Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcorner
Methinks you meant sight,  but I agree, innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law, otherwise it's akin to a witch hunt, lynch mob or like being accused of heresy.
I find that statement very disturbing. Who is qualified to determine that someone is incapable of separating their thoughts from their actions? Surely someone would need to be able to read the minds of the alleged "child molestors and rapists" in order to prove that they were incapable of separating their thoughts from their actions, otherwise it would be a baseless accusation. Perhaps a psychiatrist would be able to give an expert diagnosis of a mental disorder, but surely not a layman. If someone breaks the law then they can be prosecuted and if found guilty they should be punished. However, they must remain innocent unless found guilty, in a court of law - not a kangaroo court. Accusations based on assumptions and imagined mind-reading sounds like dangerous gibberish to me. |
Not much you can add to that
