Hypothesis 20 years is enough to simply block all occupation of murder, but in order to produce the same deterrent force to urge the murderer,http://2013oakleysunglasses-jp-sale.webnode.jp, it may take up to 30 years in prison. Sentence is the increased cost,オークリー メガネ, but if the cost is lower than the increase of deterrence, then perhaps it is still an effective input. And, don't forget the effect we lost the ability to work in prison. Some criminals can't be effectively deter this fact, more attention to make them lose the crime ability (such as long imprisonment) provide a reason.Deterrence and to criminal sanctions for loss of purpose crime ability of the conflict in the psychiatric defense (the defense of insanity) is the most intense. If a person does not know that he is the criminal activity (he killed one of his thought is the desert giant rat people) or he can not control (he heard he believed to be divine command requires him to kill voice) sense is mentally ill, that he would not for punishment. The stop. So, if the criminal sanctions only for deterrence, then clearly this man should not be punished as a criminal. Resources are used to punish them (including the disutility of the penalty on the "criminals" self-inflicted) is a complete waste of society, because they don't play any deterrent effect. In fact, this is a pompous; and insanity defense presence would attract people resources will be used to prove or disprove it, but in the following circumstances deterrent will derogate: criminals successfully disguised as mentally ill or penalty number (for whatever reason) to reduce the signal will weaken the deterrent punishment. But all of these are one-sided, once the incapacity of the target function, the necessary insanity defense is not clear, because the insanity defense in the little need to reduce the loss of working capacity at the same time, it increases the cost of criminal procedure. However, if one of those who can not be deterrence should also be punished, so, the effect will be weakened. Why? But why this view and to keep the strict liability in the criminal law field is not consistent?) This is a civil rather than criminal law make the psychosis criminal incapacity argument.In tort law, mental illness rarely seen as a defense -- usually civil liability exemption and reduction than criminal liability exemption and lose less consider the psychological state. This difference is justified in economics. Criminal sanctions than the cost of infringement sanctions high cost (why?) , this changed on-the-spot investigation cost and beyond comparison between the mean range of sanctions cost. So, who do not know or not trespass at reasonable cost and found himself in the plaintiff's estate and can't be justification for civil trespass, but defence it is criminal infringement litigation. Because it is lighter on the civil infringement sanctions, criminal sanctions situation so difficult investigation cost and high cost of the sanctions of mental state than, it is unlikely to have equal or exceed to avoid sanctions no requirements prevent (i.e. cannot be avoided in the economic sense trespass) the desired behavior cost benefits.The criminal intent of some available information cost concept to explain. For example, stolen property buyers know that these items were stolen, this point is often not clear. Because the suspect that they are stolen, so the determination of criminal responsibility lies in whether he consciously avoid made might confirm or eliminate the doubt of the news.
Related articles:


http://thek9guy.com/dog_blog/blog1.php/2010/02/14/does-your-dog-respect-you#comments