> This is a straw man. No, it isn't. Your claim is "punishment as a deterrence is dead". I am claiming that: If the punishment for murder is 20 years in pris

> This is a straw man. No, it isn't. Your claim is "punishment as a deterrence is dead". I am claiming that: If the punishment for murder is 20 years in prison, there will be X murders per capita. If the punishment for murder is nothing, there will MUCH more than X murders per capita. How much exactly? I don't know. But I know damn sure there will be a lot more. You can have a real debate about where the point of diminishing returns and how it models. Is it linear or does it decay exponentially? Is one year sufficient or does it take five or ten? You come here with a bold claim like "punishment as a deterrence is dead". It absolutely, unequivocally is not. If you want to have a more nuanced conversation, you need to make a more nuanced claim. Because the one you made is ignorant and obviously false.