Don’t leave the job of criminal investigation to the politicized state. FULL ARTICLE by William L. Anderson
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/17106/a-case-for-private-eyes/
A Case for Private Eyes
Previous post: Policing for Profit
Next post: Out of Business
{ 13 comments }
“Don’t leave the job of criminal investigation to the politicized state.”
No, let’s leave it to profit seeking firms so that investigators can be bought by the criminals.
Freedom Fighter,
The point is that if there were no monopoly on criminal investigation, there would be an abundance of investigators, each of whom built their career on their reputation, which could and would be tarnished by their competitors if they stepped out of line.
Besides, the investigators are currently bought by the criminals – just one particular class of criminals rather than the entire lot
If a victim of the crime posted their claim for any investigator of firm to collect, the criminal would have to buy off more than he could ever afford.There are many answers to this issue. Another is that the situation we have now makes the wealthy more powerful than they would be without the state, since they can afford to personally or through a proxy lobby the state, whereas the common man cannot.
In other words – bounty hunting?
State investigators work for free?
“No, let’s leave it to profit seeking firms so that investigators can be bought by the criminals.”
Because lord knows no policeman or Judge has ever taken a bribe before.
(On a closer note – A friend of mine once spent a year battling it out with former business partners in court. He was in the right. He had a reams of evidence that proved him right. He lost everything. While drowning his sorrows at the local bar with a friend he lamented on how he could have lost. The drinking buddy just looked him in the eye and said: “Because they bought the Judge you stupid %#$%!”)
So how would it be different in a private market?
There would be consequences for a judge that rendered unfair rulings; their reputation would suffer and so would their business. What are the consequences for a state judge?
Consequences for whom? If a lawyer gets people facing serious charges off scot free then you’ll want that lawyer when you’re facing a serious charge. On the other hand, since there’s no State there’s no definition of what the law is. I can see how private arbitration will work for contract disputes where both parties want a resolution however I cannot how criminal justice courts would works because there’s no incentive for either side to play nice let alone agree on a ruling. Presumably vigilantism, and assassinations and vendettas will rule outside of private city-statse and how much social shame such actions take will presumably temper the worst excesses.
“Presumably vigilantism, and assassinations and vendettas will rule…”
And this is bad, why?
In the cases I’ve seen it used it is quicker, more just, and cheaper than so called “law” enforcement.
(Nothing motives one to solve their own problems quicker than having a police officer scream “QUIT WASTING MY TIME!” after reading off to him the long litany of assaults and thefts you have suffered.)
I guess that is the difference between private and public police:
P.I Make a profit by solving crime.
Cops only solve crimes that turn a profit (Shut down that meth lab you live next to? Nah, we got more $400 speeding tickets to write!)
A private law society would have a definition of what the law is: life , liberty, and property. To commit a crime you must be proven to have violated one of these rights of an individual. Private police agencies would investigate crimes on behalf of their clients and bring charges before a judge, who would decide the case based on the basic rights of both the alleged “victim” and the alleged “criminal”. If the accused was found guilty he could appeal to a judge of his choice, and if the two judges differed they could appeal to a third and final court. Any judge or police agency that was percived as biased would lose business as no one would respect their rulings. There would be no place for vigilantism and vendettas as people who took the law into their own hands would have to defend themselves against the accusation of violating the rights of the alleged “criminal” they attacked. If they were in the right, such as cases of self-defense or defending their property from armed agression, they would be found innocent, but the expense of such a case would make it much more efficent for most people to rely on professional police. Private police would also have the advantage of responding only to actual crimes, not wasting their time on politically motivated laws such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. A purely private society would have vastly less crime and criminals than the current statist regime simlpy because there would be less reasons to commit crimes. You would still have psychos and crimes of passion, but the vast majority of violent crimes today are in some way connected to the various state-created black markets and organized criminal gangs that would not exist in a free society as they would have no means of financing their activities. It is the profits from black markets that makes things like the mafia, drug cartels, gangs, etc possible, and these profits would not exist in a free society.
One advantage of the State enforcement over opportunists is that the police have the right force people to comply when searching for evidence as well forbid people from destroying evidence. A P.I. can’t just walk into a private residence to go through their things let alone cordone the area with a “do not cross” line or forbid the movement of suspects, etc.
If people won’t voluntarily cooperate, that’s most likely an indication that the prosecution was not economically justified to begin with. Say the town bully or a notorious pederast turns up dead one morning. If it’s good riddance to bad rubbish so long as the town is concerned, then that’s where things will and should end.
Comments on this entry are closed.