Quote:
Originally Posted by test54
Well look at it from the other end. If someone assaults another individual based solely on lets say their race or sexual preference is it just simple assault? Felony assault? If the person has done it in the past does that matter? Major differences in the sentence if any.
|
If the person has done it in the past, yes, I think it should matter. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior that judges have available. Also, clearly someone has not learned his lesson if he is continuing to offend.
If I get assaulted, as the victim I don't give a flip whether it's because they don't like women (or because they were abused as a child, or because they were having a bad hair day, etc.). Heck, if you catch me on the wrong day, I don't like women. It does not and should not matter, when passing out sentences, why someone chose to break the law.
Seperately, I think we need less focus on punishment for non-violent crimes, and more focus on restitution and on rehabilitation. But that's another debate entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by test54
your right though, a crime is a crime. I think the problem to me is that too many of these situations get swept under the rug and treated as just another assault or murder when there is a deeper issue.
|
I guess I feel that deeper issues are the province of therapists and theologians. Our legal system is simply not equipped to deal with all those varying shades of gray.