It would probably deter jaywalking better than murder. Murderers have a motive to risk at least life in prison to kill someone, so risking the death penalty is a smaller step further. On the other hand, no one is going to risk being executed to avoid walking a few feet to the crosswalk.
5 comments:
So if you have the death penalty for jay walking then it seems a bit unfair to not have it for something more serious like murder. A more serious crime should require an equal if not more serious punishment.
But maybe while the death penalty would deter people from jay walking it would be a bit too harsh so not really acceptable. Even thought it would be presumably effective in deterring it.
So do we now end up with the death penalty for murder but not for jay walking?
"Murderers have a motive to risk at least life in prison to kill someone"
Why is life in prison a deterrent but the death penalty isn't?
I guess when I say the death penalty doesn't deter I mean that it is not a comparative deterrent. It doesn't deter better than the alternative penalty. But I suppose it's a bit trivial that you could lower the jaywalking rate by making it a capital offense. Though some jaywalkers risk their lives, the old-fashioned way, by running the risk of getting run over by cars.
Romania used to have the death penalty for drunken driving (and carried it out!), but nevertheless still had one of the highest rates of DWI in all Europe.
Harsh penalties fail to deter slavs from drinking heavily.
In other news, sun still hot, rain still wet.
Post a Comment