Main > Everything Else
I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...
NoOne=NBA=:
See Shmokes?
Your last post says that hate crime legislation doesn't "increase the burden of proof for any crime", but doesn't clarify that you are viewing the hate element as a SEPARATE crime.
You go on to say that it "INCREASES the penalties for some people and leaves it the same for everyone else", not that it provides an ADDITIONAL penalty to some people.
Then you say that "it doesn't make it more difficult to get the maximum penalty for anybody", again without clarifying that you mean there will be an additional penalty for the hate component.
Then you say that "if someone is convicted of a hate crime, they get either a higher or the same penalty".
My problem understanding this was that there would be no HIGHER penalty to give if you view the hate component as PART of the original crime.
Had you not focused so heavily on murder and property crimes, I think I would have made the connection earlier.
Hate crime legislation is basically worthless in both those instances.
Murder already garners the maximum penalty to can inflict on someone, and menacing covers the rest; and, just like you can't charge someone for Murder AND Assault, you can't charge them with Vandalism AND Menacing.
Now that I understand your position, based on your response in the other thread, your position makes more sense to me.
I still think it is flawed, based on it's failure to address random acts of violence, and that addressing the hate component of the crime during sentencing would make it much simpler to the RESULTS you are desiring, but at least I finally understand it.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 18, 2005, 12:19:51 am ---
You go on to say that it "INCREASES the penalties for some people and leaves it the same for everyone else", not that it provides an ADDITIONAL penalty to some people.
--- End quote ---
Am I the only one here scratching his head?
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 18, 2005, 12:19:51 am ---
Murder already garners the maximum penalty
--- End quote ---
Murder garners the minimum penalty, plust whatever the judge or jury gives him. Not every murderer is put to death, or even sentenced to death in a death penalty state. Not every murderer gets life in prison in a non-death penalty state. Everything I've been saying applies as much to property and murder as it does to assault.
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 18, 2005, 12:19:51 am ---
and, just like you can't charge someone for Murder AND Assault, you can't charge them with Vandalism AND Menacing.
--- End quote ---
Yes you can, and yes you can.
Your failure to understand my position on this isn't from my failure to be clear about it. It was crystal to everyone else reading this abour four or five pages ago. You don't understand my position because you get a preconceived notion in your head and refuse to listen to anyone after that. You're constructing your rebuttal by the time you've read or heard the third word in someone else's argument. Here's an exercise. It'll take a while, but if you skip that one post of yours it should cut the time in half. Now that you know my position, go back and read through the thread from the beginning. Both threads actually. See just how vague or ambiguous I was about my position.
If you honestly didn't know my position, and I have my doubts, it was because you have a serious problem listening. If you want to keep a wife for any length of time I suggest working on that.
Bones:
Man are you dudes still going hard at it?
How much life have you lost due to this thread?
I demand the pair of you go and get laid RIGHT NOW!
shmokes:
--- Quote from: BrokenBones on September 18, 2005, 12:40:10 am ---
Man are you dudes still going hard at it?
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately...yes.
--- Quote from: BrokenBones on September 18, 2005, 12:40:10 am ---
How much life have you lost due to this thread?
--- End quote ---
Hours, literally. It's inexcusable.
--- Quote from: BrokenBones on September 18, 2005, 12:40:10 am ---
I demand the pair of you go and get laid RIGHT NOW!
--- End quote ---
I'll see if my wife is still awake. If not I'll have to shoot for the morning. I hope it cures me of this thread, but I won't hold it against you if it doesn't. It's a good idea regardless.
NoOne=NBA=:
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on September 17, 2005, 06:05:49 pm ---Heh, you appear to have have shifted your position slightly, or perhaps I simply misunderstood your response to one of my earlier posts, but whatever.
--- End quote ---
My responses were of the "If we assume that, then... what about this" variety.
I think that's where the confusion came in.
I was not stating that as MY position, but showing why I DIDN'T hold that opinion; and where I thought it would lead, if we adopted it as the basis for punishment.
--- Quote ---There will always be situations where it seems appropriate to give the perpetrator more than the maximum sentence.
--- End quote ---
I don't agree with that.
The maximum is the MAXIMUM you can get for a particular crime.
You can get MULTIPLE sentences, in the case of lesser crimes, but each carries a mandated maximum.
In the case of the multiple murder you mentioned above, you COULD give them two life sentences if it makes you feel better about it--but that is a pointless exercise.
The truth of the situation is, that if he GETS life (or death in states that allow it), society is safe, and the "terror" associated with a hate crime has been abated as much as is possible by the fact that the individual involved will NEVER see life outside prison again.
I have also stated my position that we should try crimes based on the intent, not the success.
In the case of assault, it is my position that hitting someone in the legs with a baseball bat should be tried as assault; hitting them in the head should be tried as MURDER.
There is nobody in this world stupid enough to believe that you can hit someone in the head WITHOUT there being a good chance that you MIGHT kill them.
Therefore, if you DO hit someone in the head with a bat, the only logical conclusion to make as to what you MEANT to do, is that you MEANT to kill them and failed.
I don't want a bunch of inept "potential" killers running around society, any more than I want successful ones.
--- Quote ---Is your idea that everyone should get a fixed penalty for committing a crime only applicable to murder or does it apply to all crimes?
--- End quote ---
I would LIKE to see a full overhaul of the current sentencing guidelines for every crime, to prevent bias from entering the equation.
Simple robbery would have a mandatory sentence, while armed robbery would have a higher sentence, etc...
--- Quote ---Also, what would be the mechanism for determining what people in a particular area consider to be an appropriate sentence? Would you for example put it to the vote and then take an average or what?
--- End quote ---
The legislature in a given community is responsible for creating the laws, and should also be responsible for setting the penalties for violation.
They are diverse enough, in most areas, to ensure that the overall view of the community would be satisfied with regard to the severity of the crimes.