Think about that... the faux-rationalization is that these people are at higher risk, and so stronger deterrents serve to mitigate that danger. But what kind of can of worms does that open? What's the logical conclusion of that line of thinking?
Aren't women more likely to be assaulted than men? Aren't people in urban communities at higher risk? Do we need a scale that describes the risk level for each citizen, and the associated punishments? Each citizen will be given a rank from A-Z based on risk... and then what? And then the people who have lesser punishments associated with them will become preferred targets! But wait... wouldn't that make the lower risk people at higher risk??? Maybe we didn't think this through...
The whole thing goes haywire - you know why? I know you do. Because it's not rooted in principle. It's just another asinine attempt to shovel the shit around on the effect level and ignore the causal factors. And the people at the highest levels of control know all of this, but can sell it to the rabble because they've been tenderized through a lifetime of inanity and dissuasion from critical thought.
I found me a wordsmith :)
haha! I second that. Good wordsmith you are, B.
Bah! Hahaha