What difference does the "why" make?

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: LS8
I don't think it matters. We punish crimes not motives. A motive is not a crime, an idea is not a crime.

Yet!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jonks
Sounds like someone needs to watch Legally Blonde. Mens Rea anyone?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

Situation: A man shoots his wife.

He claims it was completely by accident while he was cleaning his gun.

The state offers evidence that the week before he shot her that
- he took out a one million dollar life insurance policy on her
- she found out he was having an affair and threatened in public to divorce him and ruin him financially. This was witnessed by many people in a restaurant.
- He was a firearms expert who practiced shooting twice a week and had never before had an accidental discharge
- His best friend testifies that the shooter told him he was going to "take care" of his wife problem and it would all be settled soon

So. You think that the punishment should be the same regardless of the WHY because you feel it doesn't meet the imaginary burden of absolutely provable?

It's the difference between negligence and cold blooded murder.

That's the thing about Anandtech, so many people here see everything as absolutes. Our legal system doesn't work that way, we rely on human judgment. Judges and juries are not (that) stupid. Just ask the girl who thought an unsecured wireless router would save her in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: cultgag
Are you serious??

Person A kills person B.
Person A goes to prison???

What if it was self defense??

I can't fathom how your reasoning works. You ARE joking right??!?!

lol, simpleton.

there are only four scenarios in homicide

accidental (which can be further broken down into degrees of negligence)
defense (which can be broken down somewhat with the level of violence used to defend yourself)
emotional (temp insanity/loss of self-control)
malice aforethought (planned)

malice aforethought means that whoever is doing the killing is hating, so whether its hate based on race or whatever, it SHOULD NOT matter.

hate modifiers are the black apologists' way of saying sorry. or more correctly the black apologist legislators' way of saying vote for me I will support you ignorant cause.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: jonks
Sounds like someone needs to watch Legally Blonde. Mens Rea anyone?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

Situation: A man shoots his wife.

He claims it was completely by accident while he was cleaning his gun.

The state offers evidence that the week before he shot her that
- he took out a one million dollar life insurance policy on her
- she found out he was having an affair and threatened in public to divorce him and ruin him financially. This was witnessed by many people in a restaurant.
- He was a firearms expert who practiced shooting twice a week and had never before had an accidental discharge
- His best friend testifies that the shooter told him he was going to "take care" of his wife problem and it would all be settled soon

So. You think that the punishment should be the same regardless of the WHY because you feel it doesn't meet the imaginary burden of absolutely provable?

It's the difference between negligence and cold blooded murder.

What is the difference?

The wife is dead. do you think she will be happier dead knowing it was an accident? Is society better off because she died from an accident, instead of an intentional killing?

Is the husband a better person because he clumsily killed his wife, instead of killing her purposefully?

I don't see the difference.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

What is improvable, it seems pretty easy to prove, someone wanted to kill someone when they say, "I hate you I'm going to kill you." Then run them over with a car.

Compared to:

The person who has a seizure, from a unforeseen brain tumor not allowing them to stop on time and accidentally hit and kill someone.

You are saying the person with the tumor should potentially get the death penalty like the person who premeditated and executed the murder?

Absolutely.

What is the point of the penalty for the crime? It's to prevent crime, discourage crime, and punish those who commit them.

Are you saying that someone with a tumor that causes them to pass out while driving and kill people should be allowed to continue to drive around and do it again?

If it's given a harsh penalty, people with tumors will think twice about driving around and crashing into people and killing them in the future.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks
Sounds like someone needs to watch Legally Blonde. Mens Rea anyone?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

Situation: A man shoots his wife.

He claims it was completely by accident while he was cleaning his gun.

The state offers evidence that the week before he shot her that
- he took out a one million dollar life insurance policy on her
- she found out he was having an affair and threatened in public to divorce him and ruin him financially. This was witnessed by many people in a restaurant.
- He was a firearms expert who practiced shooting twice a week and had never before had an accidental discharge
- His best friend testifies that the shooter told him he was going to "take care" of his wife problem and it would all be settled soon

So. You think that the punishment should be the same regardless of the WHY because you feel it doesn't meet the imaginary burden of absolutely provable?

It's the difference between negligence and cold blooded murder.

What is the difference?

The wife is dead. do you think she will be happier dead knowing it was an accident? Is society better off because she died from an accident, instead of an intentional killing?

Is the husband a better person because he clumsily killed his wife, instead of killing her purposefully?

I don't see the difference.

Bigger idiot.

We prosecute criminals, NOT TO PUNISH THEM, but to keep the rest of us safe. This is why we don't torture torture-murderers. Eye for an eye is not the basis of law.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

What is improvable, it seems pretty easy to prove, someone wanted to kill someone when they say, "I hate you I'm going to kill you." Then run them over with a car.

Compared to:

The person who has a seizure, from a unforeseen brain tumor not allowing them to stop on time and accidentally hit and kill someone.

You are saying the person with the tumor should potentially get the death penalty like the person who premeditated and executed the murder?

Absolutely.

What is the point of the penalty for the crime? It's to prevent crime, discourage crime, and punish those who commit them.

Are you saying that someone with a tumor that causes them to pass out while driving and kill people should be allowed to continue to drive around and do it again?

If it's given a harsh penalty, people with tumors will think twice about driving around and crashing into people and killing them in the future.

You are losing opportunities to remain silent.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

We prosecute criminals, NOT TO PUNISH THEM, but to keep the rest of us safe. This is why we don't torture torture-murderers. Eye for an eye is not the basis of law.

I get that.

But really, would you would feel safe around someone who killed his wife accidentally?

Would you feel safe driving in the car with an epileptic who previously killed 3 of his passengers when he had a fit while driving?

A killer is a killer, accident or not they should be removed from society for the safety of the rest of us.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks
Sounds like someone needs to watch Legally Blonde. Mens Rea anyone?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

Situation: A man shoots his wife.

He claims it was completely by accident while he was cleaning his gun.

The state offers evidence that the week before he shot her that
- he took out a one million dollar life insurance policy on her
- she found out he was having an affair and threatened in public to divorce him and ruin him financially. This was witnessed by many people in a restaurant.
- He was a firearms expert who practiced shooting twice a week and had never before had an accidental discharge
- His best friend testifies that the shooter told him he was going to "take care" of his wife problem and it would all be settled soon

So. You think that the punishment should be the same regardless of the WHY because you feel it doesn't meet the imaginary burden of absolutely provable?

It's the difference between negligence and cold blooded murder.

What is the difference?

The wife is dead. do you think she will be happier dead knowing it was an accident? Is society better off because she died from an accident, instead of an intentional killing?

Is the husband a better person because he clumsily killed his wife, instead of killing her purposefully?

I don't see the difference.

Well if "justice" is based on what the dead person thought, then we don't need a murder charge. From what I've been brainwashed to believe, "justice" is about the people still alive and partly making them feel better while advancing personal agendas.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

We prosecute criminals, NOT TO PUNISH THEM, but to keep the rest of us safe. This is why we don't torture torture-murderers. Eye for an eye is not the basis of law.

I get that.

But really, would you would feel safe around someone who killed his wife accidentally?

Would you feel safe driving in the car with an epileptic who previously killed 3 of his passengers when he had a fit while driving?

A killer is a killer, accident or not they should be removed from society for the safety of the rest of us.

wow thats ignorant.

i would feel safer witht he guy who accidentally killed his wife then someoen like jeffery dahmer. the fact you don't see there is a diffrence is shocking.

a person who killes anyone when driving because they had a medical problem that could cause them to drive should NEVER drive.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Injury
It's funny how you tried to twist this by saying it's not justified because there could only be a problem with the cop.

What about "The cop tased a guy because he pulled a gun on him" or "The cop tased a guy because he was hostile".

well in the one he is talking about the guy was handcuffed and not fighting yet tazed a bunch of times. hell even twice after he (may) have been dead.

its funny when people complain someone is twisting something when they have no clue what the fuck they are talking about.

Yes, I totally understood that and had the OP not been making a generalization and kept it entirely in regards to the one incident I wouldn't have even posted this. However, he didn't... so I didn't.

Had it been as "black and white" as the OP suggests, then the post he's referencing and the story I gave in my previous post would be the exact same situation in the eyes of the legal system.

 

[nakedfrog]

Is this serious thread?

 

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Is this serious thread?

Irregardless, i could care less if there being serious or not.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: waggy
i would feel safer witht he guy who accidentally killed his wife then someoen like jeffery dahmer

I didn't ask if you would feel safer, I asked if you would feel safe.

Personally, I wouldn't feel safe hanging around anyone who caused any sort of wrongful death. Accident or not, hell maybe they will have another "accident", I don't want to be around for that.

a person who killes anyone when driving because they had a medical problem that could cause them to drive should NEVER drive.

I agree, but in this example he or she did drive, and killed a bunch of people. How do you discourage and teach people that this won't be tolerated? You punish the offender.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Is this serious thread?

Nope, business.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: mugs
I think it matters, because why a person committed a crime may indicate how likely they are to do it again, and the likelihood of committing a crime again should be a factor in sentencing

I don't agree.


Consider these 2 examples:

Driver 1 causes accident because driver was drunk.

Driver 2 causes accident because driver is a fucking idiot and doesn't know how to drive.


After driver 1 causes his accident, he is arrested, punished, goes to jail for a couple years, I think there is a good chance he will learn his lesson.

On the other hand, there is no cure for stupidity. Driver 2 is going to continue driving poorly after whatever punishment he receives, and the chance of him causing another accident are just as high.

What difference does it make if it's considered a crime or not?

"Oh sorry Mr Smith, you wife and kids were all killed in a car accident, but on the bright side no crime has been committed! You can rest easy and thank your stars that no law was broken when your entire family was killed."

Does it really matter? People are dead, damage is done. It is all the same in the end.

UH... if driver 2 caused an accident, he most likely still broke the law... IE not stopping at a red light, speeding, etc. and will still be punshied (homocide by vehicle)

if drivers 2 accident was because a tire blew out, then he is not at fault, and you dont punish him.

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

What is improvable, it seems pretty easy to prove, someone wanted to kill someone when they say, "I hate you I'm going to kill you." Then run them over with a car.

Compared to:

The person who has a seizure, from a unforeseen brain tumor not allowing them to stop on time and accidentally hit and kill someone.

You are saying the person with the tumor should potentially get the death penalty like the person who premeditated and executed the murder?

Absolutely.

What is the point of the penalty for the crime? It's to prevent crime, discourage crime, and punish those who commit them.

Are you saying that someone with a tumor that causes them to pass out while driving and kill people should be allowed to continue to drive around and do it again?

If it's given a harsh penalty, people with tumors will think twice about driving around and crashing into people and killing them in the future.

Look at what you quoted, I said UNFORSEEN. There are laws that people who have known medical problems should not drive, thats why I said unforseen. You still think that person who did not know they had a brain tumor should possibly get the lethal injection?

You are envisioning a world where people would be living in fear; it would NOT be a better world. If people knew if they ever made a mistake/did something accidentally they would always get the harshest punishment as if they did it purposefully, the only thing you would accomplished is a world like today but with a lot more fear, accidents will never stop they will be here till the end of this world.

 

[cultgag]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: cultgag
Are you serious??

Person A kills person B.
Person A goes to prison???

What if it was self defense??

I can't fathom how your reasoning works. You ARE joking right??!?!

lol, simpleton.

there are only four scenarios in homicide

accidental (which can be further broken down into degrees of negligence)
defense (which can be broken down somewhat with the level of violence used to defend yourself)
emotional (temp insanity/loss of self-control)
malice aforethought (planned)

malice aforethought means that whoever is doing the killing is hating, so whether its hate based on race or whatever, it SHOULD NOT matter.

hate modifiers are the black apologists' way of saying sorry. or more correctly the black apologist legislators' way of saying vote for me I will support you ignorant cause.

You're knowledge of scenarios in homicide while impressive is kind of pointless in this case as the point can be made much simpler.

 

[QED]

In some sense I agree with the OP, to the extent that the "why" doesn't pertain to my
willfulness in committing the crime.

If I beat somebody up willfully, why does it matter if it's because the victim is some other race and I'm a rascist, or it's someone of the opposite sex and I'm a sexist, or if its someone of an opposite religion and I'm a religious extremist, or if it's some guy I picked at random because I like hurting people?

On the flip side, if I willfully shoot someone in the head 4 times intending to kill them, why should it matter if the guy miracuolously survives or not? Shouldn't I be treated as though he did die? Why should I get any leniency in sentencing for screwing up my murder attempt?

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: QED
In some sense I agree with the OP, to the extent that the "why" doesn't pertain to my
willfulness in committing the crime.

If I beat somebody up willfully, why does it matter if it's because the victim is some other race and I'm a rascist, or it's someone of the opposite sex and I'm a sexist, or if its someone of an opposite religion and I'm a religious extremist, or if it's some guy I picked at random because I like hurting people?

On the flip side, if I willfully shoot someone in the head 4 times intending to kill them, why should it matter if the guy miracuolously survives or not? Shouldn't I be treated as though he did die? Why should I get any leniency in sentencing for screwing up my murder attempt?

You are confusing the issue; OP thinks accidents should be treated as purposeful acts.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks
Sounds like someone needs to watch Legally Blonde. Mens Rea anyone?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

Situation: A man shoots his wife.

He claims it was completely by accident while he was cleaning his gun.

The state offers evidence that the week before he shot her that
- he took out a one million dollar life insurance policy on her
- she found out he was having an affair and threatened in public to divorce him and ruin him financially. This was witnessed by many people in a restaurant.
- He was a firearms expert who practiced shooting twice a week and had never before had an accidental discharge
- His best friend testifies that the shooter told him he was going to "take care" of his wife problem and it would all be settled soon

So. You think that the punishment should be the same regardless of the WHY because you feel it doesn't meet the imaginary burden of absolutely provable?

It's the difference between negligence and cold blooded murder.

What is the difference?

The wife is dead. do you think she will be happier dead knowing it was an accident? Is society better off because she died from an accident, instead of an intentional killing?

Is the husband a better person because he clumsily killed his wife, instead of killing her purposefully?

I don't see the difference.

Bigger idiot.

We prosecute criminals, NOT TO PUNISH THEM, but to keep the rest of us safe. This is why we don't torture torture-murderers. Eye for an eye is not the basis of law.

🙂 See when I see a response like that I just exit stage left because there is no getting through to some people. If someone thinks that a person should get the same prison sentence for murdering someone that they get for causing a death completely by accident, then there's really no where else to go with your argument. You've reached impasse. Luckily, 99.9% of people are on this side of the impasse.

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: jonks
Sounds like someone needs to watch Legally Blonde. Mens Rea anyone?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.

Situation: A man shoots his wife.

He claims it was completely by accident while he was cleaning his gun.

The state offers evidence that the week before he shot her that
- he took out a one million dollar life insurance policy on her
- she found out he was having an affair and threatened in public to divorce him and ruin him financially. This was witnessed by many people in a restaurant.
- He was a firearms expert who practiced shooting twice a week and had never before had an accidental discharge
- His best friend testifies that the shooter told him he was going to "take care" of his wife problem and it would all be settled soon

So. You think that the punishment should be the same regardless of the WHY because you feel it doesn't meet the imaginary burden of absolutely provable?

It's the difference between negligence and cold blooded murder.

What is the difference?

The wife is dead. do you think she will be happier dead knowing it was an accident? Is society better off because she died from an accident, instead of an intentional killing?

Is the husband a better person because he clumsily killed his wife, instead of killing her purposefully?

I don't see the difference.

Bigger idiot.

We prosecute criminals, NOT TO PUNISH THEM, but to keep the rest of us safe. This is why we don't torture torture-murderers. Eye for an eye is not the basis of law.

🙂 See when I see a response like that I just exit stage left because there is no getting through to some people.

I think you are right, I rest my case also. Thanks for pointing that out jonks.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

Originally posted by: QED
In some sense I agree with the OP, to the extent that the "why" doesn't pertain to my
willfulness in committing the crime.

If I beat somebody up willfully, why does it matter if it's because the victim is some other race and I'm a rascist, or it's someone of the opposite sex and I'm a sexist, or if its someone of an opposite religion and I'm a religious extremist, or if it's some guy I picked at random because I like hurting people?

On the flip side, if I willfully shoot someone in the head 4 times intending to kill them, why should it matter if the guy miracuolously survives or not? Shouldn't I be treated as though he did die? Why should I get any leniency in sentencing for screwing up my murder attempt?

You are confusing the issue; OP thinks accidents should be treated as purposeful acts.

I see... I think he has expanded his line of reasoning as the thread has gone along. I certainly don't agree that an accident should be treated the same as a purposeful act.

I will summarize my thoughts on the matter by saying: Intent matters, but the reasoning behind the intent should not.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

You are confusing the issue; OP thinks accidents should be treated as purposeful acts.

You are confusing the issue as well.

Accidents are ALREADY treated as purposeful acts in certain cases.

Yet another example:

Car accident due to conditions- not a big deal, you might get a minor ticket but as long as nobody died your life will go on

Car accident due to driving drunk- huge deal. You are probably looking at jail time, and a suspended license for a few years.

Nobody goes out and gets drunk with the intention of causing a car accident, so it is still an accident. Yet it's treated as if it's done on purpose. I'm just asking why don't we make things more consistent. If we are going to treat some accidents harshly, why not treat them all the same?

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: jonks
If someone thinks that a person should get the same prison sentence for murdering someone that they get for causing a death completely by accident, then there's really no where else to go with your argument.

The problem is your definition of "completely by accident".

You have a person who drives drunk, and kills someone.

Then you have people who drive with severe sleep deprivation, and end up killing someone.

Then you have someone who drives in a negligent manner, and ends up killing someone.

Then you have someone who answers the cellphone while driving, and ends up killing someone.



Which of those could have been prevented if the driver didn't break the law or engage in some risky activity? All of them.

Yet in our current justice system some accidents are treated far differently from others.


In the world we live in, with all the stupid safety measures, I don't see how it's even possible to kill someone without being negligent in some way.