--- In [email protected], "rb999sb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > And from me. Bring back hanging. > > > Sue > > > > > What, for theft and anti-social behaviour!? > > > > I'm not sure I'd even advocate the death penalty for murderers. It > > seems to me that there is more value in keeping the criminals alive. > > > > Ben > > > I don't understand the last sentence? Unless you mean that without > criminals a lot of people would be out of work. No criminal lawyers; > no police; no prisons etc. > Sue > I meant that not killing the people would mean that they would have a chance to reform and possibly become valuable to the community in terms of their economic input through employment/self-employment or other social input. Now, I realise that some people may not be able to be reformed but I think that a better punishment than hanging would be either some sort of custodial sentence or a community service kind-of-thing where the criminals would be paid but out of that money would recompense the victim of the crime as far as possible. If you hang for a crime like theft, what do you for a murderer? (I am taking murder to be a worse crime than theft as it harms humans rather than property.) Death seems to be the worst possible punishment so, assuming the same punishment is used for murderers, there are really no boundaries which a criminal would not cross. E.g. he might as well kill if he will only get the same sentence as if he had stolen some property. Proportionate punishment allows the wrongdoer to judge for themselves how far they are prepared to go based on the punishment they would receive if caught and found guilty. Without the proportionate punishment, this reasoning process cannot work. Ben
