Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alyasa
Actually, that's exactly what they're doing... It is the nature of law that everything must be set in stone for it to even be dealt with properly. Any single point in law is a valid arguable point, if you have the cajones to argue it, of course. Therefore the neccessity to install a law that differentiates between the nature of the crime, to facilitate sentencng that takes into account the motives. Otherwise, judges cannot just pluck sentences and mete out punishment from thin air, without the legislation that forms the framework already in place...
|
Hmmm...we could be getting into "three strikes" territory here, a twice convicted felon steals a pack of smokes and the judge is bound by the word of law to hand out a life sentence. Suppose a hate group stages a rally (with legal permits) and a violent confrontation ensues with the citizenry resulting in the death of a member of said hate group. Isn't his death based on hatred toward him from the citizen responsible? "Hatred" would have to be carefully defined for such a foolish law to work, the semantics involved are almost comical.