Main > Everything Else
I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...
shmokes:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 11:19:14 pm ---
To put it in math terms, for those that are more math inclined:
X = non-hate crime sentence
Y = hate crime sentence
Z = maximum sentence
Hypothesis X < Y
If X <= Z
And Y <= Z
For X = Z
Y <= X
THEREFORE: X is NOT < Y
I have full faith in my position on this.
Please by all means try to find holes in it.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for your permission. Don't mind if I do.
The biggest problem with your equation, aside from being written poorly, making it extremely difficult to understand what you're trying to say, is that your definitions for X and Y are absurdly broad. X=non-hate crime. Y=hate crime. What does that mean? Is X walking into an elementary school with an M-16 and opening up, while Y is keying the word nig.ger into the side of a black family's car? It is not my contention that hate-crimes are always worse than non-hate crimes.
My contention is that all things being equal, the added hate component (and I mean hate as it is defined in the context of a hate crime) makes a crime worse. It's perfectly manageable. And if the two crimes are one person walks into an elementary school and opens fire because the person is a sick sociopath, while another person walks into an elementary school because it is an all-black school and they're trying to keep the little buggers from having a chance to reproduce to make more black kids, well they're both just going to qualify for the maximum penalty. That's the tricky thing about a maximum. You can't go above it. It's kinda like if there's an afterlife the D.C. Sniper will probably be in Hell, but so will Hitler.
Think of it in terms of financial aid for schools. There's a maximum amount you can qualify for. Let's say that a full grant of $4500/year plus unsubsidized loans of up to $3000 is the most you can get. Let's say that any single person who makes less than $4000 per year can qualify for the full amount. Do you see where I'm going with this? A person who makes $2000 a year is worse off than a person who makes $3999 per year. But they still only qualify for the maximum amount of financial aid. I'm sorry that the person who is worse off can't get more help, but that's just the nature of a maximum. The fact that they can't get more help, however, doesn't mean that making only $2000 per year isn't worse than making $3999 per year.
Similarly, just because I can't give the mass murderer a stiffer sentence because of the hate component doesn't mean that the hate component was meaningless. It simply means that he's already getting the maximum sentence, with or without the hate component. Just like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy shared the same fate.
....Well, I see that Bones has posted while I was typing this. I agree with every word. I think we've probably exhausted this. We both know I'm right anyway.
Grasshopper:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 08:13:44 pm ---You hold that societal protection is the goal of punishment from what I am reading, correct?
--- End quote ---
I would certainly say that is the main goal but not the only goal.
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 08:13:44 pm ---Why do we need to punish the man who kills his wife in a jealous rage, if he's no longer a threat to society then?
--- End quote ---
Well for a start to deter any future men from murdering their wives in similar circumstances, and to send out a message that society doesn't regard such behaviour as acceptable.
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 08:13:44 pm ---If all acts of murder aren't equal, then all victims of murder must be worth differing amounts of punishment, correct?
--- End quote ---
Your statement seems to be based on the assumption that the only purpose of punishment is to gain revenge for what has been done to the victim and that each murder victim deserves an equal amount of revenge. I don't accept that assumption. I prefer to see a system of justice that places less emphasis on revenge and a greater emphasis on deterrence/societal protection. My primary concern (but not my only concern) would be to prevent future victims.
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 08:13:44 pm ---Based on the above, you believe that the killer's career, tax dollars, and family are more important than the victim's life was?
What about the Victim's career, the Victim's tax dollars, and the Victim's family?
Why are they worth less than the killer's?
--- End quote ---
Sounds like I've been served a strawman here. I simply didn't say that. I certainly wouldn't base someone's sentence on their future earnings capability, or indeed the lost earnings capability of the victim. I was simply making a general point that punishment incurs a cost to society as a whole, which is pretty obvious really. Therefore there is a downside to the superficially attractive idea of giving everyone the "maximum" punishment (whatever that may be) for any given crime.You may think the upside of this policy justifies the downside but I don't.
ChadTower:
Where is the autocensor when we need it? Why can we get censored on bacon but not strawman?
shmokes:
I agree. It irritates me when I have to waste time and space identifying straw men. It would be nice, indeed, if NBA would stop making wild claims about what his opponents are saying.
ChadTower:
It would be nicer if people would stop referring to other posters as opponents.