[alyasa]

Originally Posted by ThePits

There is no difference except the motive, the crimes are exactly the same, deal with the motives on sentencing

In both examples you end up with a burnt out shop and blown up people!

Actually, that's exactly what they're doing... It is the nature of law that everything must be set in stone for it to even be dealt with properly. Any single point in law is a valid arguable point, if you have the cajones to argue it, of course. Therefore the neccessity to install a law that differentiates between the nature of the crime, to facilitate sentencng that takes into account the motives. Otherwise, judges cannot just pluck sentences and mete out punishment from thin air, without the legislation that forms the framework already in place...

[5Against1]

Originally Posted by alyasa

Actually, that's exactly what they're doing... It is the nature of law that everything must be set in stone for it to even be dealt with properly. Any single point in law is a valid arguable point, if you have the cajones to argue it, of course. Therefore the neccessity to install a law that differentiates between the nature of the crime, to facilitate sentencng that takes into account the motives. Otherwise, judges cannot just pluck sentences and mete out punishment from thin air, without the legislation that forms the framework already in place...

Hmmm...we could be getting into "three strikes" territory here, a twice convicted felon steals a pack of smokes and the judge is bound by the word of law to hand out a life sentence. Suppose a hate group stages a rally (with legal permits) and a violent confrontation ensues with the citizenry resulting in the death of a member of said hate group. Isn't his death based on hatred toward him from the citizen responsible? "Hatred" would have to be carefully defined for such a foolish law to work, the semantics involved are almost comical.

[val-holla-ing]

you don't think his death would more of an outward reaction than hate towards him? generally, "hate" groups can be very dangerous and are usually the ones that provoke violence, so couldn't it be equally possible (if not more possible) that the crowd member acted in self defense?

maybe?

[alyasa]

Originally Posted by 5Against1

Hmmm...we could be getting into "three strikes" territory here, a twice convicted felon steals a pack of smokes and the judge is bound by the word of law to hand out a life sentence. Suppose a hate group stages a rally (with legal permits) and a violent confrontation ensues with the citizenry resulting in the death of a member of said hate group. Isn't his death based on hatred toward him from the citizen responsible? "Hatred" would have to be carefully defined for such a foolish law to work, the semantics involved are almost comical.

Hence we have movies like Batman Begins, which states, quote; Criminals mock society's laws... unquote. The only way one can hope to have justice in this world is to buy it, at the dearest price possible... Lawyers who know who to manipulate judges, juries and the justice system are worth their weight in gold...

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by alyasa

Actually, that's exactly what they're doing... It is the nature of law that everything must be set in stone for it to even be dealt with properly. Any single point in law is a valid arguable point, if you have the cajones to argue it, of course. Therefore the neccessity to install a law that differentiates between the nature of the crime, to facilitate sentencng that takes into account the motives. Otherwise, judges cannot just pluck sentences and mete out punishment from thin air, without the legislation that forms the framework already in place...

This is exactly why judges have latitude on sentencing in order to take into account motive, mitigating circumstances etc

The judiciary has always argued, rightly in my opinion, against having sentencing tariffs imposed on it as these tend to come from politicians on a knee jerk reaction to a headline

Politics and law should always remain separate, so called hate crime laws are nothing more than political interference in the judiciary in order to obtain votes

[alyasa]

Originally Posted by ThePits

...Politics and law should always remain separate...

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. And I'm not talking about corruption either. Like it or not, politics will always have at least some influence over the way the judiciary functions. It is the natural state of things that the government of any nation will seek to improve the standing of the nation it is governing, and that includes deciding which laws are to be passed and also what constitutes a crime.

For example, in Singapore, homosexual relations are a crime punishable by a jail term. The government has admitted as much that the motivation for their passing such a law is quote; "We are not promoters of it[unconservative behaviour] and we are not going to allow Singapore to become the vanguard of Southeast Asia." unquote.

Therefore the politics of law is very much a reality. In a true democracy, the laws of the land should most probably be decided by the will of the people.

[ThePits]

Well we are lucky enough in the UK to have an independant judiciary. I think the system tends to fall flat on its arse when judges are politically appointed. I think the example you gave about Singapore is more to do with relgion than politics. I cant think of a single country with a predominantly Islamic demographic that has homosexuality as legal.

[alyasa]

Sorry, but Singapore doesn't have a predominantly Muslim demographic. More Buddhist, Taoist and Christian.

[alyasa]

Appetite For Destruction !@!#+_)>?.,

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by alyasa

Sorry, but Singapore doesn't have a predominantly Muslim demographic. More Buddhist, Taoist and Christian.

Sorry, you are correct its predominantly Buddhist

Buddhist 42.5%, Muslim 14.9%, Taoist 8.5%, Hindu 4%, Catholic 4.8%, other Christian 9.8%, other 0.7%, none 14.8% (2000 census)

I was getting it confused with Malaysia

Muslim 60.4%, Buddhist 19.2%, Christian 9.1%, Hindu 6.3%, Confucianism, Taoism, other traditional Chinese religions 2.6%, other or unknown 1.5%, none 0.8% (2000 census)

And I still think an independant judiciary is the answer

[krastian]

 

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/

Married to the Sea rules.

[SynthethicalY]

That was funny. It made me snort.

[atari 2600]

Matt Lauer is currently throwing some softball questions at megalomaniac Larry Craig on NBC in an interview.

edit:
Okay, okay -- now it's at the half-hour mark of the hour long special and Matt is finally appropriately grilling him a little.


another one bites the dust, namely Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)

[ThePits]

Homophobic gays, too funny

And these people are running the country.......

[HaydenAsche]

Originally Posted by krastian

 

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/

Married to the Sea rules.

Yeah. Married to the Sea is the shit. I love that one.