Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing
G UK i wasn't directing that at you sorry if you thought that.
-snip-
.
|
Its OK, I was a bit quick in my response, I apologise.
Prisons are to soft. The problem lies with the fact that the closer you get to the moral line of what we should and shouldnt force upon prisoners, the more difficult it is to police those that enforce our will.
As the saying says "Who watches the watchmen" that is where the nub of the problem lies. If we could guarentee that what is prescribed to happen will happen then the issue is very much simplified as those that want to relax the restrictions have very little recourse.
Unfortunately this will not happen as such we withdraw from that which we need in order to accomodate human stupidity and vindictiveness.
I one hundred percent trust one persons morals and limitations, that person is myself. If you cannot trust the person you are putting in control of such things you need to back off the rules in order to ensure that your own morals are not compromised.
Then again that would work fine in a Dictatorship, things are further complicated by replacing your own morales with the majority morals of the electorate in a Democracy.
Anywho I drunkenly ramble. My initial point stands as a target, the rest is merely discussion on how that is applied.
---------- Post added at 22:18 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
We're not trying to say that they all innocent and should have access to everything they demand. We are saying they should not be beaten to death, and then have people who claim to be concerned about crime defending it.
I am not against harsher punishements, I am against these kind of abuses.
|
I believe we agree
