Re: Polanski
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:08:48 +0100
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:18:03 +0100, MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:38:46 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:33:24 +0100, MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:36:48 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
If he had fled before the trial, then I agree there wouldn't have been
much point in opening a trial now,
Very much ON THE CONTRARY!!!
If he had fled BEFORE the trial I would be first in the queue to urge
his extradition.
So somebody who has not been found guilty should be extradited, but
somebody who has been, but then escaped punishment should not.
What a weird set of values.
Why? The former case, of evading trial, would have been far worse than
fleeing after the trial.
Of course it wouldn't.
In the former case, you have somebody who must be "presumed innocent"
avoiding having that presumption tested.
In the latter case you have somebody who is definitely guilty avoiding
punishment.
Here's an example for you (I'll try to keep it simple):
Scenario A: You steal someone's dinner money at school. The other
pupils all know you did it. However, you flee the classroom and the
school and are never seen again.
Scenario B: You steal someone's dinner money at school. The other
pupils all know you did it. You own up and plead guilty, knowing that
in so doing you will get six of the best. The class is angry that you
stole the money, but grudgingly respects you for owning up.
Who do you think the other pupils will respect more, the boy in
scenario A or the boy in scenario B?
It has no relevance whatsoever.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Luxuriantly hand-crafted from only the finest ASCII.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Polanski
- Next by Date: Re: Polanski
- Previous by thread: Re: Polanski
- Next by thread: Re: Polanski
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
