Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne7en
Like someone said earlier.. public safety trumps degrood's freedom.
|
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
I would argue that nothing trumps freedom. And while I can certainly appreciate the idea that locking up De Grood for good would reduce the chances or prevent him from ever killing anyone ever again, it is a slippery slope. If the idea of public safety trumps personal freedoms, where do you want to draw the line?
Lock away all murderers for life? Certainly some might argue this. Then you get situations where you have a 12 year old girl locked away for life instead of studying at Mount Royal University a decade later with the potential to be a productive member of our society instead of a burden.
Why not simply just all violent offenders? It's hard to not recognize them as a heightened threat to public safety and the potential for them to re-offend is there.
What about medical conditions like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Unfortunately it's documented that people suffering from this syndrome are more prone to violence. Certainly not everybody with this condition is a risk, but it's hard to argue that they don't pose a higher risk than the average citizen - if not minute.
So why not leave it to experts? You know, trained doctors, medical experts who along with education and experience would assess the persons likelihood to re-offend and assess the risk. You know, the exact situation that De Grood will face?