On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:55:29 +0100, MM wrote:
>So you're yet another who thinks it's okay for the police to know who
>is, or has been, engaging in intimidation, burglary, criminal damage,
>antisocial behaviour or vehicle crime, but do nothing to make sure the
>perps get the message not to do it again?
If they know for certain who is doing it, there is obviously
sufficient evidence to allow a magistrate or jury to *also* know for
certain.
Therefore ISTM that harrassment is a ridiculously soft option to use -
the perps should obviously be arrested, charged, convicted and
sentenced.
Or could it be that they are not quite as certain that the people they
harrass are as guilty as they say they are?
--
Cynic
|