(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Home Fires
António Pedro Marques
entonio at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 19:11:56 PDT 2012
Marc Aramini wrote (12-04-2012 01:38):
> I am not going to get too involved here, as it will no doubt veer further
> and further from its Wolfe origins, but the claim that the death penalty
> is not a deterrent from further crime ... does that imply that other
> systems just pay for people for life,
I'll say only this: last time I heard, the money spent with a death penalty
in the US is way more than with a life sentence, due to the processual
guarantees involved.
My view is that the State should not be able to take away something it can't
restore. Sure, it can't restore time spent in jail either, but I'll be glad
to leave the inconsistency stand. I'm also not bothered by the fact that
paying for a life sentence for a criminal is an insult to taxpayers whereas
paying way more to be able to carry out a death sentence may not be.
I have nothing against a death penalty for individuals who everybody knows
they committed some types of crime - say, the norwegian individual. However,
I know of no good legal system that has a standard by which to distinguish
such individuals.
More information about the Urth
mailing list