That makes sense, here in the Netherlands we have sidewalks pretty much everywhere, and it is considered a responsibility of the drivers not to hit cyclists and pedestrians rather than the other way round (even by law: be default the operator of the motor vehicle is blamed and has to pay all damage to his own vehicle and at least 50% of the damage caused to the other party, unless the pedestrian or cyclist was being deliberately reckless). We really like bicycles, and we're very lenient when it comes to jaywalking. Cultural differences are funny that way.

Surely in most places the difference in risk would be negligible? Perhaps it might make a small difference in a bad neighbourhood at night. Stranger rape is relatively rare and only about 4% of rapes occur outdoors.

> It's nice if people will exercise outside- but it isn't as safe (especially for women)
Why would it be especially unsafe for women?

> Every 7 minutes of exercise adds 1 minute to your life. Not to mention all the other benefits.
Sounds like a net loss to me.

Many religious people who believe in infinite punishment (hell) still sin. If the prospect of infinite punishment can be insufficient deterrence, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that increasing punishment does not always make a deterrent significantly more effective? Would it not be better to research ways to increase deterrence that do not rely on merely increasing punishment?

> So, if someone is being problematic, you punish him lightly so that he notices he's being a jerk and start behaving; if he does something more serious, you ostracize him temporarily (this ostracism can be literal in small enough societies, as you literally make the person get out of the village/tribe/whatever and taste living on his own, without the benefit of community support, so that he can start grasping how very much important being in it is -- and if he dies while "out", well, that's his problem);

You do realize you are describing reform, right? Becoming less of a jerk and grasping the importance of being part of society are both ways for the problematic person to change for the better (from society's perspective).

> The second, and newest, is the notion that the punitive branch goal is to reform the criminal.

"Reforming the criminal" is not a new notion, the new notion is that increasingly severe punishment alone is not sufficient to lead to effective reform.

Your argument assumes that 'total longer lived life' is most important when determining the practicality of an action. By that reasoning it would be best to force everyone to reproduce as often as possible (e.g. by banning contraceptives) and to keep brain-dead people on life-support indefinitely.

I think it's obvious there are more issues to consider than just 'total lived life'. For instance, the effect of losing the mother on her friends and family. The effect on the child that has to grow up without a mother (and perhaps with the thought that they were to some degree complicit in her death). And, from a very heartless economic perspective, it would mean the loss of a tax-payer, likely before she had the chance to pay back (through taxes) the money that society had invested in raising and educating her.

Doesn't true freedom include the option to give up that freedom?

Funny how you refer to it as "Land of the Free" while at the same time telling someone to go live somewhere else for having a different opinion. I take it by "Free", you mean "free to do only things that I approve of"?

> I remember reading somewhere, I think it was in a book by neurologist Antonio Damasio, that consciousness does not exist without the flesh. In patients who are cut off from all sensory input the brain more or less shuts down. In emotional reactions the physical response (a shiver, a smile on your face) happens *before* you feel the emotion, and is even needed to feel it. It seems that part of your brain makes your body do something, another part observes your body and makes you feel something based on that. That's how I remember it, anyway.

Are you suggesting a person would (temporarily) stop experiencing emotions if one were to (temporarily) paralyse their face?

You think the goal of "the terrorists" is to make you lose your privacy online? You're insane. Hint: nobody hates you for your 'freedom'.