[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35799590]second degree murder in Michigan is like 15 to life so someone explain to me how 14-25 years for an assault in which no one died is lenient.[/QUOTE]
So if I'm reading into this right, this means that the difference between the guy succeeding or not is just a year or so?
Okay I'm fine with that. I was expecting a larger difference.
Or maybe I'm reading into this wrong.
i got shot once, except it was way less cool because there were 4 less bullets and instead of shooting back I yelled at my friends for no reason as the bullet came from god knows where.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799710]I don't know how many times I need to explain it to you. An attempted murder is every bit as bad as murder short of the person dying. The person is still just as much a threat to others as they are without killing as they are with killing.[/QUOTE]
You can say that however many fucking times as you want.
The law disagrees.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799710]An attempted murder is every bit as bad as murder short of the person dying. [/QUOTE]
but the person dying is the important bit in murder.
i mean without the person dying it's not murder, that's just the definition of murder.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799710]I don't know how many times I need to explain it to you. An attempted murder is every bit as bad as murder short of the person dying. The person is still just as much a threat to others as they are without killing as they are with killing.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that the justice system should be based on threat alone, no?
Therefor there shouldn't be a minimal sentence period, only a psychiatric evaluation to understand the threat presented by inmates? I mean because what's the point in keeping someone only until before they've ceased to be a threat or after they've stopped being one?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35799725]You can say that however many fucking times as you want.
The law disagrees.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I want you Mr.Lawman to please explain how in the holy fuck. That someone who tries to kill and fails, is less of a threat then someone who tries to kill and succeeds. Because you fucking can't. Had the officer not been able to put up a fight [B]HE WOULD HAVE DIED.[/B]
[QUOTE=thisispain;35799743]but the person dying is the important bit in murder.
i mean without the person dying it's not murder, that's just the definition of murder.[/QUOTE]
this just in owning a coathanger is the same as having an abortion
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799747]Ok, I want you Mr.Lawman to please explain how in the holy fuck. That someone who tries to kill and fails, is less of a threat then someone who tries to kill and succeeds. Because you fucking can't. Had the officer not been able to put up a fight [B]HE WOULD HAVE DIED.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yet again, because what [B]WOULD HAVE HAPPENED[/B] is irrelevant, only what [B]DID HAPPEN.[/B]
[B]BOLDTEXT[/B]
Do you have a grudge against someone/something on here?
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799747]Ok, I want you Mr.Lawman to please explain how in the holy fuck. That someone who tries to kill and fails, is less of a threat then someone who tries to kill and succeeds. Because you fucking can't. Had the officer not been able to put up a fight [B]HE WOULD HAVE DIED.[/B][/QUOTE]
lankist already addressed this, the law system doesn't give sentences based on threat because threat is an assumption of how dangerous someone is, which isn't quantifiable.
by saying he's a threat you're making the assumption that he will be violent again, the law system cannot bring that into account because it's an assumption, not a quantifiable set of actions with results.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35799640]"There is no reason not to kill the victim because that is what you are trying to do."
Attempted murder can fall into the realm of negligence, passion or compulsion.
Your logic implies that attempted murder is a thing that cannot even exist if a criminal does not succeed.[/QUOTE]
My logic is that if someone is in the middle of attempting to kill someone, a couple extra years in prison is not going to pop into their heads and make them stop.
Again Im not arguing to charge attempted murder and murder as the same in all cases.
I wouldn't call 25 years a few years, that's a good chunk of someone's life. At first i thought "well 25 isn't that unjustly" but then i realized it was the accumulation of two charges, and that's just bullshit.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35799745]So you're saying that the justice system should be based on threat alone, no?
Therefor there shouldn't be a minimal sentence period, only a psychiatric evaluation to understand the threat presented by inmates? I mean because what's the point in keeping someone past when they're a threat or after they've stopped being one?[/QUOTE]
The way you are all suggesting, jail is punishment instead of rehabilitation if you sentence someone based on the outcome. That is ridiculous, as the person is just as much a murderer as someone who has killed because they fucking tried to but got overpowered, therefor they should be treated as a murderer and locked up indefinitely until its been agreed upon that the person is no longer a hazard to others.
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;35799784]lankist already addressed this, the law system doesn't give sentences based on threat because threat is an assumption of how dangerous someone is, which isn't quantifiable.
by saying he's a threat you're making the assumption that he will be violent again, the law system cannot bring that into account because it's an assumption, not a quantifiable set of actions with results.[/QUOTE]
Its perfectly capable of being measured, he has the capability and will to kill other people, most people do not, he is a threat. Therefor he should be locked up indefinitely.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799811]the person is just as much a murderer as someone who has killed because they fucking tried to but got overpowered, therefor they should be treated as a murderer and locked up indefinitely until its been agreed upon that the person is no longer a hazard to others.[/QUOTE]
murder isn't trying to kill someone, murder is killing someone.
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799811]
Its perfectly capable of being measured, he has the capability and will to kill other people, most people do not, he is a threat. Therefor he should be locked up.[/QUOTE]
he has the capability and so do many people.
the will however is your assumption.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35799799]My logic is that if someone is in the middle of attempting to kill someone, a couple extra years in prison is not going to pop into their heads and make them stop.
Again Im not arguing to charge attempted murder and murder as the same in all cases.[/QUOTE]
While I certainly agree with that, we are unfortunately not a rehabilitory justice system. The goal is not to make someone nice, the goal is to address the crimes that can be proven to have occurred in a manner that is both adequate and proper.
jetblack you're arguing about something completely different involving your own emotinal bias, and considering i'm pretty sure you've called for people to be sentenced to death before i'm not surprised.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35799830]murder isn't trying to kill someone, murder is killing someone.[/QUOTE]
How are the actions from the killer behind attempted murder, and murder any different?
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799811]The way you are all suggesting, jail is punishment instead of rehabilitation if you sentence someone based on the outcome. That is ridiculous, as the person is just as much a murderer as someone who has killed because they fucking tried to but got overpowered, therefor they should be treated as a murderer and locked up indefinitely until its been agreed upon that the person is no longer a hazard to others.[/QUOTE]
You know, correct me if I'm wrong, but Norway has a system that's a smidgeon similar to what you're suggesting. And usually the inmates get out earlier than they would here and don't commit as many crimes afterwords. And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems people of your disposition seem to hate Norway's "lenient" prison system.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35799784]lankist already addressed this, the law system doesn't give sentences based on threat because threat is an assumption of how dangerous someone is, which isn't quantifiable.
by saying he's a threat you're making the assumption that he will be violent again, the law system cannot bring that into account because it's an assumption, not a quantifiable set of actions with results.[/QUOTE]
See now this is a fucking explanation
This makes a bit more sense now.
Especially given that the sentence isn't that different from what it would be if he actually got away with it. (I think)
[QUOTE=thisispain;35799830]murder isn't trying to kill someone, murder is killing someone.
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
he has the capability and so do many people.
the will however is your assumption.[/QUOTE]
The will is not my assumption, he tried and he failed only because the cop managed to save himself.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799848]How are the actions from the killer behind attempted murder, and murder any different?[/QUOTE]
Results.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799848]How are the actions from the killer behind attempted murder, and murder any different?[/QUOTE]
well in one the person dies and in the other one the person doesn't die.
outcome is relevant and important, it's why not stopping at a stop-sign and nothing happening is a different case than not stopping at a stop-sign and killing someone.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799811]Its perfectly capable of being measured, he has the capability and will to kill other people, most people do not, he is a threat. Therefor he should be locked up indefinitely.[/QUOTE]
uhh
you realize that you just sentenced all servicemen to life in prison, right
because they're all capable of killing
[QUOTE=thisispain;35799876]well in one the person dies and in the other one the person doesn't die.
outcome is relevant and important, it's why not stopping at a stop-sign and nothing happening is a different case than not stopping at a stop-sign and killing someone.[/QUOTE]
That's a way better example of it.
You don't charge someone with vehicular homicide when they run a redlight at an empty intersection.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799868]The will is not my assumption, he tried and he failed only because the cop managed to save himself.[/QUOTE]
he had the will to kill before, that's the only thing you can say for sure.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35798733]14 years [I]minimum[/I] is not lenient.
Somebody's got a grudge.[/QUOTE]
That's lenient as fuck. Arson can give you 30+ years, and attempted murder carries a bit more weight than that.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35799887]That's a way better example of it.
You don't charge someone with vehicular homicide when they run a redlight at an empty intersection.[/QUOTE]
Not even if they were secretly hoping there would be a person there they could kill? Lankist you fiend.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35799879]uhh
you realize that you just sentenced all servicemen to life in prison, right
because they're all capable of killing[/QUOTE]
Servicemen are not malicious. Well, most at least.
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;35799876]well in one the person dies and in the other one the person doesn't die.
outcome is relevant and important, it's why not stopping at a stop-sign and nothing happening is a different case than not stopping at a stop-sign and killing someone.[/QUOTE]
I think this better explains your opinions better to me.
[QUOTE=Rebi;35799901]That's lenient as fuck. Arson can give you 30+ years, and attempted murder carries a bit more weight than that.[/QUOTE]
arson in Michigan gives you UP to 10 years according to google, nice job making shit up
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35799856]And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems people of your disposition seem to hate Norway's "lenient" prison system.[/QUOTE]
yes
all criminals should be killed
unless if they're really bad, then we let them live and invite them over for tea
the people that deliver justice will be a group of young adults and teenagers with traumatic pasts, swords, Hot Topic clothing and more belts and zippers than you can shake a stick at
and a dog
a dog that smokes
okay maybe I've been playing too many jrpgs
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35799923]Servicemen are not malicious. Well, most at least.
[editline]2nd May 2012[/editline]
I think this better explains your opinions better to me.[/QUOTE]
they're all threats
and you are advocating a purely threat based legal system, correct?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.