安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題



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.