Main > Everything Else
I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...
NoOne=NBA=:
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 16, 2005, 08:12:10 pm ---I don't think you're dumb, NBA. But I think you pretend to be in order to keep arguments going.
--- End quote ---
I'm not playing dumb here.
I'm trying really hard, but CANNOT understand how someone can:
1) SAY they want stiffer penalties, with the goal of comforting the community of the victim.
2) ACT toward softening the current maximum penalties for the SAME crime.
3) Want to enact legislation that would require a higher standard of proof to obtain the same sentence.
4) Believe that they are not contradicting themself.
I judge people on their actions; and, as such, believe that these methods are in direct opposition to the stated goals--yet you keep insisting that they are not, and that they make perfect sense to you.
I'm trying to understand how you put this together in your mind to create a single cohesive stance on crime, and just don't get it.
If this makes sense to anyone else please chime in on it.
Is there a LOGICAL way in which someone can truly believe that they are not working AGAINST themself, while at the same time believing/working for the above?
If so, can you please explain it to me in plain English?
NoOne=NBA=:
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on September 17, 2005, 01:06:40 pm ---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?
--- End quote ---
Not exactly.
I agree with Shmokes that the victim should play no part in the punishment.
Punishment is there for the protection of society....period.
If you decide one day to intentionally kill another human being, under whatever circumstance, I have absolutely no place in my society for you--EVER AGAIN.
This excludes justifiable homicide where you intentionally decide to kill someone to protect the life/limb of yourself, or another.
To me it is like owning a dog.
If that dog bites you, or someone else, there is no way that you can EVER trust that dog again.
If you know the dog has bitten, and is therefore a potential future threat, you are criminally/civilly liable for any further bites.
As a society, we have an obligation to protect our members from these potential threats.
If we are going to allow these predators back into society, we are the ones that will suffer from our own stupidity.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Again, it's not about repayment to the family, revenge for the victim, or even "fairness"--it's about protecting society.
We need to remove the predatory scum from our society.
That will give EVERYONE, including others who fit the victim's profile, a sense that society is doing it's utmost to protect them.
The "fairness" in my system is that EVERYONE would receive the same penalty for committing the same crime--regardless of HOW they did it, WHY they did it, or WHOM they did it to.
There would be no arguing that the white guy got a lesser sentence than the black guy, who got a lesser sentence than the Jew, etc....
There would be no questions regarding why the white guy that killed the black guy got less time than the black guy who killed the white guy.
As it sits, sentencing is usually up to the whim of the judge involved.
There are guidelines, but they are very liberal in what CAN be handed down.
I would like to take that right out of the hands of judges, and put it in the hands of the people.
If the people in a given area decide that execution is the just penalty for murder--so be it.
If they decide that life without parole is just--so be it.
If they decide that 10 years is just--so be it, but don't make ME move there.
THEY are the ones that have to live in that particular society, and should be the ones to decide how safe they want that society to be.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 17, 2005, 02:22:16 pm ---
2) ACT toward softening the current maximum penalties for the SAME crime.
--- End quote ---
Okay...I'll respond to this. Your confusion with 3 and 4 stems from your confusion with 2.
Hate crime legislation does not reduce a single maximum sentence for any crime. It doesn't increase the burden of proof for any crime. Anything that would have got you the death penalty before hate crime legislation will get you it after hate crime legislation.
Hate crime legislation only increases penalties for some people and leaves it the same for everyone else. It doesn't reduce the penalty for anybody. It doesn't make it more difficult to get the maximum penalty for anybody. If someone is convicted of a hate crime they get either a higher or the same (sometimes in the case of death or life in prison) penalty they would have got without it. If they are not convicted of the hate component they get the same penalty they would have got if the hate crime legislation didn't exist.
Grasshopper:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 17, 2005, 02:58:49 pm ---...
Again, it's not about repayment to the family, revenge for the victim, or even "fairness"--it's about protecting society.
...
--- End quote ---
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.
You've ducked the point I was making which is simply that under most sentencing systems including yours, and regardless of whether or not you allow for a possible death sentence, there will always be a maximum sentence, and there will always be situations where it seems appropriate to give the perpetrator more than the maximum sentence. I only brought this up because you used this fact to try and undermine smokes position that hate crimes should receive stiffer sentences than ordinary crimes. Anyway smokes has pretty much nailed down that issue so I'll leave it at that.
I do have two questions for you though. 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? 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?
ChadTower:
You've ducked... you just don't get it... I'll answer AGAIN... you're inconsistent with the verbage used in previous postings on the same subject... you're flip flopping... you didn't change your underpants.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version