Letters to the Editor
-
yes, she is responsible for damage & forcing her "views"
ONE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THIS DANGEROUS ACTIVITY. SHE SHOULD BE FORCED TO PAY DAMAGES & DO TIME. DISGUSTING WHEN
PEOPLE DESTROY FOR THEIR OWN STUPID VIEWS. SHE TRIED TO IMPOSE HER THINKING ON OTHERS. I HOPE SHE STAYS IN JAIL FOR A LONG TIME.
-
"SHE TRIED TO IMPOSE HER THINKING ON OTHERS."
So you're saying she acted like the government?
-
migtex1234
So you are saying she has acted like every person who has ever tried to persuade somebody of something, ever?
The evidence she was convicted on was dubious at best. While if it was certain that she had committed the crime, it would be different, there is a reasonable doubt.
Of course one could take the all caps no brains approach to criminal justice and declare that if one is of a particular grouping one is automatically guilty, but I for one don't - because I don't want to live in a police state.
-
Did the terror logic start with "hate crimes"?
It's interesting to read so many wealthy liberals argue that routine property crimes are terrorism if they are committed with environmental intent. That's a big opening for right wingers.
So many of the right's ideas seem to have come from the left. I wonder if the pedigree for the terror logic isn't the hate crimes legislation from the 80s and 90s. In those cases, political or other intent repugnant to liberals resulted in sentence enhancements.
We seem to be sliding down the slippery slope very quickly to thought crimes. At least the hate crimes laws still required that the underlying crime be proven using standard investigative techniques. Now we have categories of crimes where constitutional methods of evidence procurement no longer have to be followed.
And we now have yet another expansive field of sentence enhancement based on mental states or intent that cannot ultimately be known. We are punishing not just criminal acts, but criminal thoughts.
-
Good point
And we now have yet another expansive field of sentence enhancement based on mental states or intent that cannot ultimately be known. We are punishing not just criminal acts, but criminal thoughts.
Yes, and really if a bunch of Arabs set fire to a few Texas oil wells to protest American carbon emissions, they should get probation and community service?
If I kill a cop with my getaway vehicle leaving the scene of a bank robbery, then it is the same as any other accidental vehicular manslaughter where a pedestrian steps into the road unexpectedly?
In fact punishment for crimes has always taken intent into account, as far as the court can perceive it. One-size-fits-all punishments like deportation for stealing a loaf of bread have always been found to be unsatisfactory.
Crimes such as terrorism or killing cops are generally seen as particularly egregious because they are aimed at subverting democratic processes, the rule of law, and the machinery of law enforcement.
The above poster is either a high-schooler having fun, or is mentally deranged.
-
Amerigo knows my mental state!
"Yes, and really if a bunch of Arabs set fire to a few Texas oil wells to protest American carbon emissions, they should get probation and community service?"
Nope. And neither should environmentalists (white, Arab, or otherwise) if they set fire to oil wells. If by "Arabs" you mean "foreign nationals waging war on the US" then different rules should apply.
"If I kill a cop with my getaway vehicle leaving the scene of a bank robbery, then it is the same as any other accidental vehicular manslaughter where a pedestrian steps into the road unexpectedly?"
Nope, they should not be treated the same.
"In fact punishment for crimes has always taken intent into account, as far as the court can perceive it. One-size-fits-all punishments like deportation for stealing a loaf of bread have always been found to be unsatisfactory."
Actually, people are being deported for petty crimes. My local jail has been the starting point of such deportations. I'm not sure why you brought that up, but we agree that it is unsatisfactory. But to address your larger point: yes intent can matter to an underlying crime. It is criminal per se to want to kill someone, and that may be an acceptable element to differentiate accidental or intentional homicide. It is not criminal per se to oppose biotechnology or abortion or integration, etc etc.
"Crimes such as terrorism or killing cops are generally seen as particularly egregious because they are aimed at subverting democratic processes, the rule of law, and the machinery of law enforcement."
Holding political opinions IS the democratic process and the rule of law should not be opposed to holding those opinions. The "machinery of law enforcement" is subservient to democracy, not above it.
Environmental intent may be used in trials to help prove that a crime like arson occur (by showing motivation). That is legitimate. But we are talking about creating new crimes and penalties that target environmental intent.
"The above poster is either a high-schooler having fun, or is mentally deranged."
Ah. In the Soviet Union they placed political dissenters off to mental institutions. I assume you approve?
-
Correction....
I meant: "It is criminal per se to murder someone (with intent to kill them)."
I didn't mean it was criminal per se to want to kill someone. Or Amerigo might be in prison for his thoughts about me...
-
trying to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion. Under that definition forms of civil disobience and boycotts.
Could not be more wrong.
The very definition of Civil disobedience is CIVIL; NONVIOLENT.
The very nature of civil disobedience, is a quiet nonviolent refusal to obey unfair laws, like restricted lunch counters. It is a choice of one's own acions, NOT the VIOLENT act to FORCE someone ELSE to obey your choices.
The very use of intimidation or coercion of another's actions is the opporsite of civil disobedience which is nonviolent. The very use of intimidation or coercion is forcing others' actions, which is the opposite of civil disobedience.
-
Yes, she is a terrorist. Sheesh!
Ilya sez:
Several letter writers have defined terrorism as trying to achieve political objectives through extra-legal means, i.e. commiting crimes to advance their socio-political cause. The flip side of that is the government trying to achive political objectives through the use of the criminal justice system.
They're not equivalent, since the criminal justice system is not, by definition, extra-legal. Moreover, the goal is to enforce laws. I suppose you could call that
Do we want impeding traffic or disorderly conduct misdemeanors to carry 20yr sentences because the government wants to slap a political label of "terrorism" on the defendants?
How do you feel about 'hate crimes,' Ilya? Do you think a person should get extra jail time because s/he injured or killed a person of color rather than a white person? Just curious.