Re: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> jim bell wrote:
> > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and
> > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem
> > is solved.

> How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say,
> Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the
> assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered.

Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a
friend is to lend him money.

> Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys
> house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him
> murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result,
> he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional
> money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome.

Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting
to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga
Canyon or one of those (long way down).  Now, since people *know* to
be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same
analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running?

> Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then
> our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very
> unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.

If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a
problem.  On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective
employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be
inclined to hit her.  This happens a lot when AP is not available.

> The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints
> at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies.

To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot
more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem.  Those
people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more
people than they already do, because:

1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never
   kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]).

2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to
   triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence.
   In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to
   convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright.