p.s. please forgive the few typos i’ve seen after posting. i just got up. the crud in my eyes got in the way of the blinky cursor on the screen.
This seems relevant.
yup, i’d say it’s relevant. highly relevant. should we start the debate at this point, or not?
i haven’t picked up on whether or not anyone is saying that prisoner abuse HASN’T happened, but apparently it seems that the definitions of “abuse” seem to be muddled.
That question hasn’t been asked in this thread prior to post #76, has it? Your asking it now in the way you did suggests that it has been the question all along.
Why is it relevant how they’re classified? Abuse, I suppose. Improper treatment.
abuse or improper treatment to say the very least.
what part of “to twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case” wasn’t clear in the definition of the word?
are you saying that it’s normal to perform such acts upon a prisioner? if so, then wouldn’t that indict the entire system by which we treat inmates?
if not, should sodomy by glow stick become the norm?
it’s relevant how they’re classified because we need to draw these lines of distinction.
(somewhat unrelated, but, aren’t you a lawyer?)