A death penalty is fair – if we take into account what it intends to achieve. A Facebook acquaintance posted that the death penalty should not be accepted as a form of punishment referencing two Australian’s caught smuggling illicit drugs.
(I thought I’d write something topical for a change. Whilst I’m mid-thought: I have a side point that the Hun is crap. I mean make a point of Vietnam being communist, because death penalty also exists in Westernized countries like ‘Merica)
Anyway, my argument was: “this ain’t no Kansas anymore – you break the law, you pay for it.”
After the typical commentary that follows such a Facebook thread from others like: “what else should you do then?” or the “I feel like death penalty is bad, especially coz (sic) I don’t want the state to be involved, but I like putting more PSO’s everywhere,” I came to a different conclusion.
Think about it rationally. (When I say rationally, like the rational that says having a carbon tax is a bad thing for business, even though it achieves particular environmental endeavours – like life on Earth). Which, when all things are considered, is not that rational. But what’s the goal of killing people for drug smuggling?
The consequence of policy, is to change behaviour.
In finance, if the benefits outweigh the costs, then it’s worth doing. Business is pretty one-dimensional for money; don’t lie to yourself – that’s how capitalism works. So, if we can deliver policy, that changes social behaviour – this is a good outcome. But if we started using the death penalty on fare evaders, that would be shocking – but we’d have almost zero fare evasion (if enforced correctly).
What’s the cost? We can’t put an exact value, but in the article, sure drug smugglers doing wrong and will pay for it. But a few people being put to death (what I term: “collateral damage”) isn’t to bad if the outcome means maybe 50 – 300 people not getting access to drugs that would have lifelong effects (maybe). Isn’t that a good policy outcome? An individual put to death could be a better deterrent than giving someone a huge fine.
I’ve also made the conclusion, that supporters of the present Federal government should in theory be in support of the death penalty.
If you conceptualize death as a by-product of policy, not the cause of policy, then it is acceptable for people to die.
“Well a government implement’s policy to deter behaviour. If the ‘collateral damage’ is less than the overall greater good, then it’s fine. Let’s call it ‘behavioural return.’
I mean, people die getting into Australia attempting to seek asylum (although we really don’t know, the government now chooses to report on an ad hoc basis). However, because this is now ‘illegal behaviour’ we want to deter the actual process, and whilst those who do choose to come are put at grave risk, perhaps as collateral damage – there are now less people overall coming which is a good thing.
Thus again, policy creates a behavioural return. All in all, dying/suffering people can be made an example of – hopefully reducing the total overall dying/suffering.
Very economic way of looking at it. And yes, I am being a little sarcastic, but my point doesn’t change nonetheless.”
With a knife.
Then the shooters/fisherman could shoot and gut something. All they’re good for.
Also other points why Rupert Murdoch Media is silly:
So communist Vietnam sounds like the Government’s “culture of secrecy” purported by the ALP.