Your approach is softer than mine: I do not believe that criminals of any kind should have the choice of living in society if they agree to therapy. I think they should be punished with a jail sentence, and that jail should not be equivalent to a five-star hotel.

For top-level criminals, such as heads of state or heads of government (you mentioned Saddam Hussein), exile has been used as a punishment in the past, history is full of it. I'm not sure whether letting them live in luxury albeit far from home is a punishment. You will always find a country that will take you if you just bring enough cash.

Exile worked when you could make sure the criminal stayed where he was put; nowadays this would be virtually impossible (unless you put them somewhere like Tristan da Cunha).

Do you really want me to google up Tristan da Cunha? (OK, I did.) I was thinking of easy examples, like Elba. And yes, people tended to stay at their exile place.

Nowadays, with private airplanes and multiple passports, exile just means you have to stay out of your home country.

I think IJWT is too idealistic. The really evil criminals are incurable in our present state of knowledge, and should never be allowed back into society. I raised the question of cost because I think it has to be considered... but I never even hinted, Tom, that someone should die because it's cheaper.

Thanks for your clarification.

Just wanted to re-iterate that while the 'soft' approach seems soft, the goal is to learn and prevent future abuses by *others*- it seems to me that choosing mercy for the present day criminals in the name of choosing mercy for the future victims is a bargain that is worth it. I agree that rehabilitation seems to be an unlikely goal for those already so damaged, but if we could find a way, that would be worth it, too.

It is likely that a substantial number of persons- even as much as a few percent or so- may be deeply damaged sociopaths or psychopaths. How much damage do they do collectively, and how much would it be worth to learn how to identify and cut down on that?

Just wanted to re-iterate that while the 'soft' approach seems soft, the goal is to learn and prevent future abuses by *others*- it seems to me that choosing mercy for the present day criminals in the name of choosing mercy for the future victims is a bargain that is worth it. I agree that rehabilitation seems to be an unlikely goal for those already so damaged, but if we could find a way, that would be worth it, too.

It is likely that a substantial number of persons- even as much as a few percent or so- may be deeply damaged sociopaths or psychopaths. How much damage do they do collectively, and how much would it be worth to learn how to identify and cut down on that?

This is an idealistic view at its very best. Really you cannot change someones nature...and I don't mean their demeanor when I say this. Some are simply not suited for rehabilitation.

Just wanted to re-iterate that while the 'soft' approach seems soft, the goal is to learn and prevent future abuses by *others*- it seems to me that choosing mercy for the present day criminals in the name of choosing mercy for the future victims is a bargain that is worth it. I agree that rehabilitation seems to be an unlikely goal for those already so damaged, but if we could find a way, that would be worth it, too.

It is likely that a substantial number of persons- even as much as a few percent or so- may be deeply damaged sociopaths or psychopaths. How much damage do they do collectively, and how much would it be worth to learn how to identify and cut down on that?

This is an idealistic view at its very best. Really you cannot change someones nature...and I don't mean their demeanor when I say this. Some are simply not suited for rehabilitation.

And who decides whether they're 'suitable for rehabilitation'?

It's quite difficult, if not impossible, at this time to rehabilitate people who are diagnosed as being psychopaths.

There are probably a fair number of people with varying degrees of psychopathology that function reasonably well in society and manage to stay on the right side of the law. These are the people that should be studied as well.

Those that become a serious menace to society need to be locked up securely, at least until they are too old to be much of a threat to society.

There is really nothing to suggest that the young man in question was a psychopath.

Just wanted to re-iterate that while the 'soft' approach seems soft, the goal is to learn and prevent future abuses by *others*- it seems to me that choosing mercy for the present day criminals in the name of choosing mercy for the future victims is a bargain that is worth it. I agree that rehabilitation seems to be an unlikely goal for those already so damaged, but if we could find a way, that would be worth it, too.

It is likely that a substantial number of persons- even as much as a few percent or so- may be deeply damaged sociopaths or psychopaths. How much damage do they do collectively, and how much would it be worth to learn how to identify and cut down on that?

This is an idealistic view at its very best. Really you cannot change someones nature...and I don't mean their demeanor when I say this. Some are simply not suited for rehabilitation.

And who decides whether they're 'suitable for rehabilitation'?

In parts of the world where they have the death penalty this is left to the discretion of a judge. Usually an experienced one.

At appeal it is looked at by a panel of judges. The only real issue for me is the political angle of such decisions at times....and that is the same failing we have which allows innocent men to hang.

Are lives saved as a result of these "mistakes" overall?....I think its a better deterrent than anything else on offer.

It's a slight misnomer to call it a "hanging" which implies, in the west at least, a quick drop, a broken neck and almost instant death. What they do in Iran is to tie the victim to a mobile crane and hoist them into the air so that they strangle. They take several minutes to die. They turn blue. They piss and shit their pants. This method of execution was phased out in the UK in 1872.

Never knew we had mobile cranes in 1872.............Gotta love life long learning.

As is usual in these types of debates, the victims rate very lowly in consideration of appropriate outcomes. (In saying victims, I include family, friends and society at large.) Throughout history, there have been some horrendous crimes committed by people who are evil to the core. Capital punishment should be used sparingly, but the option should remain. For those who apply emotive terms such as state-sanctioned murder, this only detracts from the credibility of their argument. Murder is premeditated UNLAWFUL killing - capital punishment, where available, is sanctioned by the law.

As to IJWT's idealism, studies of the human psyche have occurred throughout history. I see his proposal as leading to an outcome that would essentially amount to restrictive societal re-engineering, which has no part in a democracy. We can educate, encourage and create rules. Beyond that, the freedoms enjoyed by the majority of the general law abiding community would be curtailed. I prefer a democracy. Those who don't want to play the game must be held accountable.