<<is it saying that punishment for some behaviors should be considered relative to the environment that affected the criminal when we consider punishment like the death penalty? That we can't help ourselves in some situations? >>
Possibly. One of the arguments against the death penalty for, say, murder, is that murder is usually a crime of passion. In other words, they don't think. Historically, the data did not support the idea that the death penalty reduced the amount of murder. If that's true, why execute a criminal? But I think the question is more relevant to accidental crimes. If I get drunk and run over a 10-year-old, why is my penalty so much harsher than if I was merely weaving down the road and got pulled over by a cop? In both cases, the crime is the same, driving under the influence. I would argue that the penalty needs to be whatever is required to stop the behavior and no more. The penalty attached to unintended consequences is unlikely to be a deterrent because the unintended consequences are...unintended. I don't intend to run over anyone, so why should I be concerned about the penalty associated with that behavior? Probably the underlying reason is that we feel that the perpetrator "deserves" a harsher sentence. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
