (if it gets stopped at all). But crimes should be stopped as early as possible (like when the police arrest someone who is about to attempt murder) not just addressed after the damage has already been done.

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 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?