"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> Michael S. Lorrey writes,
>
> > Thats called homicide in the public interest. A murder is always a homicide,
> but
> > not every homicide is a murder.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Michael.
> What do you think of "ankara"'s question:
> "Should children be screened for 'weird wiring'?"
> Who will screen the screeners?
It concerns me whenever someone brings these things up (myself included). Such
policies are obviously fraught with the potential for abuse. I very much dislike
the idea that someone should be stripped of their rights and locked away just
because their MRI shows similarities to people who have committed certain acts.
We DO, as a matter of fact, live in a society that presumes innocence (or at
least is supposed to). If society is going to impose such a violation of
individuals privacy to 'protect' itself, it should also be required to protect
the individual, from the alleged consequences of their alleged future alleged
acts, by offering GE treatment to eliminate such a defect, AND society should
assume total liability for the consequences of such treatments, if it is going
to force them on people. Any 'defect' that society claims is 'bad' ought to have
a pretty damn large database of convincing evidence that 90-99.99% of
individsuals with that defect will commit a violent crime before it is permitted
to be screened for and corrected. That being said, such treatments should be
done on a worldwide basis. I would not want to 'cure' all Americans of the
potential to kill, for example, when agressive countries like China, or muslim
nations that breed terrorists, do not practice similar policies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT