Main > Everything Else

I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...

Pages: << < (45/51) > >>

NoOne=NBA=:


--- Quote from: shmokes on September 16, 2005, 10:35:34 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

Shmokes,

If you are going to be a lawyer, you need to realize that words have meanings, and those meanings may be contrary to your intended position.

Saying that you want stiffer penalties for an identical crime with a hate component MEANS that you want lesser penalties for an identical crime without the hate component.
You can try to explain it away with "that's not what I SAID", but any other conclusion invalidates your original argument.

If you MEAN that you want stiffer penalties across the board, or advocate mandatory sentencing guidelines, you should SAY so--rather than hiding behind the "feel-good" claim that you want hate crime legislation.
As it stands, your position is completely contradicting, and indefensible.


I would really like you to think about the following, and tell me how you consolidate it in your mind into a single rational position.

1) You are lobbying for stiffer penalties for identical hate crimes, than for the same crime with no hate element.

2) The current maximum penalty for a non-hate related murder is death (in most states).

3) You hold that the death penalty should be abolished because it is ineffective as a deterrent, and is prone to error.

4) If the current penalty for the above guy, shooting the black kids at school, is death (in most states), how can you rationalize the claim that you want stiffer penalties, while still arguing that the current maximum sentence is too harsh for that same individual (in most states)?

ChadTower:


I object to council's statement that words have meanings and I move that it be stricken from this thread.

Stingray:


--- Quote from: ChadTower on September 16, 2005, 02:25:59 pm ---
I object to council's statement that words have meanings and I move that it be stricken from this thread.

--- End quote ---

Sustained.

-S

shmokes:

God, how classic it would be if suddenly a line of NBA's post was replaced with "Removed by moderator"?

NoOne=NBA=:


--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 11:38:51 pm ---I will even restate my position to make it easier for you.

1) I hold that there should be no "additional" sentence for the same crime just because it has a hate element to it.
This excludes cross-burning and "note on a brick" crimes because these are not simple vandalism; and are, in fact, covered by our current menacing laws.

2) I hold that there are only three types of homicide.
There is intentional homicide, which is murder.
There is accidental homicide, which is manslaughter.
There is justifiable homicide, which requires defense of life or limb.

3) I hold that crime should be judged on the INTENT, not the success.
If you TRY to kill someone, you should be tried as if the attempt had succeeded--not judged on your degree of success.

4) I hold that there should be absolute sentences for each crime, and that only guilt should need be proven to achieve that sentence.
This will prevent prejudice on the part of our judges in sentencing violent criminals.

5) I hold that there should be no parole.

6) I hold that our prisoners should have to live in the same conditions in which we make our sailors live.
3 to a bunk in shifts, stacked so tight they can't sit up without banging their heads on the bunk above them.
8-hour shifts/7 days a week to maintain their facilities, etc...

I think that's about it.
Where are the holes in it?

--- End quote ---

Still waiting for the holes to be poked.

Pages: << < (45/51) > >>

Go to full version