Text 14239, 92 rader
Skriven 2008-04-19 14:29:26 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 14236 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Michiel.

19 Apr 08 17:35, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,

 MV> On Saturday April 19 2008 04:51, you wrote to Ward Dossche:

 WD>>> It seems some of the police are too busy angling for people with
 WD>>> intent but without an act to match that intent, to notice what
 WD>>> is happening in the backyard.

 JS>>      Nonsense. While I imagine there are mistakes made regardless
 JS>> of the location. One has to take action based on their intent.

 MV> According to *your* laws and *your* morals.

 MV> My laws and morals are different, They say that intent is in the mind
 MV> and not a matter for the law.

     The intent IS in the mind. We agree on that point. The action taken
which is based on the intent is where the law gets broken. People are and
should be free to think about what they choose. It's when they act on their
thoughts and desires that laws somtimes get broken.


 MV>  Law enforcement has no business meddling with people who have not
 MV> *done* anything.


     That is where I think we have the primary disagreement. LEA's simply
provide an opportunity. The person breaks the law when they ACT on their
intent.

 JS>>      The nationality of either party is irrelevant. If someone
 JS>> abuses a child and in so doing breaks the law of the land then
 JS>> they should be held responsible for their actions.

 MV> The law of which  land? The law of the USA or the law of the land
 MV> where they reside?

    That would depend on the location of the law being broken. If I act
in a manner that breaks a Swedish law. I should be just as quilty regardless
of whether I was in Sweden or the US at the time of the action. If someone
from Sweden breaks a US law. They should be held just as responsible.

 MV> Intent to have sex with a minor is not a violation of the law in most
 MV> - if not all - European countries.

     I may not personally approve BUT I would to agree.

 MV> By saying that action should be taken on their intent, you are
 MV> imposing *your* laws and *your* morals on others.

    That is NOT what I am saying and you know it.

    Action on the part of a LEA should be taken upon the ACTION of someone
that breaks the law. It is the ACTION and not the intent that breaks the
law.

   If people were arrested for what we think about doing I would guess that
most everyone would be breaking a law.


 MV>  In that you are in the same class as Islamitic fundamentalists who
 MV> want to impose the Sharia on the rest of the world.

    Ahh... Now you are going to resort to labeling people and classifying
them. I had expect better I guess.


 MV> Do not do onto others what you do not want to do them onto you.

     Sounds good to me.

 MV> Attempting to impose one's morals on others is wrong and one day it
 MV> will backfire.

     Then why don't you practice what YOU preach????

 MV> Actually I think that has already happened...


 MV> Cheers, Michiel

 MV> --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 MV>  * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)