rocketpig said:
They're "more dangerous"? How so? And determining motive is far more difficult and sticky than determining whether the person committed the crime, as there are several shades of grey left up to prosecuting individuals and their individual biases. A crime is a crime. Prosecute it as such. Adding subjective footnotes that increase or decrease time served only weakens the system. |
Is it not obvious? The person who would attack another to steal their money is only doing that because he needs the money. If he had money, or a viable method of obtaining money he wouldn't commit the crime. The racist/homophobe would only be satisfied once the people who are ther target of his/her prejudice disappeared, were eliminated (in other words some form of genocide happened).
And do I really need to explain to you why someone who premeditates a murder (esentially a diabolical mind) is more dangerous that someone who kills on the spur of the moment (someone who may simply loose control)?
Establising motive is important, worth dedicating time to (and essential in any case), and necessary to make the right objective decision.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)







