no that's not the statement

yes it is, thats literally the statement

"Heavy penalties are *efficient* **because** they are *dissuasive*"

I could take the test, as long as I don't care about accuracy it seems

this isnt even a difficult question

sure it is

I mean, let's say you have a fine of $100 dollar for stealing a candybar, any candybar. Then let's say you have a penalty of death for stealing a candybar. Now you have to think about efficiency. Well the cost of enforcing the one is much much greater than the other, so on that end it's certianly less efficient if your goal is to save money, plus ppl are more willing ot just pay the $100 making money. On the other hand if the goal is to prevent people from stealing candybars...

death penalty costs more than 100 bucks fwiw

unless you just cap people on the spot without a trail, which the question isnt assuming is the case

but it's information that's required for me to make an informed decision

about whether or not heavy penalties are efficient.

it isnt, because you can argue that it's not a necessary causal relationship, which you did

which means you *disagree* with the premise

well the cost should be outside of the trials cost

ya, there's not enough information, so i will just have to go with hesitant again.

but if you raise the level of punishment, proper procedures are a necessary cost increase

>disagree with the premise
>but I can think of one instance I made up right now where it could be true

because without having a goal in mind i can't determine the efficiency.

death penalty cost the same as jailing, up till you kill the person then there is a bit more of a cost. then you hand the body over and have no cost after that

repeated appeals to make sure you dont kill the wrong person = more money spent, killing someone = less cash flow in the economy
further, the comparison was to a 100 dollar fine, not jail time

In the US the process of the death penalty costs more than jailing for life

well old days they either marked to let people know he was a thief the person and banished them, or just hung them since they couldn't afford to incarcerate

you can't be arrested, or at least convicted, for involuntary manslaughter right?

They sure did

It does cost alot but idk about jailing for life, but you do have to count the cost in of jailing them for like 10 years or so before you kill them

they also had far fewer methods for figuring out guilt, so who knows how many times they got the wrong answer?

people convict for involuntary manslaughter

uh, ya, not gonna complete this test. Taking like 20 minutes for me to consider each question and ultimately give up and just mark neutral.

Indeed.

thats because you're inventing reasons to not give an answer at this point

Not at all, the statements are just unclear

He's just not being reckless

"do you agree with X"
"Not entirely, but I'll pick neutral anyway"

kek

they are missing information

What's X?

the statement

I can't disagree with something I don't know what it is.

can't agree with it either.

I cant possibly believe you are not doing this on purpose

Well my perspective changes based on the goal. The goals aren't mentioned.