Three-peat:

Now, on weightier matters:

I am finally home from work. It is cold outside. It is warm inside. I will shortly adjourn to the bath, with a novel I picked up on a whim that is unexpectedly meaty and engrossing. But. I have no wine. Do I want

a)Port
b)Drambuie, or
c)Ponche Caballero?

Things to consider:

The port is unopened. The Ponche is open, but low, and damn near irreplaceable once it's gone. The Drambuie has neither of these problems. But I really kind of want the Ponche.

Ponche. And Jon.

mmmmm CHiPs

the message is actually that killing people without the proper authority to do so is wrong

But that's standard, as long as we prosecute murderers and go to war. I can't see either stopping.

mmmmm CHiPs

Ooh, speaking of (kinda). Reichen from Chip and Reichen is on the cover of one of the gay mags here. Boy put some of that million bucks into a personal trainer, and it was clearly not wasted.

I have friend who is a public defender. Once when we were talking about how so many of her peer burn out (amazing number of alcoholics on her team,) she said she keeps herself sane and healthy by not seeking justice, but seeking to make the justice system work to the best of its abilities (well, and she plays a lot of Grand Theft Auto, but that's not relevant here.) That sort of sums up my thinking on ...well, a lot of things. I'd love that justice is served, but..no. A system is served. In the interests of serving justice. But...it's still a system. And I don't honestly trust that to unilaterally deliver true justice. Hell, I don't really trust myself. So no death penalty in my imperfect world.

But that's standard, as long as we prosecute murderers and go to war. I can't see either stopping.

I don't think so. As Gar noted, there are some cases (war, in theory) when killing is unavoidable. We don't prosecute people for killing by necessity, i.e., self-defense. We do prosecute people for killing for vengeance, even when it would be considered arguably just. Only the state gets to do that.

But that's standard, as long as we prosecute murderers and go to war. I can't see either stopping.

Well, execute murders. Its the where we get to Typo Boy's occasional lesser evil.

All I'm saying is that no major government (perhaps none at all) thinks they don't have the right to kill people. They send the message that it's okay to kill innocent citizens of another country -- I find it hard for me to draw a line there.

They send the message that it's okay to kill innocent citizens of another country -- I find it hard for me to draw a line there.

But even there you have the notions of a just war and war crimes. There's a lot of effort to not have war be carte blanche either.

I'm wondering at what point does the cost to incarcerate people become unmanageable. Suppose that 25% figure referenced in the LAT article increases to 50%?

Just as a hypothesis, what would you think about a Prison Island (or Land of Exile)? The place would be capable of supporting life, but once a prisoner is dumped there with some provisions and supplies, they are on their own. The cost of containment in that case would be far less than many many prisons.

Sure, the whole thing would probably devolve into a Lord of the Flies type of scenario, but I can't think of an alternative to our current system that would be cost effective. Would exile be cruel and unusual?