Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

News: Gender of minor decides jailtime for adult

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 24

Just loaded with stories. Fox News has an article mentioning a Kansas law that discriminates on the gender of a minor in a consensual relationship. "Limon could have received a much lighter sentence had he or the 14-year-old boy, identified only as M.A.R, been female because a 1999 statute, known as the "Romeo and Juliet" law, provides lesser penalties". Isn't that discrimination?

Just loaded with stories. Fox News has an article mentioning a Kansas law that discriminates on the gender of a minor in a consensual relationship. "Limon could have received a much lighter sentence had he or the 14-year-old boy, identified only as M.A.R, been female because a 1999 statute, known as the "Romeo and Juliet" law, provides lesser penalties". Isn't that discrimination?

cancel ×

24 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You betcha (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#8136549)

Isn't that discrimination?

Yes. Just like me only being able to marry a woman, or the two of us refusing to let anyone else have sex with either of us.

But it's not wrongful discrimination. We have a right to discriminate, as embodied in, IIRC, the First Amendment.

Re:You betcha (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#8136747)

Just like me only being able to marry a woman

That doesn't bar actions (does it?). It's just recognition by the state. A person can still be with more than one person.

We have a right to discriminate

True. But can the state give different amount of jailtime for what seems to be the same crime? The only difference her is gender. And not that one is a specific gender, but whether they are *both* the same or not.

Keyword is Jail (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8140609)

Women are on the whole less of a physical risk to the community. I therefore have no problem with them receiving less jailtime. Fines should be equal though and community service might be increased to compensate for less jailtime.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 10 years ago | (#8153189)

What!?

Your statement makes No sense, especiualy when put in the context of the world we live in - where knives guns and cars are often used as weapons to hurt/kill someone. How is a woman less of a physical threat to society? A woman can pick up a gun and kill someone just as easily as a man.

Also, jailtime, and punishments in general, are about the crime commited, and punishment for that crime, as well as being about what sort of threat the person poses to the community. The punishment should fit the crime, not the gender of the person commiting it.

Lets put it this way - if someone you love got assaulted/taken-advantage-of-sexualy/killed, would you want the person who commited the crime to get off will less jail time (but more community service) if they happened to be female? Would knowing they were female have any bearing on what they did to the person you loved?

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8154540)

You're assuming two things: That jail time is only used for violent crimes, which it isn't and that I believe that jail time is a suitable punishment in its own right, rather than primarily a way to protect society from potential risks to phyisical safety.

As for your last comment, are we talking about justice or vengance?

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 10 years ago | (#8154671)

We're talking about justice, my last comment used an example that included someone you love - as a friend/relative/etc of a victim, you should be interested in justice being done. To have the perpetrator recieve less time doesn't seem right due to thier sex.

As for violent crimes - your statement was that women aren't as much of a threat physically to society. A physical threat is a violent threat, hence violent crime in my examples.

If you want to talk about punishments for non violent crimes, then don't bring up physical threats...

I didn't assume anything about jail time only being for violent crimes in my post - I was directly challenging your statement about physical threat to society, a statement which, as I just pointed out, deals with violent crime - unless of course your are assuming that Males who commit non-violent crimes should be jailed due to their Maleness and potential for violence. I don't think you intended that, and I certainly hope you'd see how wrong it would be if that was what you were thinking: That a man should spend more time in Jail for, say, fraud because he is more likely to get physically violent and pose a danger to society. That is rediculous. The punishment should fit the crime, not the race/gender/age/height/hair-color of the criminal.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#8155171)

If you want to talk about punishments for non violent crimes, then don't bring up physical threats...
That people receive jailtime for non-viloent acts means that I can't avoid it.

Anyway, your original post was relating to a "sex crime", not murder or whatever. In this case I would assume that a man would be considered more agressive and a woman less so. Without other evidence, I would expect a man who has committed a sex-related crime to be more likely to be a physical risk to the community than a woman committed of a similar crime. A man may force himself physically on the other party. Women are more likely to have used words to manipulate the situation, given their options for participating in the sexual act.

Most other crimes contain a more easily measurable amount of physical violence that would subsequently determine jail time. In most cases where a male and female party are involved, the male's part is easily shown to contain more violence, statistically, and therefore they deserve more jail time.

Finally, a person that requires a tool (gun, car) to be a physical threat to the community is less of a threat than someone able to cause serious injury without the need of a tool. This is often reflected in the sentencing of ex-military people involved in a bare-knuckle brawl.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 9 years ago | (#8155758)

Ok, you are off your rocker - my original post had a sex crime as One of the possibilities, and you really are concentrating too much on that.

To quote my original post:
"got assaulted/taken-advantage-of-sexualy/killed,"

Note that this was in the LAST paragraph of my post, and earlier in my post I mention "hurt/kill". '/' means 'and or'

Maybe you should pay more attention.

Secondly, there are MANY crimes that contain no violence at all, and to muddy the waters by claiming that 'most' crimes contain some violence is just wrong. Fraud, extortion, prostitution, illegal gambling, 'soft' drug use (pot), traffic violations, jay walking, tax evasion, breech of contract, bribery, perjury, embezzilment, piracy (the copyright kind, no eyepatches), computer crime, identity theft - and that is just the short list off the top of my head.

Thirdly:
you said: "That people receive jailtime for non-viloent acts means that I can't avoid it."

Yes, you can. It's simple, you say 'for violent crimes X should happen, for non violent Y should happen.'. The law makes a distrinction between violent crime and non violent crime, so can you.

To say that ANYONE, because they are male, should be treated differently than a woman for amount of jail time or any other form of punishment is wrong, wether the crime was violent or not. Its sexual discrimination. What about a woman body builder versus a male geek/wimp? The Male in that situation should be treated as if they were more of a threat than the female? IF the crime was smoking pot or fraud? Come on, get real.

Ever hear the termn 'justice is blind' - that is to say that a person should not be prejudged? It also applies to punishments. IF punishments were to vary by sex, then next thing you know they'd vary by race, then by religion, then by hair/eye color. Would you be lucky enough to have the right combination of traits to get fair treatment.

Here is another way to think about it:
Bad people come in all sexes, races and religions. It is very easy to look at statistics and make broad claims that group X is more of a danger than group Y - but if you Act on such statistics then you are guilty of discrimination. Our justice system should be above that.

And lastly:
you said: "Women are more likely to have used words to manipulate the situation, given their options for participating in the sexual act."

That is one of the most biased and rude generalizations I have ever heard.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8155942)

It is very easy to look at statistics and make broad claims that group X is more of a danger than group Y - but if you Act on such statistics then you are guilty of discrimination.

Well, i would say acting upon it is a good thing. However, judging upon it is a bad thing, unless it is stringency, to rid it, or leniency, to understand it. But not to be cautious because of it, would simply be silly.

----

BTW, interesting argument.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 9 years ago | (#8156292)

In the context of my argument, 'Act On' meant for the justice system to act upon, ie, pass laws based upon said effect and/or discriminate when passing judgment and/or sentencing.

Caution is another thing entirely, but even it can be dangerous if done for the wrong reasons. Life is not a game of statistics, and to be cautious based upon a statistic itself without a fuller understanding of the hows and whys of the issue at hand can lead to very bad things.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8158525)

Life is not a game of statistics, and to be cautious based upon a statistic itself without a fuller understanding of the hows and whys of the issue at hand can lead to very bad things.

That could be. However, if a statistic shows that a certain group steals more, placing more policemen in that area is a good thing. Spreading them around the city is useless. There should be some everywhere, but we need to be cautious where statistics tells us to look out. Of course the numbers must be reviewed again and again, as more data comes in, but to ignore the statistic would be to hold a blind eye. Although, if any one policeman *assumes guilt* based on this statistic, he should be removed from the force. The statics should only help caution, action must be based on the facts.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 9 years ago | (#8161154)

Good point, But to take your example further, should we not use the statistic as an indicator that something is wrong, and then dig for the cause? Putting extra policemen there would be a stop gap measure - fixing the cause of the issue (if it can be fixed from the outside without stepping on any ones rights) would not only help the victims, but the whole group in question.

An example I would give is middletown Ohio - which used to be the central hub of Armco, a now defunct steel company. Crime rates are high in that town, but so is unemployment - in fact, unemployment is very high in that town. Then look at the schools, due to how schools are usually funded in Ohio, the majority burden of funding comes from the local government - which has no money since it's taxing people on welfare. Many of the people in that city can't even move out - because land values have dropped so they owe more on their house than it is now worth. The bus service in town is horrible - no funding - and the town is too far away from other cities with jobs to alleviate the situation easily (especially since many people lost their cars when they went bankrupt). So, now behind the crime statistic you have other issues that can be seen to contribute to the statistic. In many areas there may be less cause, or much more specific cause - such as bad schools. Sometimes the cause may just be historical - the area is bad, people born and raised there are in that bad area and thus are exposed to crime and not presented with other opportunities. Perhaps it's just jobs - the lack of them, which started a downward spiral. Cities give tax breaks to attract employers all the time - so why not give such breaks where they could do the most good?

So, while we should put more police on the streets in the area of your example, shouldn't equal attention be given to correcting any found issues in that area?

Mind you that trying to fix the problems/issues can be met with resistance, and can backfire - I've seen it happen in my own city. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8161587)

Good points.

Sometimes the cause may just be historical - the area is bad, people born and raised there are in that bad area and thus are exposed to crime and not presented with other opportunities. Perhaps it's just jobs - the lack of them, which started a downward spiral. Cities give tax breaks to attract employers all the time - so why not give such breaks where they could do the most good?

First many disagree with tax breaks. So, extending it would be met with much resistance. Also, the tax breaks are to move there, not to stay. Finally, the people need to show effort as well.

If the people are willing to work hard to break their problems, i would grant them the greatest benefits assuming it is of mututal interest. Many times there's no real reason for them to actually work hard. The benefit is in the attitude.

For example, let's look at welfare. Many people are on welfare simply because others are, and it's free money. (This next part will show my ignorance in details, but i think it makes a good point.) When welfare started it was ato help people. It was enough to scrape by, but no more. It was wonderful in the thirties. It got people on their feet, and into jobs, where they left welfare. Some years later, Johnson (?) wanted to speed up the process by giving them more money. That is, more money means they can get back on their feet faster. Instead, welfare grew as people accpeted living on welfare. I believe this because when i got unemployment, i was happy to live on it. It meant less, but i hardly had to work.

If noone ever wanted to stay on welfare longer than needed, i would agree with you that we should (within reason) pay off all their debts (maybe on loan) and get them into the workforce. However, too many are content, and as such, the system doesn't work.

The same is true with crime. Crime happens because it is accepted. In order for a city to help stop it, the city has to want it stopped. Then, perhaps, your suggestions would be of use. However, if the people do not want it, which is the case as perceived by many, they would be of no help, and might exacerbate the problems. In that case, the police should be in greater force. But, your point is well taken, in that if a root cause can be found, and eliminated or fixed, it should be addressed with the extra force only there as a stop gap measure.

On another note, my brother has advocated bringing back the foot beat. Make a block some guy's "turf" and perhaps he'll treat the people there with dignity and respect. Overall, it would probably help how people perceive the police.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#8156264)

Your words make it appear as though you believe there is no biological difference between men and women. PC crap aside, women and men are different and behave differently. It is physically difficult for a woman to rape a man, excluding the use of a foreign object. Not impossible, but more difficult. Are you going to claim this isn't the case?

For the same crime executed in the same way, sentences should be the same. However, since how a crime is committed is often taken into consideration I wouldn't not be suprised or upset by statisics showing that women, on average, receive less jail time than men, on average.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 9 years ago | (#8156426)

Ok, now you seem to be twisting the argument. Yes, mean are genetically different from women. But different races have different genetic traits as well... Just because there is a genetic difference doesn't mean that we should treat people differently. As for the use of a foreign object and such - what bearing does this have on the discussion at hand? We are talking about sentencing based upon your proposed physical risk idea. Your argument on female versus male rape is off base and has nothing to do with the rest of the debate - unless you are saying that since women commit rape less often, and are less likely to do it, that sentencing should be lighter (less jail time, more community service) than for a male? The frequency at which a type of person commits a crime should not determine how much punishment an individual should be faced with. Can you imagine a world in which it did? Lets pull a 'type' of person out of the air... ah, Nuns. Nuns are different from the average person, they tend to not commit violent crimes. So should a nun get less time in jail for hurting someone than a non-nun? Does the fact that they are a nun make them less or more of a threat after they have proven themselves as an individual to be a threat? I think that is our main difference here - you seem to think, as your original post stated, that since a Group of people, in this case based upon gender, are different and have different tendencies that individuals from said group should be treated differently at sentencing time. I'll say it once more: that is silly and just wrong, its discrimination. It's not PC 'crap', its what the USA was founded upon... do you remember the following words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

The key word there is 'equal' - it doesn't say 'the same' or 'identical', it says 'equal'. Women and men are different, but they are Equal. If you honestly walk around thinking different, then you have major issues - and I'll refuse to feel sorry for you if you ever run into someone who IS spouting PC 'crap', especially if you ever run into a feminist.

As for your statistics, they are neither here nor there - once again you muddy the water. Your statement wasn't 'that women tend to get less jail time and more community service' it was:
"Women are on the whole less of a physical risk to the community. I therefore have no problem with them receiving less jailtime. Fines should be equal though and community service might be increased to compensate for less jailtime."

Thus, as you can see, your statement was a judgmental one - Notice the use of the word 'I' - not a statement of fact. Statistics may or may not show that women get less jail time, but that is not what this debate has been about. Until just now when you typed "For the same crime executed in the same way, sentences should be the same", I think you were being discriminatory, and have been saying so. Your original statement and intent is Still discriminatory. All the statistics would show is how the world Is (at a base, math level, not the truth behind the numbers), you were arguing for how you thought the world should be. Depending upon where you were in the world, the local statistics for your country could show some drastic things - but just because things are done X way in Y location doesn't make them good or right.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#8156634)

Okay, one last go. Boiling it down;
  • I believe that jailtime should be reserved for people who are a phyiscal risk to the community.
  • Violent offenders are the group I would typically consider to be a physical risk to the community.
  • Now, I think we're getting mixed up between a group and and individual. As a group, women commit less violent crimes, or commit crimes less violently. Therefore sentencing on the whole will reflect that -- even when each case is dealt with in a way equal to a man's. If an individual woman commits a violent crime she should certainly receive jailtime to match the violent nature of her actions.
Note that I believe guilt or innocence should be determined in exactly the same way for each gender, but I understand that the methods used for determining an approriate punishment will detect and react to a less violent offender -- women having a disproportional representation in such a group.

Maybe I have a more intuitive feel for statistics or something. I would not be concerned if statistics showed that women get a lighter sentence on average, as I would assume that in each case sentencing would have taken into account the violent nature of the crime, or lack there of, and I would expect over a large number of offenders for women to have shown less violence.

Now, your original post cried discrimination in law as opposed to discression shown by judges in sentencing, but law is only a reaction to events. If historically women breaking the same law as men are shown to have played a different role or otherwise to have shown actions significantly different over a large number of cases, I would have no problems with the law reflecting that in the maximum or minimum sentences available to the judge in such a case. Often laws that appear bias are a response to a series of poor or disputed judgements, perhaps that is true in this case. Perhaps a group of women-hating judges locked up a bunch of women who's actions simply had not been as violent as men that received similar punishments.

More likely this is one of those things where there are enough differences between the sexes such that a set of rules will appear to discriminate, but in fact each individual case is decided in an unbiased fashion, on its own merits and the pattern builds itself. Women are simply less violent than men on average and statistics reflect this.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 9 years ago | (#8156814)

"Maybe I have a more intuitive feel for statistics or something."

That is an interesting, and again completely off-base statement that had nothing to do with the debate.

Let Me boil it down:

- Jail time for violent or non violent crime is Not the issue that was being debated - discrimination was.
- Who You consider a risk to the community Was a point of contention, since you stated that women were less of one, and should get less jail time.
- your third point actually makes very little sense - again, the idea that a woman would recessive a less harsh sentence because women commit 'less' violent crimes - and then you turn around and say an individual women should recessive the appropriate amount.

to continue, point by point:
The violence of the offender, when taken into account during sentencing, is all that should be taken into account - not the violence of the group the individual is a member of. As you say, if A offender is less violent, that will be used when determining an appropriate punishment. this contradicts your original statement in your original post - perhaps you should just say your original post was worded badly?

I am not concerned about the statistics involved, what I was concerned about was the explicit discrimination in your original statement - "Women are on the whole less of a physical risk to the community. I therefore have no problem with them receiving less jailtime." Did you mean something closer to the following text?

Statistics show that women tend to be involved in less violent crime, thus pose less of an physical risk to the community. The sentencing for women tends to be less harsh due to the nature of the crimes committed and the circumstances involved, and I have no problem with that.

Because that is not what your original post said, and not how it was interpreted. Instead, your original post, and subsequent replies until your post previous to this one, seemed to be saying that You thought that women were less of a danger and that their sentencing Should reflect that - which implies many value judgements on your part that I found rather unsavory.

Now onto the next point, in response to "Now, your original post cried discrimination in law". First, my post decried discrimination in the type of laws your statement seemed to be promoting, not what is on the books. Secondly, law in Not just a reaction to events - perhaps it was in the beginning, thousands of years ago, but we didn't wait until someone was killed to say that killing was wrong in most modern countries that I can think of. Instead, law is refined and revised as a reaction to events - and yes, new laws are sometimes added because hey, in the 1600s, who foresaw cars? However, in the US, the judicial branch serves as more than just the judges of individual cases - they review law, and can reject it if it is unconstitutional. Des crimination due to sex is unconstitutional, thus when found in law is overturned either at the appeals court level or higher. Now, judges have their own levels of discretion, and they may go 'softer' on women due to the circumstances involved in individual cases - but they cannot have guidelines, rules, statues or articles that contain discriminatory punishments. Laws that have such bias are either directly overturned when raised as being such, or are ignored - you'd be surprised how many laws are ignored but not taken completely off the books - such as the law in NY that states that all taxi drivers must keep a bucket and shovel in their vehicle - the original intent of which is now completely lost since (most) taxies don't use horse drawn carriages anymore. But I digress. As you state, you would have no problem with the law reflecting the differences between men and women historically and applied to the max and min sentences available to a judge. However, that is illegal because it is discriminatory. To judge an individual is the role of the judge, to provide leniency or strict enforcement. To treat men as a group separate from women for sentencing and such would be a form of segregation. The idea that you find this ok is, once again, unsavory to me, and goes against the 14th amendment which states equal protection under the law.

Onto your last paragraph.
I think you have less knowledge of the law then you think in that you state a set of rules 'will' reflect this - do mean our laws do reflect this or that you think they should? In the former you are mistaken (but may be confused between rulings and common defenses such as battered wives syndrome and the actual law on the books). In the latter you are just, well, off base. The constitution and laws of the USA rules what you feel is ok illegal. The first amendment entitles you to your opinion, it also entitles me to say that its a load of poo. But which one of us would be proven right in court? Perhaps you should look into the Muncy law, a Pennsylvanian law that was voided in 68 because it required longer sentences for women - it was ruled unconstitutional. Though it was the opposite of your idea/intent, the case stands as an example of how such things are overturned.

In fact, upon further googling, I found that cases have proven that even non discriminatory laws which have discretionary penalties can be found to have been used in unconstitutionally discriminatory ways - and that such ruling are invalid. A case to note is the "Texas v. Karla Faye Tucker" one, in which this point is brought up, it also raises the points that (and I'm quoting from case documents):

"All reliable evidence shows there is no overall gender bias in the criminal justice system for or against women, because any small disparities in sentencing or other treatment may be explained by well-documented differences in behavior.

5) There is evidence that any disparities in sentence favorable to women disappear in cases involving violent offenses and that female violent offenders actually receive harsher sentences than their male counterparts."

That case is particularly interesting because in the same document the argument was made that to even Imply there was a gender bias involved in the appeals process of women who receive the death penalty could jeopardize the nondiscriminatory examination of the case and that the decision Had to be unbiased on gender issues and not influenced by the medias claims of bias (which would of worked against the woman's case, since the media was claiming that in death penalty cases an inordinate number of woman get their sentence overturned).

Anyway, those are examples form the actual legal system, and as most legal cases do, they reference a lot of other laws, rulings and cases to build their cases. thus it can be seen by a simple googling that discriminatory rules, guidelines, laws, and sentencing are not permitted, and that each case is to be judged solely on the merit (or lack thereof) in the individual, not their gender.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#8157030)

Statistics show that women tend to be involved in less violent crime, thus pose less of an physical risk to the community. The sentencing for women tends to be less harsh due to the nature of the crimes committed and the circumstances involved, and I have no problem with that.

Instead, your original post, and subsequent replies until your post previous to this one, seemed to be saying that You thought that women were less of a danger and that their sentencing Should reflect that
This is definately the problem we're having because I can't see the distinction between these two statements. Women are on the whole less violent and less of a phyisical danger to the community and I would expect their sentencing with respect to jailtime to reflect that.

I'm sorry, but I'm running out of different ways to say this. There must be something in the grammar that we interpret in opposite ways.

I think, basically I'm accepting something based on history and statistics and you're rejecting it based on apparent discrimination. You believe that everything should be equal no matter what and I believe that there is ultimately no way to make everything equal no matter how hard you try. I don't think either believe you shouldn't try, but I think I give up a fraction earlier than you do.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8158294)

I think you two are arguing a different point. Kris J believe jail is used for *prevention*. Coventry believes jail is a punishment.

When it's a punishment, the punishment fits the crime, not the individual. When it's a prevention, it matches the individual, not the crime. This can also be seen at the end of a jail term. If the offender will ostensibly do it again upon release, the prevention would have to continue past the end of his term, where as if it is a punishment, the offender must be let free anyway.

The one oddity i find, is that i'd rather give a *lesser* punishment to those who are predisposed to a certain thing. For example, let's say we find that people with blue eyes have the (yet to be found) spitting gene, and are thus predisposed to spitting publicly in New York. If a person with blue eyes and a person with green eyes spits in New York, and get fined by a rambunctious policeman, the one with blue eyes should get a lesser sentence. Simply because he did less wrong.

If however, it is not due to genetics, rather to his group's mentality, then the state must weigh the interest. If the interest is to stop it at all costs, anyone from this group is to be hit harder. A lesser fine to someone else will stop them as they believe it to be not proper. To someone that thinks it is proper, a harsher fine would be required to make the point. If the interest is to stop disorderly behaviour, when someone from that group does is they should get less of a fine, since, for them, it is less disorderly.

Either way, i doubt that would work in the real world. Or at least in this one. Too many people have their own differeing interest in the same law, and not everyone is agreed on the conformity/diversity continuum.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 9 years ago | (#8161252)

Actually, I think jail time is punishment And prevention - whcih leads to an odd middle road. My point was that Kris's original statement was phrased in a way to advocate disciminatory sentencing - which he is now turnign into a statistics argument and is trying to say that he was just making a statement of fact. Ok.

Unfortunatly, I don't think you can legaly (in the US) have the sort of sentencing you describe Chacham - even if the sentences were different due to an individual judge's similar belief, or an argument from the defendant or prosecution, they could be overturned if the bias was found to be based upon the group the person came from - at least, thats what I found when I did research last night.

Re:Keyword is Jail (0)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8161635)

I understand it couldn't work within the current framework. Just talking about what i think would b ebest. Then again, i'm against jail (except in certain cases of prevention) and would much rather institute corperal punishment. :)

Actually, I think jail time is punishment And prevention

Yeah, yeah. But i think your arguments were based more on one of them, if only to counteract his statements.

Re:Keyword is Jail (0)

Chacham (981) | more than 9 years ago | (#8162115)

Ugh! Corporal.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#8163500)

Thank you. I'm happy with your first two paragraphs and am willing to leave it there if Coventry is too.

Re:Keyword is Jail (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 9 years ago | (#8161383)

"This is definately the problem we're having because I can't see the distinction between these two statements."

The distinction is that in the original, you were making a personal statement of belief and used the word Should - in the corrected version, and you later arguments, you instead are saying that you agree with the actuality of the situation and can understand it. These are two very different things - akin to:

A) I think everyone with green eyes should be punched in the face.

and

B) I see that people with green eyes get punched in the face, and knowing the facts, I understand why.

---

I'm not rejecting your statement based upon apparent discrimination, I'm rejecting the fact that the belief is discriminatory - its a very big difference. From your statement it sounds as if you would of said slavery was OK if we were in the 1850s - because history backs you up.

Going on to your next statement - yes I believe everything should be equal. I know it won't be, I know it Can't be, but I know to not strive for that goal is to give in to hate. I also believe that no one should hurt another person - that hurting someone else is wrong. If I were to accept that it happens and can't be stoped, then I give in to those who would hurt others. I think you definetly give up way more than a fraction before I do.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>