Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WildIrish
Shouldn't the act itself warrant the punishment? Regardless of the mindframe or intent?
...there are too many laws in place trying to cover every single possible scenario ... Murder is murder. Assault is assault. Rape is rape. I'm not saying that it's ok for people to target others for any reason... reprocussions for their actions should be based upon the crime that they commit, and not be magnified or minimized because of their intent. Should the people that killed Matthew Shepard be sentenced differently than those involved in the Central Park Jogger case had she died? I say "no!"... I don't care why you kill someone and what you were thinking when you did it... I have little tolerance for excuses. I guess that's why it doesn't matter to me what people are thinking when they break the law.
|
WW slips into "teaching attitude"
Of course we care about intent.
I don't like the idea of too many laws any more than the next person. Especially laws that concern what I do in my private life.
But when we look at a crime we have to look at intent. Sometimes intent defines the crime. In my post I used the example of killing as an unplanned act of passion vs. a planned calculated attack. The law cares about the differences.
Look at a milder act and the effect of intent on deciding punshment.
Setting fire to a pile of trash in front of a house just to make a commotion and wake up the neighborhood is NOT the same thing as a bunch of white men (no, I Do NOT blame all the world's problems on white men!) burning a cross in front of the home of a Black, Jewish or Catholic family.
Do you think that the guilty in both of these cases should be treated and punished equally? One group, a bunch of bored kids acting stupid, burning some trash, no damage done except to people's nerves. The second group is all about hate, setting out to terrorize a family.
The intent is the difference, what makes it a hate crime and justifies a greater punishment.
Of course there are crimes when the intent is not the point, where the crime is so awful the motive doesn't matter.
Some last thoughts.
The Central Park Jogger was attacked by a serial rapist, (who was identified by his DNA years after the attack. It didn't get a lot of publicity.) She was alone, and didn't appear to be a threat. I easily identify with that.
Matthew Shepard was picked because he was gay, (they planned to rob a "gay guy") small, and non threatening, something else I identify with.
It's hard to be distant and objective about this.
Mark, your friend worries too much, and seems insecure. Just tell him to be happy, do what feels good, take care of his partner and make them happy.
I really do love my Pixies friends.
(And that goes for everyone.)
Linda (WW)