The Glade 4.0

What about them? Why would they be different?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't recall anyone who had cash stolen from them getting it back since it is typically spent, the stereo pawned/sold, etc. Big ticket items are recoverable but most smaller items can't be recovered because most owners don't keep the serial numbers for everything they own. That said, I could very well be mistaken which is why I am asking someone involved in law enforcement.

_________________

Ah yes. Such complications can and do occur. I was pointing out that restitution or return of the property is a possibility, not that it is necessarily feasible every time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Insurance generally covers the value of what can't be recovered or is destroyed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I think criminals who engage in property crimes should be forced into a workcamp to earn money to pay back a certain amount (say, arbitrarily, five times the amount taken, to cover punative amounts) to the people they inflicted the damage upon. In the case of con artists who defraud billions, where the amounts stolen may never come close to being returned, they should work for the rest of their lives paying back their victims and their heirs.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Oh yeah, no incentive for false accusations and corruption in that system!

*ETA: Incidentally, not that this is a surprise to anyone, but I oppose the death penalty. My opposition is due to the severity and permanence of the penalty coupled with (i) the risk/certainty that innocent people will be killed; (ii) the risk/certainty that the penalty will be (and has been) extended beyond the worst-of-the-worst and applied in unjust and arbitrary ways; and (iii) a reluctance to give government (read: pandering politicians, arrogant prosecutors, and dumb-sh*t juries) the authority to kill in cold blood and feel righteous about doing it.

I find that the objection to the "permanence" of the penalty really ignores the nature of punishment in general. Jailing someone is permenant (read next part carefully before objecting please); you can never give back the time they spent in jail, which could be a substantial portion of their life. Moreover, what life they do have left could be essentially ruined; Coro may have exaggerated somewhat, but he is not wrong about the possible trauma or institutionalizationt hat can take place in prison. This is not a complaint against prison; it should be harsh. The point is that this objection to the death penalty is at least soemwhat arbitrary.

As to the claim it will be "Expanded", the history of the death penalty is one of ever more restrictions, not greater expansiveness.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I covered this in an earlier post.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I know you did. That's why I said it wa "somewhat arbitrary", not "completely arbitrary". I see it as a good argument for judicious, reluctant application of the death penalty, but not for abolishing it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There are greater court/constitutional protections, but the number of crimes to which the death penalty applies has grown and the severity threshold has been watered down. When people argue in favor of the death penalty, they usually talk about the worst of the worst criminals - multiple, deliberate murders in cold blood; torture murders; rape and murder of children; etc. In reality, though, the death penalty has been extended to crimes like plain vanilla murder involving drugs or taking place near a school, felony murder (i.e. where someone dies during the course of a felony, whether or not the death was intentional or even directly caused by the perp), aggravated rape, hijacking a plane, etc.

How exactly has it grown, and how has the severity threshold been watered down? In the last few years, it was decided that nonfatal rape and child molestation do not permit the death penalty; in this country it is exclusive to murder, espionage and treason. I can't think of anyone executed for treason or espionage since the 1950s, so it pretty much is limited to murder. I also see no evidence that it is being watered down in terms of severity. I also know of know one executed for hijacking a plane.

Really, if your complaint is that it's being extended to other kinds of murder, all you're really doing is complaining that we haven't kept the absurd level of restrictions it has had in recent decades. It is still vastly less common, and far more restricted than it was in most of our history. I see no reason to think that we will be executing horse thieves again any time soon.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's exactly my complaint; and I disagree that limiting it to a small set of particularly heinous crimes is absurd, particularly since that's what people usually point to when they argue for it.

I would still say that "murder, espionage, and treason" is a small set of particularly heinous crimes. Indeed, your term "vanilla murder" is rather the oxymoron. It seems you are begging the question here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think they should be forced to serve as our personal butlers.

_________________