? Recently, I watched a play in which the protagonist, like the investigator in Les Miserables, thought that justice had harmed many people who made small mistakes.
? "The punishment of criminals should depend on the situation. As for how to decide, no one has a standard. You are not a standard. "
? "Can the law become the standard?"
? "yes."
? "The law is flawed, but compared with people, the law is the most objective.
? Law is both a tool and a norm. How can you be punished according to law if you don't obey the law?
? The law is as big as emotion, and the loopholes in the law can be made up by human feelings, with law as the mainstay and emotion as the supplement. This is the closest thing to what people call justice.
? You can't generalize by partiality. Sin can be attacked, but it can't be completely eliminated. We can only guide them slowly and reduce the crime rate. "
? This passage in this play impressed me deeply, because there is a person around me who treats similar things with extreme views, and so does he, who wants to completely overthrow them every time he mentions similar things.
? I quite agree with what Suizhou said. Sin can be attacked, but it can't be completely eliminated. There is no place in the world that is completely free from sin and completely clean.
? Therefore, for those who always put all the problems on TZ and think that there are serious problems in one place, but everything else is the same, this really doesn't make sense.
? A wide range of random questions, others have to use a piece of paper to demonstrate, these are some means of rumors, rumors and rumors from the media. This way of "discussing" problems is too torturous. It's not pleasant at all. You get nothing from the conversation.