E.R.N. Reed wrote:
If you want dangerous perverts to wander around your district and
never be caught, you're entitled to your opinion. (Which we have now
heard, over and over.) My opinion, (which I've also shared many times
and so I suppose this can be the last time) is that I do not want
dangerous perverts on the loose where I live, and I like the idea that
police have taken a close look at this guy -- hopefully if he actually
is a potential threat, he can be stopped before he escalates an
unhealthy interest in the pizza-delivery customers, high-school
football spectators, etc., of this area, to stalking, abduction, rape
and murder.
The problem with this type of argument is that it can be used to justify
just about anything. Yes, there wouldn't be a lot of dangerous perverts
walking around if a general curfew were introduced, but does that mean
make it right? The fact is, if we want to live in a free society, we
also have to accept that some perverts are on the loose; the only way to
make absolutely sure none are, is to lock up the entire population. Of
course, I do accept *some* restriction of my freedom if there is a very
high risk of running into your dangerous pervert, and the
freedom-restricting measurements greatly reduces that risk, but there
will always be a certain point after which running into perverts is
actually preferable to living with the measurements. Also, the situation
many places today seems to be that the media and others are scaring
people into believing that this risk is a lot higher than it really is,
and the measurements are controlled by this perceived threat rather than
the real one. This is a development that really worries me.
- T
- Re: Today I Was Stopped by the Police While Photographing Toralf Lund
-
