The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to protect the public from danger. If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault. If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then get hurt its their own fault.
some 'children' are quite capable of breaking and entering. Their parents fault?
But we know neither is the death penalty.
That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.
Me, no, which is why I'm asking you to share that experience - unfortunately you seem reluctant to do so.
Or got bored with you not reading what is written and just repeating the same tired points?
Unless the system has more than one backup (which many life support systems do have). And the backup only has to last until the patient is transferred to a different system, or until the proimary power returns - making the exposure time to a second failure very small.
The presence of a single backup means that the risk of both systems failing is an order of magnitude less than the risk of failure due to a fault in a part of the system that does not have a backup. Once the risk becomes small enough, it is perfectly acceptable to discount it.
You would be wrong on both counts.
Perhaps you have never been falsely accused of a crime and become the subject of vigilante attacks?
Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times bigger than ours.
"Dangerous" is simply a line in the sand separating what is subjectively considered to be an acceptable risk from what is subjectively considered to be an unacceptable risk. That line will be in different places for different people.
One person who is driving at a speed that you consider to be "safe" might have or cause a fatal accident, whilst another person driving at a speed that you consider to be "dangerous" may complete every journey without incident. Perhaps due purely to chance. Perhaps due to the faster driver having superior driving skills, or having a car with superior handling characteristics. After all, you can only assess what speed is "safe" by reference to your *own* driving ability and experiences, or what you perceive as being an average driving ability. A person with problems of cognition or concentration, or slow reflexes might be dangerous when driving far below a speed that you would consider perfectly safe. And vice-versa.
No, I am suggesting the complete opposite. Do try to keep up.
Quite possibly, but I have always been opposed to such laws.
And how much bigger is their prison population? Yup, it's 22 times bigger. UK 140-odd per 100,000 people, US 740-odd per 100,000 people.
That's a huge difference.
But your treatment would make it *more* likely that they would re-offend - and in fact commit worse offences than their original crime. And having been forced to associate with other criminals, they would be far more adept at avoiding being caught.
So whilst it might serve to gratify your lust for vengeance to treat prisoners badly, and will no doubt improve your self-image by reinforcing the notion that you are "good" and they are "bad", it will end up increasing crime and making society as a whole all the worse off.
Yes.
Yes
And there is a magic transformation that takes place on a person's
18th birthday?
Could be all sorts of reasons. It is quite common for children who were raised by very responsible parents to do silly things, or be pressured by peers into acting against their better judgement.
We can only reduce risks as far as is practical, we cannot eliminate risks. Sometime bad things happen despite the fact that everyone has done everything reasonable to attempt to prevent it, and there simply
*isn't* anyone who deserves the blame.
I think its about 10/12 actually.
Cynic :
Agreed.
Quite so. But if someone was killed, chances are that that was not a safe speed. Regardless of the speed limit.
Far less likely than the children of the feckless, by a ratio of 100:1 or more I'd say. If any of my friends' kids got into trouble we'd all be astonished and shocked, whereas on the dodgy estates if a kid gets into trouble no-one thinks it's worth a mention.
Bill
Yes it is. A secure prison completely deters a criminal from committing crime in the community.
I was on jury service on a case like this although no one was killed or injured, but those tresspasing were 'let off'' because the railway authorities hadn;t bothered to repair such fencies in 3 years.
Ah, just what I was hoping you would post. Thank you.
In message , tony sayer writes
This process is referred to as the Liverpool Pathway and happens regularly. Your own experience is by no means unique. Euthanasia by another name.
Recent report found 25 people per day on average die in hospitals from thirst and/or malnutrition. In one hospital doctors actually prescribed water as a medicine just to ensure the patient got a drink.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.