>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>easy getting benefit, as soon as you're unemployed, but it's no fortune - c £60 per week. And, as in my case, and thanks to Bill Clinton's initiatives, the "job-seekers' allowance" only runs for 6 months. Social security payments, say for unemployed families, esp. with kids, can run indefinitely (like your Americans "on welfare").
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What did Bill Clinton have to do with England's policies?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Didn't he introduce welfare benefits that stopped after 6 months, thus forcing people into work? Maybe I recall incorrectly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not in England.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well DUH-UH! Of course not. But our govt. copied his initiative. I wish they'd copy the "3 strikes and out" policy too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It sounds appealing but has at times been an illustration of the law of unintended consequences. It needs to be tweaked so the third strike specifies serious crimes, not relatively minor ones like stealing videos (as happened in one notorious case).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Though you do have wonder about the impulse control of somebody with 2 strikes when they stole the videos. Maybe taking someone that stupid or ungoverned off the street permanently isn't such a bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>Certainly a very expensive idea though Charles. What the per capita per annum cost of imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>Good point. I would be in favor of releasing such prisoners at some point, like age 70. They aren't going to pose much danger to society at that age. As it is they are staying in very expensive retirement homes, paid for by taxpayers.
>>>
>>>So fiscally you are pro capital punishment :-)
>>
>>Fiscally speaking, it is more expensive for the state to execute someone than it is to jail them for life.
>
>That might depend on many things. Like how old when sentenced, how many appeals etc.

What I have read is that the legal costs associated with a capital punishment appeal are greater than those of keeping the person in prison for life, even if it's a long time.