Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
If you want to mitigate responsibility for following the law, then change the law. Not the punishment.
|
I agree Onyx, and thank you for recognising the wider spectrum of my debate.
I do think the law should be changed. And it is constantly evolving. In fact, the law currently supports my argument in favour of different punishment for different sexes: women's prisons, for a start.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Radar
A murder is a murder. The crime isn't "killing a man", it's "murder". Not all killing of a man is "murder" and that's what trials find out. But two people found guilty of the same crime like "murder" should get the same punishment regardless of motive.
|
Yes, I agree. It is determining whether it is murder - if there can be one kind of murder - that is the problem. Surely murder is killing with intent? It is the 'intent' bit I am interested in. Where does this come from? Can we eliminate it? We are arguing for the same side here. All that everybody wants is for crime to be significantly reduced, ultimately eliminated. It is imperative we spend more time working on root causes rather than handing out inconsequential, deconstructive and largely futile punishments that serve no more as reparation to the victim as a deterrent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Radar
Some people just have a hard time comprehending the meaning of personal responsibility.
|
Again, I agree. Nothing annoys me more than pathetic whiney excuses from people who are incapable of thinking for themselves. I am talking about
genuine and uncontrollable mitigating circumstances such as genetic make-up. The 'face' of a criminal is not a new topic - if we can already be this specific surely gender must also come into it? I'm not saying men are bad and women are good or the other way round. Just that we're different, like it or not, and as such should have distinct legal and social systems. Not unequal, just different.
Glatt your example demonstrates my point about an action on its own being just that - an action. Only when you attach a motive or intent does it become a crime or otherwise. We should move away from study and punishment of action and concentrate on catalystic intent. This is what the law should reflect.
As for thought police; the exact opposite of this would be total anarchy. Which would you prefer?