[nine_k]

An insurance is a "right to commit crime" as much as an insurance is a "right to crash your car into someone else's". If you have a car and an insurance, you can just try for yourself. The insurance would pay for your liabilities in that case, but they would likely not be happy to do so, and will efficiently communicate their unhappiness to you.

Your next round of insurance will cost significantly more after that, and if they decide that it wasn't an accident but a deliberate act, it might as well cost s much as a new car.

[will_brown]

You’re actually reiterating my point. Typical insurance, as you note, is for risks (e.g. your example of an accident). In other words insurance won’t pay out if you willfully intentionally caused the accident. Criminal acts necessarily imply intentional conduct.

The author wants to suspend imprionsment for this insurance based damages system. Between the difference in car insurance and this criminal conduct insurance I think it equals a right to commit crimes. We have a criminal and civil court system (think on OJ case acquitted in the criminal case and liable in the civil case). I think the proposal amounts to mandated “criminal insurance” which suspends then crimaljustice side of things and allows insurance companies resolve the damages from crimal acts.