No.

Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.

Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted? This is the logic of a 5-year-old. So utilitarian justifications are tacked on when people grow up and try to figure out what the fuck is going on. These include deterrence, rehabilitation, etc. Eventually, as society grows up, this tail will wag the retributive dog more and more until we come to a better system. This will take ages to happen everywhere, though it's already happened in some Nordic countries.

Retributive justice is probably a self-unaware sublimation of a desire for vengeance. But that's a psychological argument, not a legal one.

Again, our legal system recognizes no criminal right of a victim against those who harm him. The victim's recourse is a civil lawsuit, where the principle, incidentally, is that the victim has a right to force the one who harmed him to cure the injury. You don't fulfill a contract, you pay a penalty for my inconvenience. You hit me with your car, you pay for my medical bills and compensate me for the pain I suffered. And so on. It goes all the way to, "if you kill me, you pay my estate the amount of money my life was worth". You may notice this actually makes a lot more sense than retributive "justice", although it's obviously not perfect because no amount of money will bring me back to life; the harm just can't be undone in that case. But that's neither here nor there.

So there's nothing anywhere saying you have a civil right, or would have a civil right if not for criminal law, or have a civil right that the government is exercising for you. Someone hurts you, you go to court and get compensated for your injury. That's YOUR right. The state has an ENTIRELY SEPARATE right to punish people who do bad things, because Kindergartner-logic + utilitarian handwaving (NOT REVENGE), and you have no interest in that whatsoever.

This is not correct. Crimes are considered injuries to the state, not to the individual victim (if any) of the crime. Victims can sometimes sue the offender to recover damages, but that's not criminal law.

The state isn't acting on behalf of the victim, either. Crimes can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted, and, if a prosecutor decides not to go after a particular suspected offender, the victim has no recourse.

Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".

I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.

It's worth pointing out that being gay isn't a federally protected class. So, unless the state government has stepped in, you CAN refuse to hire someone because they're gay, tell them, and there's crap-all they can do about it. You can even turn away customers because they're gay.

How big a problem is this in practice? I don't know.

All available evidence indicates the board of directors of the Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, did not oust him from his position as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. He left on his own. The guy has been a technical leader of the Netscape codebase for literally decades, and I'm sure he wanted to do what was best for the organization.

By all accounts, the board of directors at Mozilla absolutely did not pressure or force him to resign. He resigned on his own because /he/ thought the issue was distracting, and it would be better for him to go.

This is believable: Eich is the inventor of JavaScript and has been with the Netscape code base almost since day 1. He has a lot invested in Firefox and I'm sure doesn't want a bunch of idiots bringing it down because they don't personally like him, which is what was happening.

Okay, if that's true, then some states have taken the ABA's suggestion. What is relevant is still the individual state bars' ethics rules. Even if they adopt most of the model rules, anything they don't adopt or adopt in a modified form will not be the same as in the model rules.

lawl that should be "loves programming".

Oh! Yay! I got one!

You force people to get sterilized after they have 2 kids. Remember, it's Communism, so no individual rights.

Communo-techno-utopia would be awesome, man. Just like any utopia.

And I program stuff even when no one pays me to, so I imagine I would program stuff even when no one pays me to in a techno-utopia. I'm not the only one who loves programmers. It would be a bunch of part-timers doing it for love, probably.

But we're probably 200 years away or more from being able to live in a techno-utopia :(

a) Violating the "model rules" is meaningless. Model laws and rules are an example and a suggestion, not actual laws or rules.

b) What motivation do you think this individual could possibly have to tell you his name when you say this is what you are going to do if he does?

Hi there,

Here's a good article for you to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Your fluency is already quite good, and I wish you continuing success in your ESOL studies.

I think what's going on is they won the criminal case but lost a civil case.

Well, given that an airplane crash is almost certain death sentence anyway, so what?

Honest question: what are you supposed to do if the plane is going down?

Good, and shame on him. (I really need a more serious expression of disgust here.)

If you're driving a monstrosity of a truck, you have a damned high duty of care to make sure that monstrosity is not putting others in harm's way.

Re the Milgram experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I agree with other posters in this thread -- most people aren't amoral so much as habitually thoughtless.