Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Apr 2008 08:21 UTC, submitted by Jason Slack
Legal In October 2006, Hans Reiser, creator of the ReiserFS filesystem, was arrested under the suspicion of the murder of his wife, Nina, who had disappeared off the face of the earth after dropping their two children off at Hans' home. The two were divorced, and fighting a legal battle over ownership of the Namesys company and the custody of their children. Even though the body was never found, he has been declared guilty of first degree murder.
Permalink for comment 312021
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Like in Denmark..
by A.H. on Tue 29th Apr 2008 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Like in Denmark.."
Member since:

Well, maybe you should experience both. I suggest experiencing imprisonment first.

You know that's not what I am asking. Here, I'll repeat the full question for you: "...could you please explain the fundamental difference between "state-sponsored murder" and "state-sponsored imprisonment" in the framework of everyone being equal and no person having the right to decide over another person's freedom."

Because one involves taking the life of another human being, while the other involves taking away his freedom of movement? You seriously cannot see the difference between these two?

Of course I can see the difference between the two forms of punishment. What I can't see is why it violates "unconditional equality" principles to execute a person, but it doesn't violate it to imprison him.

The purpose of a punishment is to prevent the person from doing the harm again in the future.

...and a death sentence will fulfill this purpose perfectly, while imprisonment, on top of being costly and unfair to relatives of victims, carrier an inherent risk of criminal escaping and murdering again.

The best way to punish a murderer is to give him a serious prison sentence, in addition to a financial compensation to the victims.

How is that the best way? The murderer will still enjoy life to some extend at the considerable expense to the society. There is always a risk him escaping. How is that the best?

Financial compensation to victims' families is an altogether different subject, although it would be much easier to implement if no money was spent on caring for the murderer.

Even the greatest murderer is still a human being.

Physiologically - yes, but so what? Mentally - I don't think so, but even if he is, again, so what? A human can not be executed simply because he is a human? Sounds pretty fundamentalistic to me.

Seriously. That sentence of yours is so utterly populistic, oversimplified, and nonsensical I won't even bother with a proper reply.

I am sorry that you feel that way as I have no reason to resort to populism since I am not here on a political campaign. I am simply explaining my personal views on the subject in the most concise and logical manner I can.

Reply Parent Score: 4