Incorrect conversion

(Retrieved from deep freeze)

Sometime back Ritwik fisked some dude*. The only problem that what the dude wrote was unfiskable. I mean, if I can point out what's wrong, it must be horrible. Anyway the article was about why it makes sense to execute who write computer viruses (or is it virii, who cares) just like murderers. The whole arguement rests on the cost benefit analysis of executing vermiscripters (that's the term used), as opposed to executing murderers. Problem is the arguement is valid only when the premise is analyzed in terms of money.However this is incorrect, as capital punishment for murder is justified in terms of human lives saved and not money. If it were otherwise surely economic utility of murderer must have been taken into account in the judgment. This doesn't happen (or to be more precise in this doesn't happen in the context writer is talking about **)

There is an interesting point related to this. What if the arguement was that economic loss due to virus had human cost. To decide on this we can consider case of sabotage. Now in case of sabotage one could argue capital punishment if it damaged or crippled some vital utility related to national security or public health/safety , and as a consequence of which either some catastrophe did (or almost) occur. However I assume, even in that case intent to harm would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Absent above condition, if the arguement is on the general lines of a loss in economic activity leads to decrease in production which ultimately has cost in terms of human cost would never be admissible to secure capital punishment, even though it is valid.

Why this happens and what are conditions to consider an exchange between human cost and economic cost is not clear to me, however if I were to make a guess to save my life I would speculate that there is a psychological barrier, itself a result of evolution, which denies us to consider this exchange after some point, the exact location of this barrier being dependent on the broader social context. Also breach of this barrier has tremendous social costs.


* Ritwik followed up with another post (as did Ravikiran), which went over my head. I am offended.

** Of course there is concept of blood money, but even that requires consent of relatives.