Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uf-csv.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!uf-csv!mark From: mark@uf-csv.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: Bastille mentality alive and well in USA Message-ID: <139@uf-csv.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 16:01:29 EST Article-I.D.: uf-csv.139 Posted: Wed Nov 28 16:01:29 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 19:39:02 EST References: <259@spp2.UUCP>, <1220@dciem.UUCP> Organization: Univ of Fla, Computer and Information Science Lines: 23 Not to put too fine a point on it, if there are n-1 murderers at large (defined to be people who've demonstrated the capacity for murder) rather than n, then your probability of being done in by one of them is *ipso facto* reduced. Even stipulating (which you would, but I don't), that capital punishment has an absolutely non-existent deterrent effect. This is the ONE issue on which I remain conservative. It strikes me that criminal justice needs to be seen in the light of quality control standards: type I versus type II errors. Currently, so few violent humans are caught by the sieve, that your chances of being murdered or otherwise harmed by one of them are MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than your chances of being harmed by judicial pursuit for a crime you didn't commit. *Ideally*, the aggregate harm deriving from these two sources should be minimized. Currently, the harm is so enormous from the one source, that to carp on philosophical abstractions in respect of the other is itself destructive. Now, this isn't to say that I don't think society is in need of massive reform to reduce both the economic need and the ingrained propensity to do violence, but this won't happen in our lifetimes. For practical reasons, then, to reduce my statistical exposure to harm (and yours), I would support capital punishment (and would also tighten up on the jusdicial system), much as I detest the concept in the abstract, morally.