Plia Albeck
Warren Burstein
was that if a person injured another, the judges would order the
victim to pay the person who hit him a fee for bloodletting.
--
/|/-\/-\ The entire world Jerusalem
|__/__/_/ is a very strange carrot
|warren@ But the farmer
/ worlds.COM is not worried at all.
Yigal Arens
<On Sanhedrin 109b it discusses several laws of Sodom. One of them
<was that if a person injured another, the judges would order the
<victim to pay the person who hit him a fee for bloodletting.
It isn't clear, but are we to assume that your posting was in reaction
to the following?
Yedi'ot Ahronot, October 18, 1991.
From Sylvie Keshet's column.
Everyone has been criticizing, and justly so, Pli'ah Albek, head of
the Civil Litigation Department at the State Attorney's office, for
her horrible letter to the Tel Aviv District Attorney. The brief
letter, two lines in all, was in regard to the suit filed for
compensation in the death of Saffiah Saliman Gargon of Kahn Yunis at
the hands of the Border Patrol. It said, "In addition to all the
usual defenses, it must be argued that the plaintiff only gained from
the death of the deceased, since while she was alive he was required
to support her, and now he is no longer required to do so, therefore
his loss is at most zero."
. . .
And she hopes to be nominated to the post of Justice of the Supreme
Court.
. . .
--
Yigal Arens I had a bad day. I had to subvert my principles
USC/ISI and kowtow to an idiot. Television makes these
ar...@isi.edu daily sacrifices possible.
Matthew Slaughter, in "Trust"
Yitzy Fischer
Yigal, I think that Plia Albeck's letter was even stupider than most
of the things that you have written in the past. It was insensitive
etc etc etc. I am not defending her at all. Yet it has been pointed
out several times that though she may have chosen the worst words with
which to say what she wanted, legally she is correct as far as the
specific case is concerned.
It is no secret that the law holds many loopholes through which many
guilty escape punishment and many others are caught up on
technicalities. This has bothered me for as long as I can remember.
One would expect a legal system to be 100% but that is not so. One
example is the recent cases of shas politicians stealing anything they
could lay their hands on including money from the poor yet to
prosecute is going to be one hell of a legal battle.
Yitzy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| /\ |
| Internet: fis...@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il .--/--\--. |
| \/ \/ |
| /\ /\ |
| Bitnet: fischer@bimacs `--\--/--' |
| \/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Burstein
>Yigal, I think that Plia Albeck's letter was even stupider than most
>of the things that you have written in the past. It was insensitive
>etc etc etc. I am not defending her at all. Yet it has been pointed
>out several times that though she may have chosen the worst words with
>which to say what she wanted, legally she is correct as far as the
>specific case is concerned.
It *might* be correct in a strictly legal sense if could it be shown
that the value of the work that the woman contributed to the family
was less than the cost of feeding her and if the law places no value
on life itself (which it might). Unless the woman was a total invalid
it would be unlikely that she contributed nothing of value to the
family. Furthermore, in order to replace the woman's labor with hired
labor one would presumably have to both pay the employee money as well
as provide meals.
But my original posting wasn't related to whether her statement was in
accordance with the facts.
--
/|/-\/-\ The entire world Jerusalem
|__/__/_/ is a very strange carrot
|warren@ But the farmer
/ itex.jct.ac.il is not worried at all.
som...@venus.ycc.yale.edu
> fis...@bimacs.BITNET (Yitzy Fischer) writes:
>
>>Yigal, I think that Plia Albeck's letter was even stupider than most
>>of the things that you have written in the past. It was insensitive
>>etc etc etc. I am not defending her at all. Yet it has been pointed
>>out several times that though she may have chosen the worst words with
>>which to say what she wanted, legally she is correct as far as the
>>specific case is concerned.
>
> It *might* be correct in a strictly legal sense if could it be shown
> that the value of the work that the woman contributed to the family
> was less than the cost of feeding her and if the law places no value
> on life itself (which it might). Unless the woman was a total invalid
> it would be unlikely that she contributed nothing of value to the
> family. Furthermore, in order to replace the woman's labor with hired
> labor one would presumably have to both pay the employee money as well
> as provide meals.
>
> But my original posting wasn't related to whether her statement was in
> accordance with the facts.
> --
jurisdictions) this type of compensation is strictly economic and therefore it
is "justified" to deduct from the services that the dead would have provided
the amounts that would have been spent on hios/ her expenses.
***But Albek's letter remains stupid and racist. Her letter stated "We should
argue that the Arab only gained from his wife's death, since he had to feed her
in her life and now he does not need to anymore." This assumes for a fact that
when Arabs are concerned, the value of services provided by a nonworking wife
is lesser than her nutrition costs.
***I know of *no case* in which it was argued that the result of the reduction
by nutrition saving is zero or negative. This may be used to *reduce*
compensation, not to avoid it altogether. Until here, this was a legal
discussion.
***As to the wisdom and the appaling feelings created by this letter, suffice
it to quote the satirical column in MAARIV, an Israeli newspaper not suspect of
being left-wing, which suggested that the Plaintiff (Arab) attorney accept the
State's defense with respect to the wife, but counter sue, because the Army did
not kill his kids, and therefore he is loosing money, since he has to feed
them...!!
> /|/-\/-\ The entire world Jerusalem
> |__/__/_/ is a very strange carrot
> |warren@ But the farmer
> / itex.jct.ac.il is not worried at all.
Hillel Sommer
Yale LAw School