Quoting Eric Cordian (emc@artifact.psychedelic.net):
In a criminal case, the plaintiff is the state, not the wronged individual.
... which is something that I've found odd. Up here in the Great White North, it's the Queen who is the nominal victim of transgressions of the criminal code. Of what philosophical benefit is the transfer of `harm' from the actual victim of a crime to another entity? Of course, it doesn't change the nature of the offence but it does provides a flesh-and-blood victim-object for offences where there would otherwise be none. Is it merely a philosophical holdover from a time when the visible head of state was considered `superhuman'?
It was the state that filed the charges, and it was the state that dropped them after the adverse publicity started. Despite this, the student has been through a lot, including being charged with a felony, and having to enter a plea.
Philosophically speaking, what part of common law permits the state (or its officers) to evade responsibility for harming an appellant as a direct result of the legal process -- regardless of the eventual finding of guilt, or as it was in this case, where the state declined to pursue the charge. That the charge was laid in the first place is another matter entirely. Certainly an indicator of impropriety on the part of the state prosecutor who failed to demonstrate the safe use of brain cells, synapses and dendrites. Regards, Steve -- Excerpt from: Subject: ABOI: Chomsky: The Motion Picture Date: 10 Oct 1997 05:19:52 GMT Message-ID: <61kdto$7p9$6@leopard.it.wsu.edu> [cut to bunker] Dr. Loglan: The battle is turning against us. Whorf: What if there is a panic? Dr. Loglan: My super-logical soldiers will never panic! [cut to street. A truck with large speakers cruises up and down] Truck: THERE IS NO NEED TO PANIC! A IS A! RETURN TO YOUR HOMES! EXISTENCE EXISTS! THE DAM HAS NOT BROKEN!