>> Why is anything other than incarceration and the death penalty "the
> abolishment of the legal sytem", and how would anything other than
> incarceration and the death penalty be "letting criminal run wild
> unchecked"?

> Because, without incarceration there is no deterrence. The courts could fine
the criminals, but then the criminals simply would refuse to pay the
fines.

Are incarceration, the death penalty and fines the only alternatives
for the legal system, Ernest? You can do better than that.

> Eric, you are not making any sense. You complain that rapists and criminals
are sometimes allowed to walk (for failure of the system to get a

Not sometimes. Considering arrest rates and conviction rates vs even
just reported crimes, particularly rape and murder, it is the majority.
"Sometimes" is when criminals are actually detected, caught and
punished.

> conviction), and your solution is to let EVERY rapist and criminal walk?

"Ernest land" is where incarceration, the death penalty and
unenforceable fines are the only possible solutions. You insist on a
real world suggestion, one with deterrent effect? Here's one, already
in practice: publicly identify criminals, then allow them to live with
the consequences. There are American lawyers and judges even more
creative than that. Or you, apparently.

> Frankly, you haven't addressed the fact that mental health sciences have not
been all that effective in this area, that treatments are only tried
for certain types of crimes,

So improve the system or support those who are trying.

> and that involuntary commitment in a mental health facility is incarceration.

Is that what that researcher or writer took into account when using the
figures 340 or 3400? Would "involuntarily" being sent or shamed out of
town, being made to live in communities of your own kind, or being
deported also be "incarceration"?