In the episode the crux of the matter is that a solider shoots a superior officer in the unsupported belief that he was sexually abusing a teenage boy he had purchased from a local family. That is, there was no consideration whether or not the soldier had purchased the boy for sexual reasons or to rescue the boy from the dangers of his everyday life.
There are three issues here: 1) She could have reported him for doing so rather than taking action herself, especially as there was no evidence that the boy was being harmed.
2) Regardless of intent the solider was purchasing another human life, something that is illegal in and of itself.
3) The actual intent of the soldier was never a consideration.
The bottom line is that it just felt as if they went for the lowest common denominator rather than trying to actually present an actual case. That is, rather than exploring both sides of the situation it was pretty obvious they were just going for the worst case situation and not even attempting to make it interesting.
I am really starting to hope this show won't be removed....
There are three issues here: 1) She could have reported him for doing so rather than taking action herself, especially as there was no evidence that the boy was being harmed.
2) Regardless of intent the solider was purchasing another human life, something that is illegal in and of itself.
3) The actual intent of the soldier was never a consideration.
The bottom line is that it just felt as if they went for the lowest common denominator rather than trying to actually present an actual case. That is, rather than exploring both sides of the situation it was pretty obvious they were just going for the worst case situation and not even attempting to make it interesting.
I am really starting to hope this show won't be removed....