View Single Post
Old 03-10-2012, 07:38 AM   #75
howyoudoin
how YOU doin?
howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.howyoudoin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
howyoudoin's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,100
Karma: 7371047
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: India
Device: Kindle Keyboard, iPad Pro 10.5”, Kobo Aura H2O, Kobo Libra 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN View Post
I am sure there is a provision for punishing the guilty party only, if they can identify the culprit? If it is known who it was and they still punish the whole family, that would definitely be very wrong. I am with you on that.
Yeah, I agree on the principle with you. But the very fact that they even include a provision to punish the entire family makes me believe that they're side-stepping the requirement of pin-pointing the guilty person, and instead only requiring themselves to prove that the crime occured over a particular connection (essentially, in a particular household). I cannot think of any other explanation for the insertion of this specific provision when instead a mere "The guilty person/s will be denied internet access" would have sufficed. They're making it easier for themselves to prosecute the guilty, even if it involves also punishing those who happen to share the same roof with him.
howyoudoin is offline   Reply With Quote