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 (15417)	6/25/2002 1:18:10 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"There are lots of ways to study criminals without observing criminal acts. One can perform physical tests on the brain or body chemicals. One can interview or use standardized intelligence or skill or psychological tests. One can do stress tests and role playing. Plenty of things to look at and learn from." Do you think criminals would agree or participate honestly in your battery of tests? Anyway it has all been done before with no reduction in the crime rate. I'm sure there is a study somewhere about selenium deficiency in bank robbers. What do we do then? I suppose under our system the bank robber would sue the local farm co-op for farming practices that led to selenium depletion in soils. The fact is one useless study leads to other useless studies all at the expense of the taxpayer. This may be your idea of noblesse oblige but not mine for the taxpayer who has to pay for it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (15417)	6/25/2002 2:56:30 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

OTOH, all that equipment, time, thought, money and study could go into finding cures for cancer and heart disease. And we can just continue executing killers.

To: Lane3 who wrote (15417)	6/25/2002 3:53:51 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I see no reason to accommodate the blood lust of some elements of society when the victim doesn't share it. How about the victim gets to choose the punishment? Surely you would not argue that would be better? Jeffrey Dahlmer or Richard Allen Davis or Charles Manson would probably have been tortured to death..... slowly. So the fact that the victim may not want "a dog and pony show punishment" has to be ruled irrelevant. Or the ban on cruel and unusual punishment goes.