In article <lei8f0dr16cgrola0h28k7qq2uu342ctqh_at_4ax.com>,
John Carrick <jc_at_rogerspass.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 04:46:45 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> <JenniferWainwright_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask you a favour.
>
> Could you take off your "I hate John Carrick and everything that he
> stands for" hat, and read this post in full, before you respond to any
> part of it?
>
> Then go back, and blow me out of the water, if you must.
>
> >"John Carrick" <jc_at_rogerspass.com> wrote in message
> >news:7pm6f010u8ifkvaaf15abm4252ohfrn984_at_4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:12:44 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
> >> <JenniferWainwright_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think part of this is due to the fact that the future victim is
> >anonymous,
> >> >until the perpetrator strikes again. Not so the offender, who is a known
> >> >entity, with a face and a history. People find it hard to feel strongly
> >> >until they can put a face to the victim.
> >>
> >> Some of us think that principle of The Rule of Law is more important
> >> than any single case.
> >
> >But this discussion has nothing to do with "The Rule of Law." Instead it is
> >discussing the apparent inadequacy of the justice system, for whatever
> >reason, to protect innocent citizens from the actions of violent repeat
> >offenders. But nice strawman anyway.
>
> You are quite incorrect.
>
> My proof: before he was released and for the few hours that he was at
> large. I saw several t.v. interviews of Brampton citizens, heard a
> number of radio interviews with others, and read a number of letters
> to the editor stating that the man should be locked up, ***regardless
> of the fact that he had served out his last sentence***.
>
> The separate analysis of loopholes in the criminal justice system -
> that you are now so anxious to talk about - came later, with a number
> of people, myself included, wondering whether a mistake had been made
> in this case as a result of inadequate criteria being employed to keep
> a dangerous repeat offender incarcerated.
Actually, you argued that the system had worked because the guy was
caught threatening someone.
>
> [I still don't know whether is true that such a mistake was made,
> because I don't know how truly dangerous he is. You seem to have a
> great deal more solid information than I do. Perhaps, you are
> acquainted with someone who knows him personally? All I know is what
> I learned from the media. That makes me less certain of my position
> than you appear to be of yours.]
>
> [2] You must stop trying to define our disagreements from your
> perspective alone.
>
> You have no right whatsoever to call any concern of mine which you
> don't share, a "strawman".
>
> ***I care that many people seemed to want to have the law ignored, and
> the man kept in prison, even though he had completed his sentence.***
> That is not a "strawman". That is a genuine worry for me. because it
> would be an abuse of The Rule of Law.
>
> The fact that you don't care to discuss that aspect of the matter,
> does not make my concerns irrelevant.
>
> You have no right whatsoever to say that I waste your time trying to
> discuss something that bothers me, because it doesn't particularly
> bother you.
>
> You waste a great deal of time, when you insist upon trying to narrow
> the paramaters of our discussions to suit you.
>
> It is not for you, and you alone, to say, " *This* is what we'll
> discuss, because it is what *I* want to discuss."
>
> That produces a monologue.
>
> I come here for meaningful dialogue, and very occasionally get it..
>
> Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.
> Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Received on Thu Jul 15 2004 - 23:07:29 PDT