CaptainF
The Professional Poster
I'm still baffled by South Korean people and their feats of internet addiction.
So you argue that if a person acts to harm a child they commit a crime, but if by omission they allow a child under their duty of care to come to harm they have not committed a crime?
How far would you go with this? A teacher just cannot be bothered with the kids on a field trip to the moors in midwinter and takes the minibus a goes home. The kids all freeze to death. Do you really believe a teaching ban is all they should receive?
so drunk drivers that kill innocent bystanders shouldn't be punished because they usually didn't have any ill will towards them?
we should and do punish people who act without care for the live of others, ill intentioned or not.
A criminal act doesn't need specific intent you know, thank Hades.There is nothing criminal about it, but the teacher is liable.
How are the school supposed to know, if she hasn't given them any indication that she's so apathetic beforehand, that she's so "apathetic". Such "apathetic" people don't tend to walk around with neon signs, you know...Her and the school should be held responsible in civil courts. The government should have done a better job in hiring such a apathetic employee, and she should not be allowed to work with minors.
Why not? Why should they make others' lives a misery by breaking the law, yet they themselves have to suffer little in comparison? That is not fair, by any standards.Any DUI should receive an automatic licensee suspension, regardless of damage to property or person. A person that drives a vehicle on a public road without a license, or insurance should be imprisoned to keep the public safe from their negligence, not to give punishment.
To put the offender in the victims shoes; to force them to feel what the victims felt; to make their lives as much of a misery as they've made the victims.What do you think the purpose of 'punishment' is?
1. Governments are here to protect us and punish wrongdoers.
There. Done it in 1.
If a person feels so much guilt, pain and empathy for someone they bring harm to, then the question is, why do they still bring harm to them? The answer is, they don't feel any of these feelings nearly enough.
yeah wow I can't believe you said that.
is black, white in ur world?
Why do you make up excuses for people who are responsible for the death of there own children?
NO.
Stop trying to pin the blame on everyone but the parents.
Here in Ontario, if someone goes drinking at a bar, and ends up causing an accident due to drinking and driving, guess whose fault it is. Everyone but the person who drove drunk! The establishment that served them is going to get sued, and so will every server who served them a drink. Note: this is absolutely ******ed.
Granted, I am using hyperbole in that the driver still has responsibility, but the fact that those who served him or her are also responsible is no less ******ed.
Likewise in this scenario, the Internet cafe is not a babysitting service. They provide the "Internet" service to customers, with no provisos of taking care of the customers, customers' children, or customers' other relatives.
is there any reason why South Korea has crazy internet users like this?
Do you consider murder normal? Or manslaughter? Or attempted murder?So you think that these people are perfectly normal and don't have any mental problems? That's an awfully odd thing to think. Do you consider their behaviour normal?
They should certainly be tried to that effect, yes.And if someone is mentally impaired, do you think that they should be punished as if they had full intent in their crimes?
No, it's not. It's like someone accepting a pack a day and then saying the smoking company is responsible for the death.They indulged the addiction of these people, leading to death. It's like a cigarette company personally delivering a pack a day to a smoker, and then saying that they are not in any way responsible for the death.
What way is it their fault? They have no legal power to stop someone, they shouldn't be held accountable for this.And I completely disagree with the analogy to alcohol (although I doubt that the person who drives drunk will be blameless). Licensed venues need to be held accountable for facilitating situations that lead to death.
They indulged the addiction of these people, leading to death. It's like a cigarette company personally delivering a pack a day to a smoker, and then saying that they are not in any way responsible for the death.
And I completely disagree with the analogy to alcohol (although I doubt that the person who drives drunk will be blameless). Licensed venues need to be held accountable for facilitating situations that lead to death.
The only types of people that do not feel empathy and remorse are sociopaths.
If a person is subhuman then it does not matter what happens to them. In which case death is always justifiable. Being careless is not the same as being a sociopath.
How do you rehabilitate someone to not starve a child? Screw them and their problems.
Do you consider murder normal? Or manslaughter? Or attempted murder?
They should certainly be tried to that effect, yes.
No, it's not. It's like someone accepting a pack a day and then saying the smoking company is responsible for the death.
What way is it their fault? They have no legal power to stop someone, they shouldn't be held accountable for this.
A company providing a service should not be responsible for the choices their customers make of their own free will. The customers are responsible for their own actions.
No.
By your logic, so should all gun manufacturers be responsible for the guns that lead to death. The same with furniture manufacturers for all the people that die beaten to death by chair legs. We have to draw a line somewhere.
And that line is that a person is responsible for his or her own actions.