Joelcool7 said:
Kasz216 said:
Joelcool7 said:
Kasz216 said:
A) Being off of his meds makes it a different crime. Reckless endangerment. Facts of the crime are different... so Invalid. The actual crime started well before this happened when he went off his meds knowing he'd be a danger. Reckless Endangerment.
B) Same punishment as any other stabbing.
C) Different facts of the crime. He had premdiatated stabbing someone.
Unless
C2) He planned to stab someone in particular then decided this guy would do. In which case, same punishment if he has stabbed as many people as person B. If not, again... facts of the crime are different and would be reflected in sentencing.
Though if he was dumb enough to actually let people know he was going to stab someone else, i'm pretty sure there are other charges he could be brought up on.
D) He's not intentionally stabbing him then is he? So.... different facts of the crime?
E) Again, different facts of the crime. Either way he should be punished MORE serverly. He is committing two crimes instead of one.
|
So let me get this straight your saying a single crime.
Someone is walking down the street bumps into a man and then intentionally kills him
Then isn't a man walking down the street accidently bumps into a man, notices the man is black so he then kills him a different crime?
You said it, different facts of the crime. You can't say the same crime happening differently should have the same punishment or out come.
Again I will say motive is the drive behind sentencing and motive is what helps prisons know how to deal with the criminal. Rehabilititation likelyness to re-offend etc...etc...
|
No. It's not a different crime.
The man is black in every case... the person notices he is black in every case.
The person stabs him every case. The person is sane in every case.
Everything is the same except why they stabbed.
|
Exactly, why they stabbed. Making it different and again different motive. So it shouldn't be judged to be the same crime as it wasn't their was a different motive.
|
It doesn't make it different... in the slightest. There is no actual difference.
The person, fully in their right mind decided to stab someone on the fly.
The motive is irrelevent. Motive only goes to prove the crime.
That's why "theoretically" people get sent to jail for the maxium then get parole later on.
You don't judge "reformability" until you know... they actually try and reform.
It's awful sloppy to say "He's probably going to reform so lets give him 5 years instead of 10 and if he doesn't... whoops!"
Furthermore... it's dumb to say "He's less likely to reform so lets give him 12 years instead of 10".
Because you know. Same 2 criminals stabbed for two different reasons.
Neither reform.
One gets out in 10 years, the other 12. Where is the justice in that?
We have parole boards for a reason.
