Oh, I'm not equating the modern concept of damages with modern criminal
law. I'm saying that in the venerable history of our legal system, it may
not be trivial to separate them.
Put another way: If I attempt to kill someone and stumble, dropping my
steak knife, that should be treated differently from a completed murder
(for all the law knows, I unconsciously stumbled). And that should be
treated differently from my slashing you in the arm, causing a minor cut
but no permanent damage.
Ah, yes, that "damage" word again.
-Declan
At 11:49 8/23/2000 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >One reason to punish a crime (rather than an attempt) more seriously
> >is that there is usually some sort of damage, at least with traditional
> >crimes. Murder, rape, theft, etc.
>
>Right. Damages, however, are Torts rather than Crimes.
>
>(translation -- damages are a matter for civil court,
>not criminal court.)
>
> Bear
>
