Death Penalty and Other misc replies

Seems the Death Penalty has become a topic of discussion.

Cygonaut Wrote:
> Texas has always had the death penalty.. yet it has the highest numbers of
> murders per capita.
>
> For some reason the death penalty is not deterring Texans from killing each
> other.

That's becuase it isn't anymore effective a deterant then life imprisonment.

Cygonaut Wrote:
> Looks like the U.S., as with slavery, will be one of the last of world's
> countries to abolish it.

Most people who live in the US are under the impression that it's the land of
the free. What Rubbish.

Carl Mullin Wrote:
> There's another alternative to death penalty: exile or suidice by choice.
> That way, we can avoid taking innocent lives and the really guilty can take
> their own lives without us having to compromised our own justice system.
There'll probably be a lot of innocent people taking their own lives under such
a system as well. I mean tell me how many other colonies would let you come
aboard if you've been convicted of something somewhere else?

Exile is basically just saying. "You killed people here so to prevent you
doing it again we're going to send you to another place where you can kill all
you like". To actually think of it as a viable option would be delusional.
The reason we put people in jail after they murder others rather then giving
them a fine is to protect society from them. That is the main reason we put
people behind bars. The second reason is to deter people and if all you do
after a murder is tell them to go to another colony, you're not offering much
of a deterant.

Lucio_de_Souza_Coelho Wrote:
> Not if there are other places where the "crime" of which the person is guilty

> is not considered a crime at all.
I'm sure there will be some colonies where murder is legal but they won't
survive long as it just can't provide a stable social structure. Besides if a
person goes to a colony they should make sure they obey the local laws. If the
local laws allow you to kill people for swearing at you then by all means. But
if they don't then you simply shouldn't do it. Most colonies will probably
have very simliar legal systems because they'll tend to converge on what works.
Although there will be some that are different.

Lucio_de_Souza_Coelho Wrote:
> In a future with countless space colonies, scattered across hundreds of
> gigameters and isolated from each other (at least when compred to
> present-day Earth-based cities) I would think that each colony would have a
> different culture and different values, and a "criminal" could eventually
> find a place where he or she fits.

The problem is that most of the values a criminal has wouldn't allow a stable
society to exist. That means that any place a criminal would fit in would
probably end up destroying itself very quickly.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> May is the right word. A classic non-correlation is the one where short
> skirts and earthquakes made it look like shorting hemlines caused
earthquakes.
I'd personally say it had something to do with the accuracy of siesmometers
going up instead of shorter skirts.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> When they talk about the crime rate, it is actually the reported crime rate.

> It is very hard to get a handle on the computer crime rate because many
> businesses do not like to report a crime that will make them look
undependable
> to the public.

Computer crimes I'm not going to count for this because of the fact that the
offender doesn't need to be in any proximity to the location the crime occurs
at. Physical crimes which account for the majority reported are a more
important measure because the attacker has to actaully be in the area and is
very unlikely to be on the other side of the world whereas with computer crimes
there's a good chance they are.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> No, because I believe the rule that there is an exception to every rule is
the
> exception to itself.

But wouldn't have a rule with no exceptions make that rule wrong?

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I'd say next to impossible. But, as you may have noticed, I don't share your

> faith in the law.

Please don't accuse me of having faith in something.

I don't have faith in anything. I have however noticed that somethings do work
well and others don't. The law despite all it's imperfections actually does a
pretty good job. If we put enough effort into it we could probably get
something written up that would work reasonably well. No matter what we'd have
to rely on precedents and we'd also have the matter of enforcement which would
probably end up making the right a paper right only.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Unfortunately, a computer model is only as good as its inputs. Forget one
and
> you don't have a reliable output.

It depends on how much effect the input provides. With computer models we
won't ever be able to put every factor into them so we'll just have to use the
most important ones and then compare our model with reality to see how well
they agree.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I firmly believe that in a hundred years our descendents will regard our
misuse
> of the automobile the major insanity of our age.

I'm sure they'll find a lot of other things as well.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I have not noticed any such thing. But I may miss that part of the
newspaper.
> I don't watch much tv either.

It may be different where you are. Where I am there is always a lot of
publicity given whenever a new road rule is coming out. TV's have it on the
news and there are also ads about it and the newspapers usually run it front
page. Sometimes signs are also put up on roadsides to tell people of the new
law.

Although it actually does have to be a new road rule. Just changing a few
speed signs isn't going to merit a large scale ad campaign and probably
wouldn't even be mentioned in local papers.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> I see we are talking at cross purposes. I refer to speed traps as towns that

> get a good share of revenue from traffic tickets. So they enforce the laws
> much more rigidly. As well as using tricks like having the signs hard to see

> or at the foot of an incline.
One does have to be careful with speed cameras because there are often
complaints about revenue raising. Personally I think those who say it's
revenue raising are only saying it because they keep getting booked and don't
want to pay for endangering other road users. If people don't want want to pay
the idiot driver tax they should stick to the speed limits.

However using signs that are hard to see. That is something which should not
be allowed. A visiblity standard of signs should be created, if a sign doesn't
meet the standard then the nearest sign that does should be considered the
speed limit. If it's determined that the limit should be lower for safety
purposes a sign that can be seen should be put up. Setting such a standard
could go a long way towards reducing the apparent truthfulness of revenue
raising objections (which in many cases are baseless).

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Cameras where drivers know the cameras are there will cause most drivers to
> drive within limits. So will dummy police cars.
>
> I am talking about hidden cameras and police cars where the object is to make

> money, not enforce laws.

Fixed speed cameras have been found to be a great way of slowing people down.
When it gets out that a road has a fixed speed camera people start to obey the
limit (or whatever they think the camera won't book them for). With traffic
enforcement it's hard to determine the best way to go about it because you want
to get both maximum deterant value whilst also getting as many of the criminals
as you can. My personal preference for speed enforcement is fixed cameras
large roads with the police on local roads as well using hidden cameras. If
the cameras are visible or people see a car on the side of the road with a
little black box on the ground they often tend to slow down. That isn't
wanted, you want people to go through a speed trap at the speed they would
travel if they don't know it's there which is far easier if they only find out
when they open their mail.

With enough police it's possible to book people. If you book people a few
times they'll realise they can't get away with speeding and might even stop
doing it. Those who don't should get off the road.

Sure people will claim it's revenue raising but they'll be a minority. One
with a decision not to pay the idiot driver tax.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Got it from several published sources about 5 or 6 years ago, before I went
> online. I'd have to look up the right folder and I'm not sure where it is.
> But I doubt if OHSA hadn't done the job between 70 and 95, that it would
start
> doing so since.

So you looked at the stats a while ago?

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> Possibly. But some of the raw data may have been omitted or changed before
it
> got to the final state. Too, the accident rate only includes Reported
> accidents. Plants may cover up minor accidents that make them look bad. As
> much from their bosses as from OHSA.

The document I presented does have a section on it. They conclude that it does
happen and even provide a percentage figure but seem to think that there wasn't
enough of an increase in under-reporting to cause such a decrease. They were
talking the recent times the document was created the deal with. The longer
time period from OSHA to now the figures on under-reporting probably aren't
avilable so a best guess will be needed.

The raw data is very unlikely to have had section omitted or changed since that
report exists to show what's happening and not support what the people writing
it want.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> At least we will have a start. I would expect the laws of a colony to
evolve.
I'd be willing to say that's pretty much been assumed here.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> And you get after me for being too sure of myself. I'm pretty sure that
there
> have been other factors than going off the gold standard that have prevented
> depressions.

Yes, but those other factors wouldn't have been possible without going off the
gold standard.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> A big one has been that the government is actively messing with the economy.

> Setting interest rates is one thing.

That's the reason we haven't had a depression. Whenever things start to go bad
government just changes the money supply. Something that is almost impossible
to do under a gold standard.

Rick Brooks Wrote:
> But I'm not good at discussing economics. I think it works by magic. As
long
> as you can get most of the people to believe in the economy, it works.

Probably why government meddleing has been so successful. When the government
starts spending people get confidence but under a gold system they lose all
confidence of keeping their money and start a bank panic.