things you hate with a passion

[waif]

See, I believe that a thief is just as likely to repeat the offense as someone who did so out of personal beliefs. If a person has resorted to robbery as a means to survive, then it's likely that he or she will attempt it again. Either way, it's a respect for human life that's being ignored. I agree that motives can help in the investigation of a crime and the ensuing prosecution; but I don't think that the punishment for a person who killed someone and then robbed them should be any less than that of a person who dragged someone of a different ethnicity behind his/her car and then killed them.

You're missing the point. If a mugger is attacking people for their wallets, he does so only as long as he needs money; he can be rehabilitated, because if he has a steady income he won't need to steal and therefor won't. There's no rehabilitating the Klansman short of somehow changing his mind, which I don't think is likely. So motivation matters because it affects whether future crimes can be prevented. In a murder case it's not particularly relevant because if convicted the killer will go to jail for life or be executed.

Omg a high five moment with cookie on a political issue. Must be because it's my birthday.

Or because liberals like free speech...

 

[Einherjar86]

You're missing the point. If a mugger is attacking people for their wallets, he does so only as long as he needs money; he can be rehabilitated, because if he has a steady income he won't need to steal and therefor won't. There's no rehabilitating the Klansman short of somehow changing his mind, which I don't think is likely. So motivation matters because it affects whether future crimes can be prevented. In a murder case it's not particularly relevant because if convicted the killer will go to jail for life or be executed.

I'm not missing the point; I've already said, I disagree.

First of all, the mugger in this discussion is not simply "attacking" people for their wallets. We have specifically stated earlier in the thread that, in our hypothetical situation, the mugger "killed" the person he robbed. That automatically elevates the crime from robbery to intentional murder.

Second of all, a mugger who is "killing" people and taking their wallets is not more likely to be rehabilitated than a person who is killing people based on personal biases. I highly doubt that a mugger is going to rob a few people (and kill them, mind you) and then think "Gee, I have enough money to last me a while, I think I'll get a job now." Someone who actually thinks like that wouldn't kill someone in the first place. Furthermore, if we agree that this murderer/thief does deserve a chance at rehabilitation, I feel that a racist killer does as well.

Finally, we're arguing over those who murder someone should be punished differently, purely because of the reason they committed the crime. If a person kills someone due to racist beliefs, it is no worse than killing someone because he or she wanted their money; the motive is different, but the crime is still premeditated and intentional. In my opinion, it's stupid to differentiate when dealing out punishment.

I agree that motive is paramount in determining guilt, but not in assigning the degree of discipline.

 

[skeptik]

Actually, I don't recall ever saying in my example that the mugger killed his victim.

You said that "a person [who] kills someone due to racist beliefs...is no worse than killing someone because he or she wanted their money." This is obviously where we disagree. A person who robs another person is in all likelihood resorting to an action, perhaps through necessity. This is not a person that has a desire to commit a crime, but rather has decided that this is his or her easiest solution outside of moral ramifications. A person who commits a crime out of prejudice is doing so out of a desire. Now, I think we can both agree that acting out of a desire to do something is more compelling than resorting to an action. I would imagine that those who rob others out of a mere desire to do so are in a considerable minority, whereas those who attack others due to intolerant biases against certain social identifying classes are most likely doing it because they genuinely want to do it and feel no compulsion that that 'have' to do it, like a father stealing medicine for his sick child or something.

As to your last sentence, I don't think that I disagree with you, and I don't think that I implied that I do. I do not think that a hate crime should necessarily receive a longer sentence, but I do find that it is far more likely to be deserved. I passionately object to the arbitrary nature of determining length of prison sentences to begin with, however, as I'd hinted earlier. I believe that every individual case should be handled entirely individually and should be constantly reevaluated. In fact I think that the definite prison term should be done away with entirely. I don't think that people should be released from prison unless they don't appear to be likely to commit further crimes.

 

[Einherjar86]

Actually, I don't recall ever saying in my example that the mugger killed his victim.

I thought we were arguing about the same crime, but the motives behind the crime differed. Maybe I misread earlier...

You said that "a person [who] kills someone due to racist beliefs...is no worse than killing someone because he or she wanted their money." This is obviously where we disagree. A person who robs another person is in all likelihood resorting to an action, perhaps through necessity. This is not a person that has a desire to commit a crime, but rather has decided that this is his or her easiest solution outside of moral ramifications. A person who commits a crime out of prejudice is doing so out of a desire. Now, I think we can both agree that acting out of a desire to do something is more compelling than resorting to an action. I would imagine that those who rob others out of a mere desire to do so are in a considerable minority, whereas those who attack others due to intolerant biases against certain social identifying classes are most likely doing it because they genuinely want to do it and feel no compulsion that that 'have' to do it, like a father stealing medicine for his sick child or something.

Yeah, you've nailed our disagreement. I just feel that it doesn't matter whether or not a person wants to kill another human being; the fact that they're willing to take that final step proves that there's some kind of imbalance there. Furthermore, it's for a reason that, in my personal opinion, cannot be justified (in either case). Even if a person kills and robs someone for money to feed his or her family, that person is infringing upon the life of another human being, and I don't believe that you can decrease the sentence simply because he or she may not have wanted to kill that person.

 

[Ender Rises]

I hate not having an iPod with a bloody firey passion. I think I left it in my grandpa's car last time I was in Fort Worth. I hope so, otherwise it's gone forever and that would suck some asscheeks.

 

[divine_torture]

I also hate not having an iPod. I've never owned one, and want one pretty bad.

iPod=Apple, V5.

 

[SentinelSlain]

exams, stress, lack of sleep, people who assume the right to speak for the majority and the town I live in.

 

[FenrirNL]

Religious bastards, wiseguys, politicians, child molesters (how ever you write that latter word, rapists, rappers etcetera etcetera etcetera.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

are you fucking kidding me? an anti-stab knife is going onsale in britian.
you people need to smash your liberal, faggot government

 

[Vimana]

child molesters (how ever you write that latter word, rapists, rappers etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Like these?

 

[youdontknowme]

Child Molesters are pure scum. instead of testing on animals we should test on them.

 

[whiskey funeral]

Child Molesters are pure scum. instead of testing on animals we should test on them.

Animal abusers should also be used for product testing.

 

[-CC-]

I hate that fucking cunt who keeps closing my threads when I'm not violating the post policies that's stickied on the main forum page. So instead we are all forced to read the same fucking 5 threads over and over because they are the only ones not closed!

 

[divine_torture]

I hate fans of deathcore... more so than I hate deathcore itself.

 

[youdontknowme]

Animal abusers should also be used for product testing.

I agree.

 

[CF87]

I hate people who take other people's shit. I can't find my AiC hoodie(which I bought on their reunion tour) and am pretty sure an old girlfriend of mine has it(she burns or throws away guys belongings instead of giving them back or just say wearing them) and something just tells me it was her and just want to kick her in the cunt right now.

 

[divine_torture]

I hate people who take other people's shit. I can't find my AiC hoodie(which I bought on their reunion tour) and am pretty sure an old girlfriend of mine has it(she burns or throws away guys belongings instead of giving them back or just say wearing them) and something just tells me it was her and just want to kick her in the cunt right now.

Supporting the reunion tour is evil. Layne Staley=AiC

 

[mutantllama]

I agree.

I hate fans of deathcore... more so than I hate deathcore itself.

Try making an interesting thread.

Agreed on all.

 

[False Joe]

Animal abusers should also be used for product testing.

And animal protesters who believe that attacking the families of, and burning the cars etc of scientists who test on animals is the right idea.
Not product testing I mean, some of them think ANY kind of testing, even when it could help cure illness, is worth taking human life in protest over.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I just think it was very shit of them when they put a bomb in a scientist's car and blew it up, killing a passing woman and her baby but not the scientist. They could of at least handed themselves in after that, but no, they're too fucking shit to even to do that.