> or even capital punishment
You lost me at that part. It is entirely unreasonable to consider that in the vast majority of the world, where state-sanctioned killing of citizens has been abolished.
You lost me at that part. It is entirely unreasonable to consider that in the vast majority of the world, where state-sanctioned killing of citizens has been abolished.
> capital punishment for such gross negligence
"gross negligence" is a very specific legal test.
> Gross negligence is a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence representing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Falling between intent to do wrongful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as willful, wanton, and reckless conduct affecting the life or property or another.
But there's a reason they used to execute people in the public square.
Capital punishment has never been about deterrence, nor has it ever been an effective deterrent.
Not even once?
But that was far from the norm. In the hope that you might actually go and educate yourself somewhat on the topic, here is the Times report on the last public execution ever carried out in England, that of Michael Barrett on 26 May 1868.
https://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Timeline/Execution.htm
It certainly sounds like it had the effect you claim it does, doesn't it?