Inflicting emotional distress has typically been treated as a civil action. How 'substantial' does the distress have to be for it to turn criminal?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
All of civility depends on being able to contain the rage of individuals.
If there is something occurring that is so bad that it could be considered a crime against humanity, it has to be transmitted with anguish, with pain, and create an impact in people - upset them, shake them up, wake them out of their everyday routine.
Crime and violence are the easiest emotions to reenact.
Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.
In violent streets and broken homes, the cry of anguished souls is not for more laws but for more conscience and character.
I think almost all manic depressives exhibit some kind of criminal behaviour, even if it's something as minimal as shoplifting, but then they often go on to bigger and better things - in my case, it was fraud.
The crimes against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and elsewhere, particularly Lebanon, are so shocking that the only emotionally valid reaction is rage and a call for extreme actions. But that does not help the victims. And, in fact, it's likely to harm them.
Remorse is a violent dyspepsia of the mind.
The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.
In my view, there is nothing more vicious and outrageous than the abuse, exploitation and harm of the most vulnerable members of our society, and I firmly believe that our nation's laws and resources need to reflect the seriousness of these terrible crimes.
No opposing quotes found.