View Single Post
  #13   Report Post  
Old December 12th 09, 09:15 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.true-crime,rec.games.chess.computer
Taylor Kingston[_2_] Taylor Kingston[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 12, 2:24*pm, samsloan wrote:

Murders have the lowest recidivism rate. Murderers rarely kill again.
There was the case of a Govenor of Tennessee who, on his last day in
office, released a bunch of convicted murderers by granting executive
clemency. There was a great hue and outcry about this but, as far as I
know, none of them were ever charged with another crime and they are
all still free today.

Sam Sloan


This whole line of argument is absurd (not surprising since it's
Sloan). The rate of recidivism is completely beside the point. The
main purpose of legal penalties is to deter people from committing
crimes. If, as Sam seems to be advocating, there were no penalty for
murder, a substantial increase in murders would be the likely result,
mostly by first-time killers who would have nothing to fear.