But is the crime against society, or is the government simply my representative when dealing with criminal offenses? Assuming that we institute government to protect our rights, and that we as individuals pursuantly elect representatives to enact laws on our behalf, are not our elected judges and prosecutors, along with the law inforcement personnel we hire, simply our representatives also? They all exist to serve each of us as individuals no? Isn't "society" nothing more that a plurality of individuals in this context?
There was a time when the language was "the crown versus the defendant", however we are no longer subjects. Does the contemporary language of "the people versus the defendant" then presume that an all powerful king has been replaced by an all powerful democratic State? If so, then does it not follow that the State then also defines and dictates rights as did the king? Alas, that is not a principle of government upon which society (the collective individuals) stipulated to at this country's founding.
Yet, we also must admit that our legal system transitioned from that of a crown to a republic, based on individual rights rather that a king's divine right. Based on that, I would argue that the term "the people" is leftover jargon from an antiquated legal system and should be discarded just as was the term "subject". It's an interesting debate and one which is likely far from Dior's mind at this time. 🙆
Hope you are enjoying the holidays, Franb.