This is a discussion on Need help with Argument within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; When I said that a violent offender should be severely punished, his remark was something like, "why, you can't be sure he will ever do ...
He is right. You can't be sure the offender will ever commit it again. Then again, you are NOT punishing the offender for future crimes anyway. You punish for the crime for which the offender was convicted.When I said that a violent offender should be severely punished, his remark was something like, "why, you can't be sure he will ever do this again".
I am not sure by your statements if you are arguing that violent offenders need to be punished more severely because they are likely to be repeat offenders, but if so, then you are in error. You cannot punish for what you believe will happen in the future.
With that said, I don't believe in cutting slack for folks simply because they are a first time offender.
I'm no psych Dr, but almost sounds like he is lonely and looking for attention, I guess kind of like the kid that dumps his bowl of cereal in the floor to get a reaction out of mommy. It's not the substance of the argument, but rather the fact that your attention is focused on him. Maybe ask him what flavor ice cream he likes, then tell him that that flavor sucks, and (pick any other) tell him that XXXXX is the only real flavor.
FWIW, just a thought.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand