I don't agree that motive is a factor.

If the law says that no one can eat apples after 10pm or before 6am, no exceptions, then that is the law.

It applies to men, women, children, regardless of motive.

Therefore any person that breaks the law should face the same penalty.

If you want to mitigate responsibility for following the law, then change the law. Not the punishment.

A crime is a crime is a crime. A crime is not like a snowflake where each one is different.

A murder is a murder. The crime isn't "killing a man", it's "murder". Not all killing of a man is "murder" and that's what trials find out. But two people found guilty of the same crime like "murder" should get the same punishment regardless of motive.

If person "A" kills an old lady because he wants her purse and person "B" kills an old lady because she's Jewish, the punishment should be the same. The victim is no more dead in either case. And in the case of statuatory rape, the victim is no more or less victimized regardless of their gender.

If one guy robs a store to feed his children and another robs a store to buy crack cocaine, they should get the same punishment.

But do they? really?

the trials set the tone for the sentence. if a man desperate to feed a starving family expresses deep remorse for stealing during the trial, and the crack head just sits there drooling, looking like he'll do it again in a minute, do they get the same sentence? i dont think they do. jury's remember the connection they feel toward a defendant, and will mitigate their findings to suit, no? I mean that's why we have that word, MITIGATE, isnt it?

cat is saying that the fact that this went woman / boy is in itself a mitigating circumstance. i disagree with her on that, but just to be clear, not everyone gets the same sentence for the same crime in america.

In the context of this thread, I think the Teacher should be prosecuted the same as a man, and it's irrelevant what the kid thinks.

But I wonder, What about intent? Or motive? They are basically the same thing.

If I have the runs, and the poop slides down my leg (I'm wearing boxers and shorts) onto a sidewalk before I can reach a bathroom, do I deserve to be punished the same amount as someone who craps on the sidewalk on purpose?

no, you'd deserve to be ridiculed and publicly humiliated like I was......oops....i mean....like my friend was when that happened to him. ;)

did i tell the 'holy shit' story on here?

I'm not saying everyone gets the same punishment for the same crimes in America. The legal system in America is very much geared in favor of women. The legal system should be blind to race, religion, gender, etc. It should punish all crimes equally regardless of motive.

Hate crimes are a perfect example of laws that need to go away immediately.

If a white man kills a black man because he caught him in bed with his wife, he will get far less prison time than a white man who kills a black man because he is a black man. The mans thoughts are being punished and this puts the police in the dangerous position of being the "thought police".

And if a black man kills a white man just for being white, he won't get as harsh a penalty as the white man would under similar circumstances.

The fact that people stupidly try to say the EXACT SAME CRIME committed by a woman and a man should be punished differently only shows that they have no regard for fairness or equality under the law. But these are usually the same people who would jump up and down and scream the loudest if they were on the losing end of one of these situations. If suddenlly courts started locking up women 5 times longer than men for the same crime, they would demand equality under the law. This is hypocritical to say the least.

These are the same people who tried to make excuses for Andrea Yates. This woman should have been lowered feet first into a woodchipper. She's pure evil.

I don't buy insanity as a defense, and I especially don't buy "temporary insanity". I don't care if someone is insane or not. If you murder people, too bad so sad, you've got to go away. If the person who did it is insane, fine, don't tell them it's an electric chair, tell them it's a roller coaster, strap them in and fire it up.

Ambiguity creates inequality under the law and causes a host of nightmare situations. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we were talking about a black male teacher versus a white male teacher. Why? Because the race of the person committing the crime is irrelevant and so is their gender.

Radar,
My post earlier wasn't a joke. Do you think there should be a difference in the punishment or determination of guilt for two people who crap on the sidewalk? Person A can't control themselves, and person B does it on purpose. Are they equally guilty?

Yes, they are equally guilty. But if they both pay for the cost of the cleanup, I don't see it as a problem.

If I have a child, or a dog, who takes a dump on the sidewalk, I'm responsible to clean it up. If I am an elderly person who doesn't have much control over my bowels I must do the same. And if someone does it just because they feel like it, they are equally responsible.

Some people just have a hard time comprehending the meaning of personal responsibility.

It's not the same act, even though the result is the same. The two would not be charged with the same offence, therefore subject to different penalties. :)

so one is littering, and the other vandalizing. i bet the fines are comparable:smack:

I agree Onyx, and thank you for recognising the wider spectrum of my debate.

I do think the law should be changed. And it is constantly evolving. In fact, the law currently supports my argument in favour of different punishment for different sexes: women's prisons, for a start.

Yes, I agree. It is determining whether it is murder - if there can be one kind of murder - that is the problem. Surely murder is killing with intent? It is the 'intent' bit I am interested in. Where does this come from? Can we eliminate it? We are arguing for the same side here. All that everybody wants is for crime to be significantly reduced, ultimately eliminated. It is imperative we spend more time working on root causes rather than handing out inconsequential, deconstructive and largely futile punishments that serve no more as reparation to the victim as a deterrent.

Again, I agree. Nothing annoys me more than pathetic whiney excuses from people who are incapable of thinking for themselves. I am talking about genuine and uncontrollable mitigating circumstances such as genetic make-up. The 'face' of a criminal is not a new topic - if we can already be this specific surely gender must also come into it? I'm not saying men are bad and women are good or the other way round. Just that we're different, like it or not, and as such should have distinct legal and social systems. Not unequal, just different.

Glatt your example demonstrates my point about an action on its own being just that - an action. Only when you attach a motive or intent does it become a crime or otherwise. We should move away from study and punishment of action and concentrate on catalystic intent. This is what the law should reflect.

As for thought police; the exact opposite of this would be total anarchy. Which would you prefer?

But murder isn't just murder* ...

It's murder, homicide, manslaughter, and actually a host of other legal definitions. Which you get charged with and ultimately convicted (or exonnerated) of does vary based on the circumstances of the crime.

The other guy is still dead. It's all in how you got him there.

*Note to the lazy ... the first one is a link to the legal definition of murder. The second is a link to the legal definitions of the sub-types.

If the punishments were less arbitrary, they would serve as more of a deterrant, but even if they don't, at least if we get rid of the people who kill others, that's one less murderer in the world.

No, gender does not come into it. Attitudes are not gender based, they are learned through the environment when growing up. Gender is no excuse for any crime at any point ever. Those who claim it is are the same idiots who try to excuse a woman murdereing her kids due to depression, or killing her husband because she had PMS. That's utter crap! If a man were in court and said he killed his wife because he lost his job, nobody would say he should be let off.

Gender is NEVER a mitigating circumstance!

Sorry, but there is no such thing as different but equal or separate but equal. Those are false premises. You're equal or your not. You are subject to the same laws or you're not. You've raped someone or you haven't.

That's an utterly false assertion. The opposite of having thought police is not anarchy. It's order and reason and equality under the law.

If one man commits a murder because he hates Jewish people, and another does it because he likes to see the color of blood their crime is equal. It is murder. Once the court proves that either of these men committed murder, the punishment should be the same.

As wolf pointed out, there are different crimes such as murder, manslaughter, etc. If two people are found guilty of the same crime such as murder 1, they should get the same punishment regardless of their motives.

It doesn't matter why this woman slept with a 14 year old boy just as it wouldn't matter why a man slept with a 14 year old girl. Both are guilty of the exact same crime, and the gender of the attacker and victim are NOT a mitigating factor.

If you'd like an example of a mitigating factor, there was a story in the news years ago about two friends in CA who were having beers together. They ran out of beer and one guy asked the other to watch his 2 year old daughter while he went to get some more beer. When he came back he found his buddy having intercourse with his baby. He promptly beat his friend to death with his bare hands. THAT is a mitigating factor.

If it had been a woman coming home and found her friend violating her two year old son and she beat her friend to death it would be THE EXACT SAME CRIME!!!! The gender is irrelevant. The fact that they walked in and caught someone violating thier child is a mitigating factor, the gender of the child or attacker is not.

I think maybe the difficulty here is use of the word 'mitigating'. It implies innocence, or a lesser crime. This is not what I am talking about. To use your example, god I don't know if I can bear to go into details, but lets say the man with the female child could have caused internal damage as well as psychological. Chances are a female performing a sex act on a male child would not. I am not saying either act is right or excusable in any way, or detracting from the sadistic, abhorrent, vile nature of the crime. I just think the two crimes are indeed different, and should be treated differently. I am not saying the woman should receive a lesser punishment, just a different one. Punishment to fit the crime. A response, co-ordinated, deliberate and functional, not merely retaliation.

Alert the media.

I'm in agreement with Radar. (actually there are a lot of times that I'm in agreement with radar)

Good post.