Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla
I see what your saying, however, at my particular University here in New Zealand, if you commit a crime of any sort on or off campus, you can be fined/punished by the University due to being representative of it's institution as it can draw a lot of bad press. So this could be applied in schools, to account for bullying in and out of school. Just because it happens off grounds doesn't mean something shouldn't be done about those who are committing the acts at their associated schools
|
This issue is a bit close to me actually. I don't think a child should be punished by the school for an unrelated act. The school is an educational facility and the instant the school acts as an agent outside of the intended purpose I have an issue. Having gone through a school system I viewed as corrupt early in life I was more than glad to be home schooled and when I have children they too will be home schooled.
Quote:
|
I think you're simplifying things too much. You can't just say, oh that person killed someone, it was wrong, that's it. Emphasis is always going to be on the motives to why someone committed a crime.
|
The reason the court tries to find motive is to understand the kind of thinking behind it. The difference between first degree, second degree, and manslaughter aren't motive; but "mode of thought". How premeditated and planned it was.
Quote:
|
Why do you think there are so many reoffenders? Because governments do not provide adequate kinds of reform for those in prison or on home detention.
|
Reforming evil can be tricky.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asshat
...there's also the matter of "hate speech". I thought it was only for bleeding hearts until I got a pamphlet in the mail from this christian fundamentalist talking about the "sodomite agenda" and "homofacist conspiracy". It felt like a slap in the face, and I can't imagine how any homosexuals who received it felt. That's when I realized this guy should be charged with more than a simple bylaw infraction, and thought that maybe hate crimes legislation might serve a point. I called the guy who sent these pamphlets and he used the "freedom of speech" defence. He was essentially a weasel and a coward getting volunteers to deliver his defamatory hate literature for him.
|
I find that this is largely a social difference between America and other countries. You can usually tell an American on the internet by how much he prides his right to be a vitriol spitting assbag. I know I view it as a wonderful thing.
The line in free speech is drawn where measurable harm is done. If it creates a financial loss its illegal. That's how it should be. Stop being a bunch of pussies and accept that some people are hateful and have just as much right to expressing their ideas as you do.