Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (2450)	1/23/2001 10:50:49 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

That is precisely, on balance, what happens in terms of the gross economics. If your goal is to get criminals off the street, the likelihood of doing so at minimum cost is far more likely to happen if you don't set the stakes so high. Death penalty cases are notoriously expensive to prosecute, are laden with automatic appeals, and tie up resources that could be used in other ways (12-17 years in California). When you elevate cases to the death penalty, you involve other parties (partly because of the controversial nature of the punishment). Even if the criminal is guilty, the total cost goes up due to the automatic nature of the appeal process. What's not to get? If your goal is to prosecute efficiently, protect society and not exact some sort of irrational revenge, then why not do so efficiently?