On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:30:47 -0000, CBA <cba@wrff.org> wrote:
>Benevolence would urge one to put aside past mistakes and treat each
>situation on its own merits. However, the nature of people is to
>associate based on experience: A dog bit me - dogs bite; Winona stole
>something = Winona steals.
Your thinking is a little naive, especially when it comes to criminal
or deviant behavior. Every cop knows that criminals tend to commit
again, the recidivism rate for prison is well over 80%.
If you were in a room and a watch was missing and you're among ten
suspects and one of them has a history of stealing, the chances are
higher that is the person who stole the watch. This is common sense
based upon real facts and figures and statistics. Same is even more so
with drug addicts and sex offenders.
Sorry to break your naive way of thinking but if a child is molested
in the neighborhood, there's a much higher chance that it's the
convicted sex offender in the neighborhood who did it and not the
person with no prior arrests in his past. That is a fact. I'm not
saying that it rules out the person with no priors, don't try that
argument on me. I'm simply saying that the odds are higher that what a
person has done in their past, they are more likely to repeat.
Winona has a history of stealing and drug abuse. She was using fake
I.D.s to get her drugs and purposely spread out where she got them in
order to avoid detection. It shows a pattern of scheming, an
obsession. That is not good. Now, expensive jewlery is missing with
no explaination. Odds are high that she had her hand in it and since
we haven't heard anything, the jewlery was most likely paid off and
the matter dropped.
Now it could also be that someone working for her or even a maid stole
it knowing about her past and that people would automatically blame
Winona. I'm not ruling that out. But history and experience has shown
us that it was most likely Winona as a repeat offender.
Winona FAN
|
|