[citanul]

David,

I don't get this thread. I think it has a similar problem to other threads you have started.

My problem is that all your post does is make a statement, incredibly simplistic, naive, and well, unoriginal in content, about a random topic on which you are in no way expert.

I'm sure that you can't possibly be so silly as to think that your thoughts on this subject, as posted in the original post, are original, interesting, or possibly the effect you were going for is shocking?

However I also find it odd that you are completely glossing over the clear conflicts in your post that anyone with a moment to spare could find.

First and foremost, you skip two of the biggest standard issues in Law and Economics:

1) Your reasoning does not have anything in particular to do with only the one crime that you want to discuss. That is, there isn't really much reason why, with these factors as the key, one shouldn't just punish other random crimes with death that would otherwise have life in prison type penalties (or wouldn't). Proportionality be damned, offing violators certainly dissuades people from DUI, it's incredibly cheap to kill someone, so it's certainly cheaper than even a brief jail sentence, you can very reliably check if someone is DUI, etc.

2) There is nothing in the argument you present which implies that only the government should be capable of bestowing punishment. Private parties will frequently be put similar spots. Is it very easy to tell if you have a retarded or autistic kid? Is it then just and right to kill them because it would be cheaper than keeping them alive? Societal/Private burden becomes an easy point to make against this type of question.

As for conflicts in your original post, saying that "without high falootin philosphy or religion" and then jumping to (3) "Does it cost mor to keep him alive?" is pretty nuts. Someone against the death penalty would say "so?" Arbitrarily saying that money incentives existing means that "philisophical" ones don't seems silly.

Finally, I'm surprised that you believe it less silly to kill off a "sane" murderer than an "insane" one. meh.

c