From: Randall Randall (wolfkin@freedomspace.net)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 14:14:28 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Randall Randall wrote:
>>ice or otherwise stored, someone has to pay for the storage. If they
>>are merely incarcerated, they can pay their own way (or choose to die,
>>of course).
>
>
> ### OK, you don't want to pay. You won't let me kill the bad guy (who, say,
> killed my wife). What do you want to do? Let him go free, and keep killing?
> Maybe make me pay for the incarceration?
Of course not.
> Let the incarcerated starve if they can't come up with the cash?
I don't understand why you see incredulous at this most obvious
solution. If someone is not willing to produce value, then is
that not the same as choosing to die by starvation?
Since they will have a very large debt to pay, it will be a long
time before a typical murderer can 'go free'.
Note that my assumption is that a criminal justice system based on
restitution will win out in a free market for justice. This may
not be the case, but if it is, the emphasis will be repaying the
harmed party. This model is stretched by murder, but I don't think
it's entirely broken.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "[The] poetic justice of cause and effect compels respect, compassion." -- Faithless, God is a DJ.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:33 MST