3 ms·

I think your statement requires a slight modification: There's no human being on Earth who is not guilty of any crime that is so dangerous that they cannot be

by Crito 12y ago

I think your statement requires a slight modification: There's no human being on Earth who is not guilty of any crime that is so dangerous that they cannot be safely put on an airplane. By all means, keep the convicted Son of Sam's of this world off my airplane. But somebody that the state finds themselves unable to convict of anything? Give me a break. Either the state can prove that they are dangerous and need to prosecute them, or they need to leave them alone.

unreal37 12y ago
People guilty of crimes should be tried and prosecuted. Judges should impose the sentence, and for serious crimes that probably includes a jail sentence which is the ultimate restriction of movement. If that also includes restricting their international movements as part of their sentence, fine. But simply having been at one time convicted of a crime should not automatically banned from air travel.
- Crito 12y ago
  Yes, quite right.
afarrell 12y ago
It is no crime to have a highly airborne-communicable disease, but it is dangerous to be on an airplane with one.
- Crito 12y ago
  Anybody with a disease that would warrant forbidding them from getting on an airplane is presumably being legally forcibly isolated/quarantined anyway. If not, then I see no problem allowing them on the airplane; the common flu is a "highly airborne-communicable disease", but we certainly don't stop people with the sniffles from flying.
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    I think the idea there is that those with diseases like drug-resistant tuberculosis should be prevented from flying because of the risk it presents to other passengers. It's really a matter of degree: While both diseases can kill, and certainly influenza is far more virulent, you're less willing to take a risk with a diseases that's difficult to treat (if treatment is even successful) and is infectious. I'd think the same thing would occur (or I'd hope so anyway) if a form of influenza popped up that was highly fatal and contagious.

by Crito 12y ago

unreal37 12y ago

People guilty of crimes should be tried and prosecuted. Judges should impose the sentence, and for serious crimes that probably includes a jail sentence which is the ultimate restriction of movement. If that also includes restricting their international movements as part of their sentence, fine. But simply having been at one time convicted of a crime should not automatically banned from air travel.

Crito 12y ago
Yes, quite right.

afarrell 12y ago

It is no crime to have a highly airborne-communicable disease, but it is dangerous to be on an airplane with one.

Crito 12y ago
Anybody with a disease that would warrant forbidding them from getting on an airplane is presumably being legally forcibly isolated/quarantined anyway. If not, then I see no problem allowing them on the airplane; the common flu is a "highly airborne-communicable disease", but we certainly don't stop people with the sniffles from flying.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  I think the idea there is that those with diseases like drug-resistant tuberculosis should be prevented from flying because of the risk it presents to other passengers. It's really a matter of degree: While both diseases can kill, and certainly influenza is far more virulent, you're less willing to take a risk with a diseases that's difficult to treat (if treatment is even successful) and is infectious. I'd think the same thing would occur (or I'd hope so anyway) if a form of influenza popped up that was highly fatal and contagious.