> But what is to hold them to it? What keeps a murderer from
> murdering the family of the victims in the time that he is supposedly making
> restitution?
1. The family have guns and he'll probably be shot.
2. The claim would merely pass on to someone else, who'd take more care
when collecting it.
3. If the family think he's likely to try to kill them they'd simply sell
the claim at a discount to someone who is better able to collect. This
might become the normal order of business; sell the claim at 75% of face
value to a collection agency who'd pursue it themselves. That way the
family are guaranteed to get most of the money immediately.
4. In a Friedman-like system he'd probably become an outlaw and anyone who
wished could kill him without fear of legal reprisals.
So there are good reasons to pay up.
> circumstantial? I, personally, see that in some instances murder should not
> be a crime (rape and battery etc. are another story).
Murder is by definition a crime; homicide is another matter.
> As for the future, I would imagine that a drug would be found that
> could provoke the truth from a suspect.
First you'll have to define 'truth' and demonstrate that we even know what
the 'truth' of an event is (see the traditional 'banana murder' psychology
experiment; 'shoot' someone with a banana and most witnesses will see a
gun instead).
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|