Cases that are vague and considerably more complicated to address posthaste can be investigated and resolved at a later time individually, again, in accordance with modern democratic policy. This would be the most effective and fair way to deal with the grudge informer issue, satisfying both the need for justice and booming demand for action.
Procedure.
This essay will be comprised of two parts: in the positive subsection, substantial reasoning as to why the grudge informers ought to be prosecuted for their past actions will be presented. In the subsequent dialectical subsection, I will proceed to describe a compelling counterargument provided by Deputy 2. I will then respond to that argument in order to expose its flaws, thus rendering it implausible and insufficient. I will conclude by summing up the claims proposed and certifying that Deputy 2's counterargument is inferior and unsuitable as a solution to the issue at hand.
Arguments.
Positive.
Using existing law, it may be possible to prosecute clear-cut cases of grudgers, as described by Deputy 3, although he offers no strategy for doing so, and no strategy regarding how to handle ambiguous cases. Current laws cannot be used to prosecute all grudgers indiscriminately, while drafting new laws to prosecute grudgers imitates the Purple Shirt strategy of contriving laws for political control. Doing nothing will likely lead to public rebellion and violence against grudgers, which will lead to prosecuting citizens for crimes against grudgers and inflame public rebellion further. Allowing citizens to commit violence against grudgers by turning a blind eye is yet another illegal strategy that imitates Purple Shirtism. .
If it can be proven that the Purple Shirts illegally usurped government, then any ascertainable grudger case can be attributed to facilitating, benefiting from, or assisting in, the crimes of the Purple Shirt regime and prosecuted accordingly by current democratic law.