This sort of thinking always misses that part of the reason for punishment is deterrent of others.

> But I reckon Sarkozy thought he'd just get away with it and didn't even consider what the potential punishment would be.

It's worth considering then that the next person who has the option to do this might behave differently, given Sarkozy has not got away with it.

There's definitely some truth to that. There are situations where someone might restrain themselves because of the consequences of getting caught. I suppose the question is whether the consequence needs to be punishment as opposed to correction or isolation. In the case of a narcissist like Sarkozy, the reputaional tarnish of being publicly labeled as guilty would be an emotional blow.

It has to be a deterrent rather than punishment, because crimes can't be undone; it's better to prevent them.

I don't know, if somebody kills my child, I don't know why you'd expect me to be helpful to him.

Even to prevent them continuing to kill someone else's child later?

A death sentence would certainly prevent this person from killing another child.

(Whether a death sentence is good for society in general is a different question)

It would not be good for a deceased either, especially if they are wrongly convicted.

Indeed, but it would also be not good to be wrongly sentenced to life in prison.

Once inside, chances to get out with a retrial are pretty slim.

Fatal misstakes are bad in any situation.

> those who spend a lot of time in prison seem to come out worse and reoffend. How is that helpful?

You're implying that imprisonment makes people offend more - perhaps the simpler explanation is that most criminals will commit crimes when they get the chance, especially prolific criminals. Prison takes them off the streets and stops them victimising more people - this is helpful.

Prison is nonsense and a waste of human life. Best punishment is caning like Singapore. Do fast and quick. Pain is an excellent memory aid. Most stable lowest recidivism rate.