you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 month ago (15 children)

More of a strict letter of the law than a spirit of the law kinda guy, eh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    There's nothing in the spirit of the law that is supposed to allow people to air their grievances in court, so no. What I'm against is adding that to the spirit of the law.

    And the reason is because I think there's no fair way to do it that doesn't open the way for awful people to abuse it. And what I definitely am for is fairness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    The entire concept of the law is for people to air their grievances in court, instead of airing out each other's skulls. Do you think motivation is irrelevant to crime?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    The prosecution is airing its grievances, not the defence. And motivation matters in some circumstances but this this isn't one of them. Unless you want to implement a fair principle for everyone, which I think would do more harm than good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Motivation absolutely matters in all circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Uhuh. Well, you're very confident, yet I'm for some reason unconvinced by your detailed argument...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    Can you name a single crime where the offense is not either enchanted or mitigated by motivation?

    I can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Most motivations are irrelevant to most crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Really? Then why are voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter 1, manslaughter 2, manslaughter 3, murder 1, and murder 2 all separate crimes, when (without motivation) the crime is just killing someone you weren't supposed to kill?

    Kinda sounds like all those distinctions can be collapsed down to murder, right?

    Why have varying sentences for crimes?

    Matter of fact, why is mens rea even taught in law school?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    That's murder where I fully agree that motivation is very important. That is one single action - killing a person.

    Juries don't pass sentences so varying sentences are not relevant here. This man's motivation should absolutely have been taken into account had he been convicted when passing his sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Oh. So which of the types of murder should he be convicted of, for accurate sentencing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Well. Someone died. You said the conviction requires no knowledge of motivation. Which of the 5-7 separate and distinct crimes of varying severity do we convict them of, and how do we decide without knowing motivation? (Like, "premeditated")

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments