Message from @Termer
Discord ID: 493312178783256577
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.
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.
yeah I'm not bothering with this anymore lol. GLHF
apparently there is yet another movie featuring the joker?
ok?
They're going to run the Joker's reputation into the ground by constantly switching actors and putting him in every mediocre movie
can we just throw anyone who utters the words "origin story" in a pitch into a dumpster? I feel like that solves roughly half the problem
Ya, i prefer luke skywalker as the joker.
thats a conservative estimate, fwiw
idk, the lack of origina stories was a problem for DC movies...