Standing

[holipsism]

RealSkinny Wrote:

Marc Stevens Wrote:I think I need to restate this clearer. The basis and limitation of every court, according to the PR, is the protect individual rights. This is why the courts are limited to only cases.

A case, is the violation of a legal right/breach of a legal duty; loss, harm damage, and redressibility.

While "standing" is a word used primarily in civil proceedings, it refers to a plaintiff's "right" to invoke the jurisdiction of the court on their behalf. If they have a case (injuria et damnum) then they have met a minimum requirement for the court to act. There are other issues such as ripeness and mootness, but I just don't have the time right now, maybe on the show today we can get into that.

Corpus delecti is, in my opinion, is the same way as saying standing. What is important, and this very clear in the motion templates, there is no case. There is no case regardless of the allegation by the cop. Allegations do not equal a case regardless of who makes the allegation. Keep in mind the only differences between a civil proceeding and criminal is 1. the nature/scope of the injuria; 2. jail time as punishment.

I invite all those participating and interested in this subject to call into the show.

I have three issues with what you've said.

1. Standing refers to the plaintiff's "right" to invoke the jurisdiction of the court on their behalf. However, the plaintiff and the victim are never the same in a criminal trial. In criminal law, it's always the State that invokes the jurisdiction of the court, not the victim. According to your Standing interpretation, the State would never have standing because they have never received an injury. In fact, if I'm reading your argument correctly, the state doesn't exist, so how can they bring charges? I'm not saying this argument is flawed, but if it applies to one case, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to all criminal cases. It's easy enough to say the State doesn't have standing in a drug case because there has been no injury, but even in a murder case they've received no injury. The state is not the victim, and might not even exist, so what right do they have to bring charges in a criminal prosecution? If your argument applies to one criminal case, it has to apply to all criminal cases. This is why I'm skeptical that any court in history has ever claimed a Standing requirement in Criminal Law, or anything that is the equivalent. They would effectively be stating that no court ever has authority to hear a criminal case, and I just don't believe they would limit their own authority so significantly.

2. You say Corpus Delicti is the same as Standing, because if you fail to satisfy either, you have no case, but this is true for many legal concepts. If the court doesn't have Personal Jurisdiction, you have no case. If they don't have Subject Matter jurisdiction, you have no case. If they don't have a cause of action, you have no case. If they don't state a valid complaint, you have no case. Just because the case gets dismissed for failure to satisfy the requirement doesn't mean the requirements are the same. Apart from the fact that both Standing and Corpus Delicti require an injury, they're not similar at all. Corpus Delicti is used to establish that a crime has happened, i.e., "Has there been a murder?". Standing, on the other hand, is used to determine if the plaintiff has a right to bring action for the murder, i.e., "Can this plaintiff sue for the murder?". The problem with equating them is that you can satisfy one without the other. It's entirely possible to raise a complaint that states a completely valid cause of action that establishes a 100% bona fide crime that satisfied the corpus delicti, but still not have standing to sue. Just as an example, if I see the defendant burn my neighbor's house down, and I file a complaint, I will satisfy the corpus delicti. I will have established that an injury occurred with a criminal agency as its source. However, I will not have established that I personally received the injury and now have a right to sue for the damage that has occurred. Corpus Delicti is satisfied, but Standing is not. This is why it's hard to say Corpus Delicti is just Standing in criminal law. If Standing still applies in criminal law, it is not satisfied just because the Corpus Delicti is satisfied.

3. The government is limited to protection of individual rights, but what does this entail? Does it really require an injury? I think I brought this up once before in the Corpus Delicti thread... Once an injury has occurred, hasn't the government already failed to protect your rights? If the State were adequately protecting your rights, then you would not have received an injury. Even if the Court had said a real case or controversy requires an injury, this might be a mistake on the court's part. It would seem that a court that is limited to hearing a case after the injury has occurred has no ability to protect individual rights. They can only help people recover for their violation.

Where are you going with this argument? You are starting to sound like a psychology major to me right now because it seems you are arguing points leading to no where and don't have an overall thesis you are basing your points on.

On one hand you say it isn't your point whether or not the state exists or not, but then on the other hand you make an argument that can only be made if you believe the state does exist. Do you mind clarifying your position for me because right now my head is spinning. :wacky:

Thank you in advance!

Holip :frobro: