安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题



I'd like for you to get very, very specific and go into great detail about backing up your point.
Otherwise, on the surface this looks like nothing more than some brainwashed copaganda or something.
You imply as if the exact same scenario exists for any criminal.. what type of criminal?
Guy selling coke in a bar who works for a federal agency (your hero law abiding boys in blue BTW - true story)... that type?
DUI?
Stealing some shoes or food?
Yeah, lock em all up. Lock up the kids also when you mass incarcerate people.
It's ok to be a criminal, as long as you're rich, powerful, a cop, or all 3, etc.
They should've locked up Amber Guyger's parents for popping her out in the first place.
You cannot hold someone responsible for someone else's actions.
And incarcerating them because of it will generally only make the problem worse. They ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up raising their own children but if you throw them in prison while they're raising other children then you have to put those children in to foster and supposedly that also leads to high rates of criminality (I don't know, I have never looked it up).
I would say do nothing to the parents, but take the criminal out of circulation permanently. That will also, if the parents care about their children, incentivise them to raise the children properly.
Sadly Trump and his followers are big fans of it.