Quote:
|
But defining, identifying, and apprehending sick people before they act is too difficult ...
|
Generally speaking its not only too difficult, its not LEGAL!
Defining? already done, in law, and has been for generations.
Identifying?? again, already done, at least as far as there being a system to report threats to. Identifying a specific individual as a threat? The system is there, one calls the police.
Apprehending????? Now there we ALSO have a system. The "flaw" is that the system requires an actual CRIME to have been committed.
That's the "problem" unless, and until a crime is committed, those "defined and identified" people have done no wrong. They have NOT broken the law, and they have the SAME rights as you and I.
if there is one spot where we, as a people have turned a blind eye to reality, it is the idea that a law can prevent crime. They don't, and never have. One can make a case that certainty of severe punishment MIGHT prevent crime, (and there is a very good case that capital punishment prevents repeat offences
) but generally speaking, no one commits a crime believing that they will be caught and punished.
Of course, you can "identify" people who are
potential mass murders, depending on where you set your standards, but what then? Until/unless they DO something (not say, do) that breaks the law, they are law abiding citizens just like we are.
To take it to ridiculous extremes, do you want it to be the law that you can be identified and apprehended because you might vote Republican???
(or Democrat, or whatever, depending on who is making the rules today?)
I don't. Nor do I want you in a position of authority if you do!