[inquest]

Is there some reason why laws against murder aren't enough? This seems to be in the same category as "hate crimes" legislation.

[sassbox]

I think there's quite a difference between this and "hate crimes." It sounds like the terrorism statute is based on the nature of the crime itself, while hate crimes statutes punish the offender for his motives in commiting the crime. Although racism is a repugnant sin, it shouldn't be and isn't a crime, and hate crimes laws basically punish you extra for something that isn't a crime to begin with. Whereas, I got the impression from the article that the terrorism law doesn't punish you for your motives but for what you actually did - something that the state has decided goes beyond the scope of just murder. I think punishing gang members like this is a great idea.

[btcusn]

Is there some reason why laws against murder aren't enough?


I agree, after all, how many times can you execute a murderer, or how many years will you keep the body in jail after he dies from old age or anal rape or whatever. If the sentence for violent crime is what it should be, you don't need any additional charge to keep the perp in jail. We have too many laws on the books now, don't need any more, just enforce the ones we have.
Jack

[LibWhacker]

Is there some reason why laws against murder aren't enough?

I think it's because penalties for murder aren't enough and people are frustrated at the light sentences being handed out to serious felons.

This guy is a common criminal, a common murderer, and IMO, he should be hanged for it. Personally, I can't say I like the idea of bringing terrorism charges against common criminals; the notion will metastasize and the next thing you know we'll be bringing terrorism charges against reckless drivers, drunk drivers, ordinary speeders, etc.