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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3752)	3/20/2002 6:06:22 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

The deterrence is clear in Tim's example. Did you understand his point?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3752)	3/20/2002 6:51:10 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

Isn't that the same as making kidnapping a capital crime? I don't see the deterrence there. Making kidnapping a capital crime actually increases the incentive to kill someone during the course of the initial crime (the kidnapping). However making murder a capital crime decreases the incentive to kill someone during the course of a kidnapping or armed robbery or other crime, as long as 1 - The kidnapping or armed robbery is not a capital crime, and 2 - The criminal views execution as a worse result then a long prison sentence. What would be even more effective is if you increases the chances of the criminal being caught and convicted, but that is a more complex and difficult thing to do. Also the two are not mutually exclusive. You can put more, better trained cops on the street and have them use more appropriate tactics, and take other steps to increase the likelihood of capture and/or conviction while still pushing for capital punishment. Tim