 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Okay, but would you hold a profoundly retarded person equally culpable for his actions as a fully-functioning, mentally healthy adult? To do so would be, in my view, unforgiveably cruel and unfair. By the same token, if a child is (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Frank's "[as an abuse]" is a perfect clarification. Basically, I think that to deny access to our rights as citizens based on the age of the citizen (which I assert kids are) is exactly the moral equivalent of denying rights based on skin tone (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) As one of the people suggesting that everything can be treated as a property right, I would like to point out that I don't think that compensation is the sole remedy. Certainly people who demonstrate an inability to restrain themselves need to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
|
(...) Of course not, and in fact you've nicely paraphrased my objection to a pure "propertly loss/compensation" system of law that some here have previously proposed. But if the accepted laws of society recognize that you have duly repaid your debt (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: W
|
|
(...) We only ever hear from the puppet-master at the end of the show. ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
