Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
This particular issue is where I recognize a clear distinction in my opinion. I have the logical/rational/legalistic side that says serving time deserves another chance.
The other side is the atavistic parent passion side. In which I would commit grave bodily harm on any man or woman who even threatened to abuse a child of mine. I have no problem generalizing that violent attitude to the greater population. My general rule, to be perfectly clear, is "DON'T FOOK WITH YOUNGSTERS." It's irrational, but knowing that doesn't invalidate the evolutionary value of the attitude. Animals protect their young. I am an animal as well as a man. Usually the man controls the beast. But not always and not perfectly.
|
Don't some animals also fight others to protect the other members of the pack? Using that theory, could I not justify wanting to extend the sentence of a criminal simply to protect not only my children but other members of my pack? So, how do we draw the line? I'm not a criminal and I don't want any criminals around me to endanger my pack. Therefore, all criminals who have served their time still have to serve more because I want to protect my pack.