sapphi_snake said:
Lots of burglars are people who comit such crimes out of desperation for getting money to fed their families. Others are part of criminal organisations, and actually would have the possibility to earn an honest living, but don't. You can use the motives of a crime to establish whether or not a criminal can be rehabilitated. The guy who robbed someone to feed his kids, and out of panic stabbed someoen could be rehabilitated more easily than the guy who was part of the criminal organisation, and who probably no longer has any notion of right and wrong. A racist/homophobe is hard to rehabilitate. They don't beleive taht they have a problem, they beleive that their victims are their problem, and that they're acting justly by harassing/hurting/killing them. They're almost no different than psychopaths. The poor guy who acted out of desperation can be rehabilitated, if programs to help such individuals are established (like Joelcool said). You don't just throw a criminal in jail to offer revenge to the victims, you throw him in jail to protect all of society, and some criminals are certainly more dangerous than others. A for the Hitler/Stalin comparison, well Godwin's law certainly prooves to be true once more. I personally view Hitler to be more terrible than Stalin. His motves were worse than those of Stalin (who was really just a politician who wanted to have a powerfull country and was willing to go the distance to achieve that - in other words the mentality that State > the people , which many political leaders even today have - considering all the wars going on now who aren't beneficial to citizens of any country). Hitler however was killing people (jews, gypsies, gays) for no other reason than the fact that he thought they shouldn't exist. It's not the quanitity that matters, it's the "quality". |
You do actually know that's not what Godwin's law is right?
The actual Godwin's law is "The longer a thread continues the more likely it is someone will be compaired to hitler."
It has actually nothing to do with winning an arugement.
And even in the context of "winning" and arguement which came later it's about making a dumb comparison to hilter.
IE Bush is Hitler, Obama is Hitler, etc.
Comparing Hitler to Stalin isn't ridiculious.
Simply bringing up hitler constituting losing an arguement would be quite hilarious for people who start threads like "I think Hitler sucked."
That aside, so quite literally you actually do believe someone who kills 2 people isn't as bad as someone who kills 1 person because they were a racist.
Also, any actual proof that their is a higher reoffense rate for hate crimes then non hate crimes? Or just speculation?
