Deterrent? If they know that they will only get "reformed" as a result of it they might just consider that a risk worth taking and hide a bunch of their assets abroad where they can't be seized, then just run away after they've convinced you to release them because they've "reformed".
I don't necessarily hold this position for the record. I just think it's interesting and worth the investigation and discussion.
Most violent crimes are “crimes of passion” type shit which I always figured was at least part of the reason that harsh penalties don’t deter. People aren’t even thinking of the consequences in the moment a lot of times. I doubt that is the case for bribery and corruption.
I would be interested in comparative analysis of that between countries that actually apply it and countries that don't. I'm not actually convinced that the reaction would be identical for violence vs financial.
I'm aware this analysis probably doesn't exist though :/ "Are the bourgeoisie being oppressed by financial sector capital punishment" doesn't sound like an area of research that would exist.
I just think there are probably different ways of handling it that still pose a threat is all. especially if they seize assets and restrict their movement/monitor them
This is i feel. In the midst of a war, you might be in a situation where killing someone is the best/only means of neutralizing a foe that is putting your life / your comrades lives in danger. If another way to neutralize them were available, it would almost always be preferable (For many reasons, not the least of which being the great mental toll that taking another life has, resulting in often life-long conditions similar to PTSD called Perpetrator Induced Stress Disorder), but like I said often that's not the case.
Outside of a wartime scenario though, there should be a plethora a options available to neutralize such a threat. In fact, going all the way to jump right to killing them almost imbues them with a seemingly inhuman power. My feelings on 'justice' is that first the threat should be neutralized, second is restoration: righting all the wrongs as much as possible, and third would be the transformation of the transgressor to acknowledge and move past their antisocial behavior which often can open eyes of would-be transgressors perhaps even in a cascading effect. If they're killed in the first step, it can make the second step much harder, and the third step impossible.
And I really think much more attention to should be given PITS. someone needs to do those killings, if there is someone who is to be executed, and the effect it'll have on the executor can't be ignored.
Deterrent? If they know that they will only get "reformed" as a result of it they might just consider that a risk worth taking and hide a bunch of their assets abroad where they can't be seized, then just run away after they've convinced you to release them because they've "reformed".
I don't necessarily hold this position for the record. I just think it's interesting and worth the investigation and discussion.
Capital punishment does not work well as a deterrent. It doesn't for serious violent crime, it won't for financial crime.
Most violent crimes are “crimes of passion” type shit which I always figured was at least part of the reason that harsh penalties don’t deter. People aren’t even thinking of the consequences in the moment a lot of times. I doubt that is the case for bribery and corruption.
I would be interested in comparative analysis of that between countries that actually apply it and countries that don't. I'm not actually convinced that the reaction would be identical for violence vs financial.
I'm aware this analysis probably doesn't exist though :/ "Are the bourgeoisie being oppressed by financial sector capital punishment" doesn't sound like an area of research that would exist.
deleted by creator
I just think there are probably different ways of handling it that still pose a threat is all. especially if they seize assets and restrict their movement/monitor them
This is i feel. In the midst of a war, you might be in a situation where killing someone is the best/only means of neutralizing a foe that is putting your life / your comrades lives in danger. If another way to neutralize them were available, it would almost always be preferable (For many reasons, not the least of which being the great mental toll that taking another life has, resulting in often life-long conditions similar to PTSD called Perpetrator Induced Stress Disorder), but like I said often that's not the case.
Outside of a wartime scenario though, there should be a plethora a options available to neutralize such a threat. In fact, going all the way to jump right to killing them almost imbues them with a seemingly inhuman power. My feelings on 'justice' is that first the threat should be neutralized, second is restoration: righting all the wrongs as much as possible, and third would be the transformation of the transgressor to acknowledge and move past their antisocial behavior which often can open eyes of would-be transgressors perhaps even in a cascading effect. If they're killed in the first step, it can make the second step much harder, and the third step impossible.
And I really think much more attention to should be given PITS. someone needs to do those killings, if there is someone who is to be executed, and the effect it'll have on the executor can't be ignored.