once a man is in your home anything you do to him is nice and legal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-police-order-protect-garden-sheds.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1761333
I don't understand how this could possibly exist in a democracy. The theory of a democracy is that majority get to decide on what's right for a society. Does anyone really think that a majority of people got together and decided that victims of crimes should be held responsible for any damage that comes to the perpetrators of crimes. I mean the whole idea is just so i bizarre i can't even imagine in my head where the idea could have come from in the first place. Was some law created that was then twisted around, or did some judge go out of his way to give criminals the right to sue their victims. There's really no thought process i can follow to reconcile how this can exist in a government that is theoretically run by the people for the people. It would not bother me at all if people put booby traps in their house in an attempt to harm an intruder. If you try to burgle/rob someone else you do so at your own risk, but that's not even what they are talking about. Someone puts up completely legitimate anti theft devices, and are told to take them down because a burglar could slip and hurt themselves on it while trying to rob you. Good. That would be a good thing. All of society could rejoice, that before going to prison, the burglar got some comeuppance. Someone who is raped is then required to pay child support for the child? What kind of society is this? These decisions ought to be put to a vote so that people can tell the politicians/judges who have come up with these ideas what society really thinks about them. You would hope that politicians/judges would have enough common sense to know that nobody could have possibly intended for this regardless of how the laws have been twisted, but obviously that hope would be misplaced.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1761333
I don't understand how this could possibly exist in a democracy. The theory of a democracy is that majority get to decide on what's right for a society. Does anyone really think that a majority of people got together and decided that victims of crimes should be held responsible for any damage that comes to the perpetrators of crimes. I mean the whole idea is just so i bizarre i can't even imagine in my head where the idea could have come from in the first place. Was some law created that was then twisted around, or did some judge go out of his way to give criminals the right to sue their victims. There's really no thought process i can follow to reconcile how this can exist in a government that is theoretically run by the people for the people. It would not bother me at all if people put booby traps in their house in an attempt to harm an intruder. If you try to burgle/rob someone else you do so at your own risk, but that's not even what they are talking about. Someone puts up completely legitimate anti theft devices, and are told to take them down because a burglar could slip and hurt themselves on it while trying to rob you. Good. That would be a good thing. All of society could rejoice, that before going to prison, the burglar got some comeuppance. Someone who is raped is then required to pay child support for the child? What kind of society is this? These decisions ought to be put to a vote so that people can tell the politicians/judges who have come up with these ideas what society really thinks about them. You would hope that politicians/judges would have enough common sense to know that nobody could have possibly intended for this regardless of how the laws have been twisted, but obviously that hope would be misplaced.
posted by Trashcan at 2/15/2011 02:00:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home