4 ms·
Are you seriously suggesting we should preemptively lock people up, before they even attempt or conspire to commit a crime? Surely there are less drastic action
by cataphract 8y ago
Are you seriously suggesting we should preemptively lock people up, before they even attempt or conspire to commit a crime? Surely there are less drastic actions — increased surveillance and offers of psychiatric help, for instance, just like there are special programs in high crime areas (which I think we can agree shouldn't include arbitrarily harassing and arresting people).
- rabidrat 8y agoReread, I made no such suggestion. In our black-and-white culture, though, we don't have much of a bin for "that's not illegal but it's societally risky so we're going to have to keep an eye on you". Which is why we've made "simple possession" illegal, so we don't have to manage that nuance. My point was just that making it legal isn't the right move either.
- cataphract 8y agoI'm not much more comfortable with your response. You seem to be saying "simple possession" is not really harmful, but we'll pretend that is (and that's how the courts treat it — in fact, victims can recover damages from people in possession of their materials) in order to preemptively punish people that may actually do real harm.