• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    If a drunk driver totals your car you’re ok with getting less of a car?

    If someone robs a bank they only have to repay a small percentage of the theft?

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re not reading what I’m saying. If someone totals my car and I’m so rich the loss of a normal class car doesn’t even register on a monetary level while they are already poor, I’m not furthering their poverty because frankly there’s no reason I should ever want to!

      Meanwhile they’re still facing criminal charges for drunk driving and the accident, btw. It’s just about the rich not taking further money the poor already do not have.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I understand your point just fine. Your goal of protecting people from large corps is met but it doesn’t protect people from other people.

        If a drunk driver hits you and has half your wealth you’re only getting half the value of your car. I doubt very much the 30 day license suspension and points on their license will make up for that.

        Restitution only includes reimbursent to get them back to the state before the crime happened. It’s just for damages directly caused by the crime. In the case of piracy no direct damage occurs so there would not be $14m in criminal restitution.