Imagine the police approach undercover 1,000 18 to 21 year olds in a poor community and offer them big bucks to transport some drugs.
They're oging to get a certain number who say yes - who are not currently doing so or any other crimes - and long prison sentences.
It raises the question how useful - and harmful - such an activity is by the police, creating a problem where one doesn't exist.
In other words, our society's situation is that there are a good number of people who might give in to such temptations, but haven't; our jails are filled enough with those who have.
Do we want to just go after the people who have - or do we want to try to put in prison everyone who would eventually do any one criminal act they're tempted with by police?
Relevance of wealth - when the police make the offer to 1,000 18 to 21 year olds in a wealthy community, they're likely to get a lot fewer people who give in to the temptation.
Those kids don't 'need the money' as much and can more easily refuse the offer. It doesn't make it 'right' for the poor kids to take it, but it does create an unequal temptation.
This terrorism arrrest smacks strongly of people who were not a threat, who were manipulated into things for the agenda of a government who desperately wanted a 'terrorism catch' for its own selfish reasons, largely simply the political rewards of adminstration successes for use in the elections of 'protecting the nation'. When people who otherwise were not any real threat are sacrificed for such purposes, it's injustice.
Of course, I'm sure the righties here would be happy for their kids to have the government tempting them regularly with drugs, sex, money, test answers, whatever, trying to get them to 'take some pictures of school buildings' and then throwing them in prison if they made a bad choice. And call it 'justice'.
Facebook
Twitter