Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: E who wrote (29955)	2/4/1999 6:38:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) of 108807

>I put this under deterrence for a reason. It is so unbelievably expensive to execute, an exercise that does not, apparently, effect the crime rate, that deterrence might be better achieved by putting those taxpayer monies into effective crime reduction measures.< E, I don't want to deflect the thrust of your argument, but I want to add a little semantic clarification. Deterrence by its nature is an application of terror to prevent a certain behavior. Our nuclear deterrent is intended to scare our enemies into laying off their own big red buttons. In the case of the death penalty, it's a case of "this could happen to me - so maybe I won't commit this crime". Effective crime reduction measures - civilized ones, anyway - aren't deterrents because they do not seek abstinence through plain ol reptilian fear. Instead, they seek to provide some affirmative alternative to criminal bevavior. (Although the "effective" part is an invitation to tap a keg and palaver.) Thus I humbly propose the term "diversion" in place of "deterrent".

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next