Main > Everything Else

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

<< < (41/51) > >>

shmokes:

--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 09:28:56 pm ---
No, I wouldn't.

There is no way that increasing the burden of proof necessary to get a maximum sentence would ever make sense to me--regardless of my skin color.

If you have a maximum sentence for murder of the death penalty, you should not have to PROVE that the guy that killed me is guilty, AND that I was killed because of my skin color, to get it.


--- End quote ---

What kind of nonsense is this?  Here you go again (actually, I think this one you just genuinely hadn't thought through).

NBA, nobody is suggesting that we...god I laugh just thinking about it...nobody is suggesting that we make hate a requirement for maximum penalty.  WTF?  Nobody is even suggesting that hate crimes should always receive the maximum penalty allowed.  You think I want people put to death or sent to prison for the rest of their lives for burning a cross or throwing a brick through a window?

If it is a hate crime it should be given a more severe penalty.  If the crime itself already garners the  most severe penalty allowed, well, that's fine.  I'm not going to complain that the Ted Bundy got the same penalty as Timothy McVeigh even though McVeigh killed way more people. 

Do you really interpret the things we say like this, or are you deliberately setting up strawmen because you have no faith in your position?

DrewKaree:

--- Quote from: shmokes on September 15, 2005, 08:11:06 pm ---
I want to read what you have to say, but it's the longest post in the history of mankind


--- End quote ---

I see I have work to do.  What's the word limit per post? ;)

NoOne=NBA=:
Without quoting anything from you because you seem not to like that, tell me where my logic falters.

1) You claim you want more severe penalties for hate crimes.
2) You claim that the hate component is not necessary for the maximum sentence in a given crime.
3) You claim that hate crimes may not even receive the maximum sentence.

If you sentence ANYONE in a hate crime case to less than ANYONE in a non-hate crime case, you've completely destroyed anything you set out to accomplish.

If the hate component is not necessary for a maximum sentence, then you can't give stiffer penalties for having it.

That's exactly the system we have now.


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


If you were arguing mandatory sentencing guidelines, like I am, you'd have a defensible argument.
As it stands, you don't really HAVE a position.

I have full faith in my position on this.
Please by all means try to find holes in it.

NoOne=NBA=:
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?

Bones:
There comes a time when men must acknowledge that although we all have good points worthy of consideration, there will be times when we can never agree.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version