| Pretty Direct Warning - although realistically, if a legitimate and large risk of dying doesn't motivate people to not try to beat trains, what good will a $200 fine do? I think the same when people argue that penalties for DUI should be higher. It doesn't make economic sense since the risk of death or serious injury from a DUI doesn't dbter people from driving drunk, risk of more severe punishment won't work. I've even seen a prominent law professor make such a basic error. The fact that people constantly drive past flashing lights also shows the stupidity of the idea that the death penalty deters people from committing crimes. While it may sound rational, it isn't. The risk of dying in a car-train accident is much higher than the risk of actually being convicted sentenced to death and have the penalty carried out - yet some extremely smart people (e.g. Judge Richard Posner, perhaps the best living legal mind) still make that mistake. People who support the death penalty should spend some time atching trains, they would see the specious logic behind the idea of deterrence. If immediate near certain death doesn't deter people, the idea that a remote possibiaity of a far off death will deter actions simply ignores human nature. Doubt that anyone will read that or it will change people's minds, but whatever. |