Democracy gone wrong? - follow up

Ok I've regained consciousness, and I should be ready to keep whinging.

I think the civilization has made the law too soft on a number of things, including so called rights. If someone violated other people's rights, should it be property, privacy, living etc, shouldn't othat offender be deemed to surrender whatever rights they have? Why should an offender's right be protected when that person clearly acted to deprive their victim of their rights? Two wrongs doesn't make it right, but sometimes an eye for an eye MIGHT be reasonable??

I know the law must be objective (yeah right, good in theory), but punishment needs to fit the crime. I don't understand why people like pedophiles and serial killers are put in prison where the victims of the crimes, as taxpayers, are indirectly funding to keep them alive while they are not making any contribution to the society. If we put ourselves in the shoes of crime victims, will we be able to live with the thought that offenders are being let off easy while you might not have another night's sleep in peace?

This self debating is doing my head in, clearly it's not a suitable day to finish a post like this, but meh, it does pay to bitch and moan.......

Democracy gone wrong?

Ok, I have been a bit sick recently, swine flu or not, don't really care. As directed by our government, they not going to test me for it anyway, they won't give me viral infection drugs, just stay home and watch personal hygiene. I did exactly that (I wonder if this was what happened to the first H1N1 casualty here, as the media reported "the man was obese and diabetic but otherwise healthy"). So let's wait to see if I live or not, I'd say live most likely, as the saying goes, true evil lives forever!

Anyways, I was browsing for random stuff on the internet after tiring from looking at all the men with packages on the net (well, I'm sick, but I'm not dead....). I've came across an article a while back about a guy in Sydney found an intruder on his property, managed to overpower him and sat on him until police arrived (I found the sat on the thief part very funny). However, the catch was, the 19 yo intruder was breathless and/or no pulse by the time police arrived, he had to be taken to hospital after having CPR performed on him. Now the authority will also investigate whether the burglary victim used “reasonable force" and will he be charged for anything.

Well, from my point of view, this is definitely out of space crazy......as many of the comments left for that article shows, majority of the readers did support what the burglary victim did and elaborated that they might do the same or worse to the burglar should they found themselves in this situation. I totally agree, if I find someone in my yard trying to break into my house, or worse, in my house stealing things, I'd assume that my personal and my family's safety is at stake and put up a fight to defend myself. The "reasonable force" is just a typical case of democracy gone crazy and give too much rights to people who do not deserve it. How do you determine what's reasonable? By asking Mr. Burglar how much things he's planning to take? If he would like to just bound you while he escape? How about if he would like to keep any of your or your family member's body parts as a little something extra? Or give your children to him just see to what extend he intends to mutilate them?

As human (which evolved from primitive animals), the urge to protect ourselves and defend our territory is in our genes. To ask someone to decide what's "reasonable" force to defend himself while he's in a potentially deadly situation is just stupid. The person standing in front of you can pull out a weapon anytime, would you rather give him that opportunity? Good on the guy for what he did, and if anything happens to the intruder, I agree with most people, TOUGH LUCK! Should have thought about consequences before violating someone else's privacy and property!

Ouch....headache....to be continued