Forever Frolicking Bunnies wrote:Enfaru wrote:If they're not doing anything wrong they should not be penalized for good behaviour they should only be penalized for bad behaviour. If a "skilled" abuser takes two years to commence actually abusing someone, then it should take two years in order to ban them. The very idea of Moderation (clue in the name there) is to use powers proportionately, at the right time, in keeping with the severity of the offence. If a person abuses once and takes two years, then does exactly the same in two years time under a different account then they should receive a worse punishment than before. However they should not be punished for not abusing. That's just corruption of justice. We're not going to start monitoring every single conversation because someone doesn't know how to say "no that's not appropriate" or some parents have a "hands off" approach to rearing children. There are literally laws against that kind of practice, not just in Canada but Germany and Australia.
I wonder what it would be like if we used that same logic in our prisons. Here's how I would imagine it going:
Prison Guard: Well sir it's time to let you go. You haven't murdered anyone since we locked you up, and it would be a corruption of justice to keep you locked away in here.
Murderer: Wow, thanks! *walks out, murders prison guard*
Now obviously harassment isn't equivalent to murder, but you see where I'm getting at.
I hope this isn't the kind of logic you were using and maybe I just misread what you were trying to say, because it's terribly faulty.
While murder is usually an isolated crime, sexual harassment is not. Sexual harassers are rarely one-time offenders. Their off-time is just waiting for their next victim. I prefer to keep the jail cell locked.
This analogy doesn't even make sense.