said by vue666:
So you consider her rights more important then her possible danger to children or the elderly as Anav pointed out?
Remember it is the same profession that deemed her a high risk to re-offend that is considering releasing Guy Turcotte back into society as they deemed Turcotte unlikely to re-offend..
Heh....I'll stop asking if you are advocating for locking up people for something they haven't done as it's obvious you aren't going to formally state what you're insinuating and one is left to imagine why this is. That said, thanks for going where where I was heading before I could get there: your disagreement with the system (and decrying of it) when Guy Turcotte was being released because the system's opinion was that he was a low-risk was well documented, and yet you're suddenly wishing they would act harder on what you consider to be the correct opinion they have reached in this case. It's an interesting paradox: you want the system to act on opinions you agree with, but not act on the opinions you disagree with.
I'm with urbanriot
on this one:
said by urbanriot:
I personally feel that locking her away indefinitely is a little too extreme but I do feel that she requires the regular involvement of specialists in her life.
Oh look, that's what the system is advocating and putting in place.--
All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars
- Peart / Lifeson / Lee
Join Team Helix