>Neverthless, if there are only a thousand crimes of passion and a few
>dozen by psychopathic serial killes per year in a country the size of
>the United States we still need a model for removing dangerous people
>from society so that they do not harm the rest of us.
"Removing" people from society after they have killed does not protect their victims, who are already dead. Vengeance is not defence. The best form of defense is to remove the deranged social conditions which give rise to deranged people, as this protects both the potential victims as well as the potential perpetrators.
Of course it is hard to imagine any method that will be 100% perfect, given that human beings seem incapable of perfection. But there is something perverse about insisting that society be structured around the need to punish a minuscule few deranged serial killers. While ignoring death and suffering on a massive world-wide scale that arises from such a perverse social system.
Not every crime of passion would be prevented or punished in a socialist economic structure. But then not every such crime is prevented or punished in the present system either.
In the end, if we can reduce the likelihood of being the victim of violent crime to something less than the likelihood of being struck by lightening, while substantially increasing our personal freedom, economic security and quality of life, then it seems like a good bargain. (Socialism won't reduce the likelihood of lightening strikes either BTW. Life or death would continue to depend on an element of chance.)
>And I will "give you" the idea that property crimes will go away in a
>communist society which is not necessarily true.
You seem to want it both ways on this question?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas