Re: "punishment"

E. Shaun Russell (
Sun, 22 Jun 1997 10:02:35 -0700

Mark Grant wrote:

>> 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
>1. The family have guns and he'll probably be shot.

Then why not kill him in the first place? If someone presents a
significant (and proven) danger to others, then why risk the safety of the
family? If someone murdered my son, daughter, sister or anyone close to me,
I would not even dream of wanting that person around. I'm sure that
rationality would be quite blind to me for awhile, and I would probably take
it into my own hands to kill him.

>4. In a Friedman-like system he'd probably become an outlaw and anyone who
>wished could kill him without fear of legal reprisals.

But still, letting him roam freely would be jeopardizing others; why
compromise the safety and life of others when it is truly unnecessary?
"Claim" or no, I still value my life more than my money...I think most
people are that way. Perhaps I am slightly unclear on your concept --I have
not read any of Friedman's books-- but from what I can tell, it seems that
you are advocating a claimed parole on dangerous offenders. If I am
mistaken, please correct me. What I want to emphasize is that execution and
incarceration are sometimes necessary...though most certainly not
state-sanctioned. If someone decides to take other people's lives away, why
should he be able to walk away freely? If he caused a family pain, grief,
and a lifetime of longing for their lost relative, should there not be an
effect. As I said in my last post, all crimes are committed with different
circumstances; what I advocate is to find a fair way to judge the
circumstances and make a subsequent decision. The only question is *how*.

E. Shaun Russell Poet, Musician, Atheist, Extropic Artist.
=========================> Transhumanities editor for Homo Excelsior:
Kineticize your potential.