From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 08:20:22 MST
Randall Randall wrote:
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>> 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?
### Sorry, I was misinterpreting your comments. I thought you were opposed
to the death penalty on other grounds.
>
> Since they will have a very large debt to pay, it will be a long
> time before a typical murderer can 'go free'.
### There are some substantial problems with this approach. Very wealthy
murderers could go free very quickly, unless the penalty was adjusted to fit
the murderer's resources. I doubt that incarcerated murderers would be
physically capable of paying for the incarceration and restitution. Unless
you add some more features to this system you will have a limited deterrent
and a financial loss.
------
>
> 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.
### Should I have a choice between joining a protection agency which would
ruthlessly pursue and kill somebody who kills me (and take all his money),
vs. joining an agency which merely extracts some money from him, I'd choose
the former. I agree with you that the free market for justice is a great
idea, and I do not doubt that many alternatives would flourish there, from
starry-eyed do-godies, to the heavily armed touch-me-nots.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:34 MST