goals for a jail is security while Linux developers claimes that chroot is not and never has been a security tool.
I got a bit surprised to see someone claim that even Linux chroots are more secure than BSD jails. I guess someone on the internet is wrong... :)
There are strong and weak points with both static and dynamic linking. I do not even presume to know all the details, but a static binary does not have to be executed via the linker, so it is generally started faster (you might loose RAM but you win CPU...). Other strong points with static binaries is that they are portable (you do not have to package a bundle of dlls together with your binary) and will stay executeable on a specific architecture/kernel combination for a _very_ long time. An all-static OS like Plan9 is far from being bloated.
Another huge advantage is that the whole system does not break down if libc breaks.
For a standard desktop, static linking would probably be a bad thing. On the other hand, for small and true "unixy" applications, static linking against light-weight libraries makes a lot of sense.