[Sonny M]

Where do you propose to draw the line. Only atrocities from 60 years ago? 100 years? 5? 1000? I vote for zero.

So if someone murders someones family, they get to write a book and keep all the profits?

The son of sam could be a millionaire under this type of scenario, as could most serial killers who can put a pen (or marker) to paper.

One should not benefit from crimes one committed, or even worse, use the fruits of that crime to benefit immediatly over those very victims.

Also, you mentioned Austria, couldn't an arguement be made to take away votes?

[mngran]

Also, you mentioned Austria, couldn't an arguement be made to take away votes?

Exactly! That's why this proposal from Poland is dumb. Has a Polish person ever killed someone from another EU country (even, say in the last 60 years, which seems to be your cutoff)? Of course. So do we need to search for all cross-national murder convictions in the EU, extrapolate how many people were killed and the likely number of offspring they would have had and then run some algorithim to figure out what the populations of each nation would have been if there weren't evil in the world? Good luck.

You keep on about serial killers writing books, but we're not talking about writing books, we're talking about votes. Here's one for you: The Green River Killer murdered at least 48 women in Washington state in the '70s through '90s. He was from Utah. Should we try to figure out whether the addional population Washington would have had were it not for this murderous Utah resident would entitle Washington to extra votes in the electoral college? That's the kind of thing you're advocating.