| Main > Everything Else |
| I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but... |
| << < (46/51) > >> |
| NoOne=NBA=:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 16, 2005, 02:24:08 pm ---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)? --- End quote --- And still waiting for an answer to this. |
| DrewKaree:
Now, I'm one of those sick freaks who actually enjoy reading your ongoing debate here, but I was toodling around the 'net and found this pic. I INSTANTLY thought of this thread even though I think this is good reading. Have I given enough disclaimers about liking this thread (and others like it, btw)? Yes? Are you sure? Ok. Here for your enjoyment: |
| Bones:
;D |
| shmokes:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 16, 2005, 07:00:18 pm --- --- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 16, 2005, 02:24:08 pm ---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)? --- End quote --- And still waiting for an answer to this. --- End quote --- No you're not. You are waiting for me to answer it again. There's a limit to how many times I'm willing to answer the same question in a single thread. If anybody else has a question for me about any of those things I'll be happy to answer. For you, jesus, wtf is the use? I give you financial aid, elementary school shootings, burden of proof and god knows how many more. I don't think you're dumb, NBA. But I think you pretend to be in order to keep arguments going. |
| Grasshopper:
NoOne=NBA=, if I understand correctly you're saying that all victims of murder should be worth the same amount of punishment. Is that correct? If it is then let us suppose that the fixed penalty for murder under your system is life imprisonment. It could if you prefer be execution as that doesn't affect the point I'm making. Let us also suppose that someone kills two people and is successfully convicted for both murders. The courts can't give the perpetrator a longer sentence than life imprisonment. It simply wouldn't make sense unless you are able somehow to artificially prolong his lifespan just for the purposes of imprisoning him. So the victims' families will only have received half of the standard revenge each, and basically they'll feel cheated (assuming of course they share your philosophy). Your simplistic system cannot provide "fairness" (according to your philosophy) in this situation. So how do you deal with that? OK, it's a dumb question but it's similar to the point you keep putting to smokes. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |