Common sense. Someone who threatens you and tries to mug you probably isn’t keen on not breaking the law. People who are not keen on not breaking the law might just be liars. I’m not saying all muggers will cut your throat after taking your wallet, phone and jewlery, but a good amount of them might just.
Common sense is that people who want to steal the cash in your pocket don’t want a murder charge, and the percentage who would get violent when it isn’t even profitable is vanishingly small
The idea that robbery and “slitting your throat” are the same kind of crime is absolutely insane, what’s next, if you jaywalk you’re probably a murderer too?
I mean, that’s logical, practical, reasonable thinking there…but I don’t want to have to hope and trust that someone who was able to think themselves into mugging me can be counted upon to think themselves out of doing anything else.
Maybe if jail sentences were based on a binary “did they crime?” legal test you’d have the beginnings of a point with respect to deterrence, but we’d also have to throw aside any innate morality the person has.
If you’re also of the opinion there’s no such thing as a crime of need.
Common sense. Someone who threatens you and tries to mug you probably isn’t keen on not breaking the law. People who are not keen on not breaking the law might just be liars. I’m not saying all muggers will cut your throat after taking your wallet, phone and jewlery, but a good amount of them might just.
Common sense is that people who want to steal the cash in your pocket don’t want a murder charge, and the percentage who would get violent when it isn’t even profitable is vanishingly small
The idea that robbery and “slitting your throat” are the same kind of crime is absolutely insane, what’s next, if you jaywalk you’re probably a murderer too?
I mean, that’s logical, practical, reasonable thinking there…but I don’t want to have to hope and trust that someone who was able to think themselves into mugging me can be counted upon to think themselves out of doing anything else.
This isn’t common sense.
Maybe if jail sentences were based on a binary “did they crime?” legal test you’d have the beginnings of a point with respect to deterrence, but we’d also have to throw aside any innate morality the person has.
If you’re also of the opinion there’s no such thing as a crime of need.
In fact it’s just a really dumb point.