Standing

[RealSkinny]

WorBlux Wrote:Just to prove standing is a jurisdictional requirement of both criminal and civil law.... If Smith intentionally and maliciously causes the death of Jones, but neither Smith or Jones were citizens of the Nation-State Hypothetica, and niether of them were in the Nation-State Hypothetica at that time, would the courts of Nation-State Hypothetica have jurisdiction to try Smith for murder? We know at minimum that the prosecution must prove some tie of Smith or Jones to the political body and thus the assumed allegiance or protection respectively in order to take jurisdiction.

This is a good point, but I think it's further going to support my argument that Standing does apply in criminal law, but the State will always have it. If Smith kills Jones, their citizenship is of little importance. Smith is going to be prosecuted in the State where he committed the murder. Even if both are citizens of New York, if the murder happened in Hypothetica, the case will almost certainly be prosecuted in Hypothetica. Why is this? Well, we don't think of a murder in Hypothetica as being a violation of New York Law. We think of it as a violation of Hypothetica law. When Hypothetica v. Smith goes to court, Hypothetica is not bringing the case forward based on some duty to protect Jones. Jones was not a Hypothetica Citizen. They are also not bringing the case forward based on some physical injury caused to Hypothetica. The injury was received by Jones, not the State. So how are they bringing the case forward? It is based on the violation of one of their laws. Hypothetica brings the case to court because one of their laws has been violated, and for no other reason. Based on this, we can deduce that violation of a law is an injury, and that injury is received by the State who created the law. If violation of the law were not the injury, then Hypothetica would have received no injury at all to base their Standing on. They did not receive a physical injury. Jones received it. They had no duty to protect Jones, he was not a citizen of Hypothetica. The only way we could say Hypothetica has received an injury that constitutes Standing is if we say the violation of Hypothetica Law was the injury. Once we reach this conclusion, then it follows that violation of any Hypothetica law, whether it be drug possession, speeding, stealing, or murder, is going to be an injury.

WorBlux Wrote:What we can say is the the test of standing and test of negligence are overlapping tests. The elements of negligence are arranged in such a way to overlap and fulfill the primary requirements of standing (injury and causation).

Not entirely, and that is where everyone is running into problems. While similar, one is not satisfied simply because the other is satisfied, and that's why the distinction is important to recognize and maintain. Let's switch the example from negligence to battery, just because battery is far simpler and will make for a better example.

Battery requires three elements:
1. Intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, and
2. An Injury
3. That was caused by the defendant.

Standing also requires three elements, more or less.
1. An injury
2. To the plaintiff
3. Caused by the defendant.

We have three people. Smith, Jones, and RealSkinny. Smith says, "I want to hurt Jones." He picks up a baseball bat and smacks Jones in the head, cracking his skull. The following day, RealSkinny brings a suit in court. In his complaint, he alleges that Smith said outloud that he wanted to hurt Jones, and then smacked him in the head with a baseball bat and cracked his skull.

Did RealSkinny state a valid cause of action? It appears he did. We have the intent - Smith said outloud that he intended to hurt Jones. We have the injury - Jones' skull was cracked. We also have the causation - The injury was certainly caused by the hit from the baseball bat.

So it appears the elements of Battery are satisfied. What about Standing?

Do we have an injury? Yes, Jones' skull was cracked. Was the injury caused by the defendant? Yes, once again, it was probably the baseball bat. Was the injury to the plaintiff?....

Now we have a problem. The plaintiff is RealSkinny. He's the one who filed the suit, but he's not the one who received the injury. Jones is the one who received an injury.

Even though we have clearly established that there was a battery, we have not established that RealSkinny has Standing to bring the suit. No one would doubt that Smith committed battery against Jones, but does that give RealSkinny the right to bring the lawsuit forward? Unless we can establish some kind of agency relationship, like a parent guardian relationship between RealSkinny and Jones, we won't be able to prove Standing even though we have proved there was a battery.

So even though there is overlap, it's important to keep the distinctions because the overlap might not always be enough to establish each requirement. This is why we can't say Standing and Corpus Delicti are the same. It's because they are not.