3 ms·

How do you feel about extending this to direct murder?

hnbad 1y ago
I'm sure there are at least several people in the US who would gladly pay $12 million to directly cause someone's death without further repercussions. There are several people who could easily afford that several times a year without noticeably having to give up any wealth or expenses. But more charitably: they did say "statistical death" so I presume the implication is "unintentional and non-targeted". Deliberately setting up deathtraps or ensuring a specific person will die but not others would probably be exempt. Of course that could be extremely difficult to prove if gross negligence became so easily affordable.
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  There are also millions who would volunteer to be killed for $12M to pass on to their heirs. You "statistical death" is of course 100% correct. These kind of tradeoffs are done all the time when designing safety features, and using a monetary value per human life is the right way to do it. Some people can't deal with that kind of rationality though.
BurningFrog 1y ago
Giving the next of kin of murder victims $12M would certainly be a game changer.
- slightwinder 1y ago
  The victim would still be dead. And there are not that many murders who even have $12M. This whole thread is so ridiculous...
  - throwway120385 1y ago
    I'm sure there's at least one billionaire who secretly longs to hunt the greatest game the world has ever known.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Do you: Pay $12m in litigation to prove in litigation why your business thing is fine and legal Pay $12m to off whoever's the driving force behind your harassment preventing them from doing it to the next guy who's pockets might not be deep enough to fend it off. It's the pro-social thing to do really.
pfdietz 1y ago
Let's turn that around: how do you feel about extending the laws about murder to statistical deaths? Because that would be completely impractical. It would cause the economy to cease functioning. Statistical deaths and individual murders are fundamentally different things. There's a fuzzy boundary between the two (as effects are concentrated on smaller and smaller numbers of people) but that doesn't mean there's no difference. Even with individual murders, there are gradations depending on intention and mental state. Manslaughter and first degree murder are different crimes, even if the number of dead bodies is the same.

I'm sure there are at least several people in the US who would gladly pay $12 million to directly cause someone's death without further repercussions. There are several people who could easily afford that several times a year without noticeably having to give up any wealth or expenses. But more charitably: they did say "statistical death" so I presume the implication is "unintentional and non-targeted". Deliberately setting up deathtraps or ensuring a specific person will die but not others would probably be exempt. Of course that could be extremely difficult to prove if gross negligence became so easily affordable.

BurningFrog 1y ago
There are also millions who would volunteer to be killed for $12M to pass on to their heirs. You "statistical death" is of course 100% correct. These kind of tradeoffs are done all the time when designing safety features, and using a monetary value per human life is the right way to do it. Some people can't deal with that kind of rationality though.

BurningFrog 1y ago

Giving the next of kin of murder victims $12M would certainly be a game changer.

slightwinder 1y ago
The victim would still be dead. And there are not that many murders who even have $12M. This whole thread is so ridiculous...
- throwway120385 1y ago
  I'm sure there's at least one billionaire who secretly longs to hunt the greatest game the world has ever known.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Do you: Pay $12m in litigation to prove in litigation why your business thing is fine and legal Pay $12m to off whoever's the driving force behind your harassment preventing them from doing it to the next guy who's pockets might not be deep enough to fend it off. It's the pro-social thing to do really.

pfdietz 1y ago

Let's turn that around: how do you feel about extending the laws about murder to statistical deaths? Because that would be completely impractical. It would cause the economy to cease functioning. Statistical deaths and individual murders are fundamentally different things. There's a fuzzy boundary between the two (as effects are concentrated on smaller and smaller numbers of people) but that doesn't mean there's no difference. Even with individual murders, there are gradations depending on intention and mental state. Manslaughter and first degree murder are different crimes, even if the number of dead bodies is the same.