Originally Posted By: 2005RedTJ
I think a balance needs to be found where people are charged only if they are in need of rescue due to their own negligence.
Why?

Is this about raising funds (in which case, why pick on just the negligent)? Or about deterrence (in which case, surely the negligent are the ones least likely to be deterred by the cost of rescue, given that they weren't deterred by the chance of dying if the rescue didn't arrive in time - these people aren't really planning ahead)? Or is this mostly because the rescuers want revenge, or at least satisfaction, from seeing negligent people punished for stupidity?
_________________________
Quality is addictive.