Warren said:
Well, numerous studies in the US have proven that the death penalty is
*not* a deterrent to crimes for which it is a punishment, so I have my
doubts that anything will stop spammers, whom I place on an even lower
spot in the quasi-human hierarchy than murderers
The problem is, the "death penalty." As a penalty, death is considered
appropriate only for crimes involving death, and such crimes are mainly
crimes of momentary passion, or the demented thought processes of
someone driven mad by hate, fear, etc. IOW, by perpetrators who would
not be detered by anything.
For such people, what is needed is a "death solution," one in which
those who show that they are not going to turn from violence no matter
what are simply put out of our misery.
As to a death penalty, this would be a lot more useful for crimes of
calculation, wherein the criminal adds up the costs, payoffs, chances of
getting caught, and likely penalties, and decides crime will pay.
spamming is just such a crime. A death penalty for that would likely
work very well.
Still, in one of Larry Niven's stories, they had a death penalty for
double-parking and other such violations, purely as a way of providing
lots of organs for transplant (using a technology which made universal
transplanting work every time). It still did not stop the crime. Well,
that's fiction, after all.
