That's not fair. Not fair at all!
Where do you draw the line in
punishing a family for the acts of an individual? Grandchild? Great
Grandchild? 500 years of descendent's? 1000 years of descendant's?
You
would sink an entire family line into potential perpetual poverty because of the
acts of one man?
Sorry - but in my humble opinion, in a Civilized Society
the one responsible for the damage is responsible for paying the price, no one
else. Of course that's the simple line whereby any extenuating factors is then
examined. For example if the one responsible then signs all his property over
to a child - that property is still up for grabs (based on the Jurisdictional
Laws) to pay the owed.
If a rich uncle decides to support the guilty for
life while the guilty deliberately doesn't work in order to avoid paying, then
the uncle can be considered an accessory.
But I think it goes a bit
overboard to automatically declare descendants equally responsible. That
crosses the line into potential slavery that should never be crossed. Financial
slavery is just as bad as physical slavery!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|