Quote:
Originally Posted by aka123
It would be my personal decision (within law) if I would be a judge, but I am not. But someone was judge for that case, and someone did the law.
Intent to cause harm is not that relevant. It's fucking common, we would be all in jail for that. I don't think there is any person who wouldn't have called names or something like that.
The sentence is all that is relevant. That is what matters. Although in your US thinking, if you are able to label someone as criminal, you are willing to give all kind of punishments, fair or not. It's kinda you are some decent white folk or fucking criminal, there is no middle road, mercy, humanity, or whatever. It's all about the look, not what you actually do or are. US is religous, so where is the turning the cheek, loving enemies and so on, all the Christian stuff? More like muslims if you ask me: eye for an eye and that stuff.
|
I am not from americaland
And intent is absolutely relevant. Calling someone a name versus taking specific action (not words) to cause someone harm is just the top of the list, taking further actions/decisions to maximise hurt is another, and invading a person's privcy, and breaking their right to privacy is also another.
You need to be a sack of absolute shit to think those thoughts AND follow it up with pre-meditated actions, and a year in jail is an appropriate punishment for being such a low life cunt
Obviously we aren't going to agree, but it's bedtime for me so I'm out of this. Interesting discussion, as is usally the case with you
ps the sentence also needs to act as a deterrent to others, so it isn't purely an eye for an eye, though again, you are bringing many side-arguments into a mish-mash of one.