[PredatorOC]

If a Nazi sympathizer camps outside the home of a common Jew and raises tirades for years upon years until the resident finally slays the beast on the streets out of rage than I will not empathize with the dead and harass the resident toward prison.

So if a neo-nazi is harassed by a Jew, its 'not that bad' if the neo-nazi kills the Jew?

This is line of thinking should be tossed in garbage bin, along with the notion that race crimes are worse than similar 'normal' crimes, etc.

This is not a complete story!

'Complete' stories don't exist. No one can have all the facts. But I will re-iterate again that I wasn't so concerned about this particular case, but views on leniency in justice systems. You seem to have spun it into some conspiracy theory.

a bank should not hold its loans with threats. But what power did they have?

So its ok if individuals use threats and violence?

but the police do not crack down on them as frequently as provincially beneficial. And so, to punish them only after an action is to foolishly encourage them

So if the police are not able to pin crimes on the perpetrators before the crimes even occur, the perpetrators should be treated leniently after the crimes?

Here you have an issue where I do not know whether the killers are "scum" or not.

Why would it matter? They committed murder. Whether they were pillars of society or drug dealers shouldn't make a difference in the sentencing. But I did mention the sentenced man had a prior 5 year sentence. I don't know for what, but I'm assuming he wasn't a pillar of society.

[El Gilroy]

As always in my starry-eyed opinion: Rehabilitation.
Since it would most likely require a number of years easily exceeding the aforementioned sentences, it'd say it's both just and useful later on.

(ideally, that is.)

[Zyx]

So if a neo-nazi is harassed by a Jew, its 'not that bad' if the neo-nazi kills the Jew?

This is line of thinking should be tossed in garbage bin, along with the notion that race crimes are worse than similar 'normal' crimes, etc.

Circumstances are important is the lesson of the story. Of course, a neo-nazi that is peaceable and innocent is a far fetched story.

So its ok if individuals use threats and violence?

Look, here you have a person who borrowed money from criminals. This reminds me of the loan shark business, in which case this is not a story but just a foolish re-shot of archaic crime schemes. Is it disgusting that they hold the loan with "threats and violence"; yes. Do they have anything other than "threats and violence" to hold the loan with? Most likely no!

I suppose I should go borrow from the Mafia and not pay them back! Please! You give a story that does not deserve empathy. As good as I know this officer borrowed from the Mafia.

Now here is what is important! Who is allowing the Mafia to loan money? Two things; the economic system (that allows individual trade--many do) and the justice system (that refuses to crack down on people solely for being members of the Mafia.)

So if the police are not able to pin crimes on the perpetrators before the crimes even occur, the perpetrators should be treated leniently after the crimes?

If the police allow the Mafia to exist but when the Mafia "mafiates" it punishes them severely than the police are not cracking down on the problem; the Mafia!

It is like selling guns into a neighborhood and then giving the death penalty to each murderer; why the hell are you selling them guns?

Honestly, Westerners seem to only think short-term; hence, why Bin Laden and his clique have benefited from American training and are now American enemies!

Why would it matter? They committed murder. Whether they were pillars of society or drug dealers shouldn't make a difference in the sentencing. But I did mention the sentenced man had a prior 5 year sentence. I don't know for what, but I'm assuming he wasn't a pillar of society.

No, whether they are pillars or drug dealers does make a difference! Law should be set to protect "pillars" however "pillars" are defined. If everyone is a pillar than everyone should be affected; if only the innocent are pillars than only the innocent should be affected; but law is not to punish people who are situationally constrained, entrapped, or provoked unreasonably. Maybe I am wrong but darn it if you want "long term" results you ought to think in the "long term."

Also, I probably read over the 5 year sentence prior; even so, what reason does this officer have to negotiate with scum? Honestly, I find this very important!!!

[Torwan]

@PredatorOC:

Statistics (German):
http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/index2.html

Well, there's a drop in both murder and rape since the introduction of "Sicherheitsverwahrung", but I wouldn't necessarily link those things. The official BKA-statistic doesn't have a position for "repeating criminals", so I can't put my finger on it.

However, the general feeling in Germany is better since child rapists, rapists in general and murderers can be "locked up forever". Before that, people didn't feel protected by the courts and the police felt that they had to catch and re-catch the same people all the time, because courts released them too early.

[PredatorOC]

Of course, a neo-nazi that is peaceable and innocent is a far fetched story.

Put you are falling for the same pit that you say others have fallen into. Assuming I have understood you correctly, you say that more attention should be put on if a perception plays a part in the sentencing. So killing a former police officer might bring about a harsher penalty than killing a normal person. And being a drug dealer might bring a harsher sentence than being a stock broker. So why assume automatically that a neo-nazi can't be innocent and peaceful?

Do they have anything other than "threats and violence" to hold the loan with? Most likely no!

So they gave an unofficial loan and had no legal way to recover it, assuming that was the case. Is criminal activity then excused? Because they had no other recourse to recover the loan (and I'm betting they didn't recover it this way either)?

If the police allow the Mafia to exist but when the Mafia "mafiates" it punishes them severely than the police are not cracking down on the problem; the Mafia!

Unless we take into account police corruption, there is no reason for the police to 'allow' criminals to go free. They can't crack down on the criminals if they have no evidence against them. And you need evidence in a free society, or at least I hope you do.

Two things; the economic system (that allows individual trade--many do) and the justice system (that refuses to crack down on people solely for being members of the Mafia.)

Firstly; loaning money isn't a crime. It is a crime, however, to murder if you don't get your loan back. Even individuals can borrow money between themselves in a legally binding manner. So if someone gives an unofficial loan with no proof or documentation, its their headache if they don't get it back.

Secondly, a justice system that actually has any justice, will not 'crack down' on people purely on their affiliations or perceived affiliations. I'm sure you can see the dark path it would be.

Trying to 'remedy' either or both of these, would require both harsh economic repression and harsh social repression.

Also, I probably read over the 5 year sentence prior; even so, what reason does this officer have to negotiate with scum? Honestly, I find this very important!!!

I think its clear that the ex-officer had ran into trouble in life and was dealing with the wrong people. But this still doesn't affect the crime in any way. It would be like blaming poor people for living in the crime-filled part of town or blaming rape victims for dressing provocatively.

[Zyx]

So why assume automatically that a neo-nazi can't be innocent and peaceful?

Nazism is, very nearly, an ideology of aggression, militants, and hatred. You answer.

So they gave an unofficial loan and had no legal way to recover it, assuming that was the case. Is criminal activity then excused? Because they had no other recourse to recover the loan (and I'm betting they didn't recover it this way either)?

I mean, I feel sorry for the person's loss . . . do not misunderstand; but, "if you are not a part of the solution than you are part of the problem." The criminal activity was wrong, but it was, nearly, inevitable. Foolish move on the former cops part. I mean, I do not deal with the Mafia for a reason, bub.

Unless we take into account police corruption, there is no reason for the police to 'allow' criminals to go free. They can't crack down on the criminals if they have no evidence against them. And you need evidence in a free society, or at least I hope you do.

And there you go; when the Mafia exists and does what the Mafia does then crime exists.

Firstly; loaning money isn't a crime. It is a crime, however, to murder if you don't get your loan back. Even individuals can borrow money between themselves in a legally binding manner. So if someone gives an unofficial loan with no proof or documentation, its their headache if they don't get it back.

This is a silly phrase and you should know that.

Secondly, a justice system that actually has any justice, will not 'crack down' on people purely on their affiliations or perceived affiliations. I'm sure you can see the dark path it would be.

Agreed, but the dark path w/o it is . . . this police officer's murder!

I think its clear that the ex-officer had ran into trouble in life and was dealing with the wrong people. But this still doesn't affect the crime in any way. It would be like blaming poor people for living in the crime-filled part of town or blaming rape victims for dressing provocatively.

It is not clear what the ex-officer had been doing; and besides what happens at the time does have some importance. For instance, if the ex-officer threatened or blackmailed the "mobsters" than the story has another light; because, it would not be a "random" attack on the part of the mobsters anymore. A "random" attack being the more vile types.

I agree that the two examples that you suggested are horrible but I do not believe this the same case; it is possible that the ex-officer was very short of cash and it is even possible that the "ex-officer" status is what got him in trouble but again there is something about being responsible in a non-utopia world. I do not do gang signs in front of gangsters nor do I wear the confederate flag on my T-Shirt . . . sure, maybe we should have freedoms to do these things--I do not know why, but sure--but come on . . . be reasonable. If it is legal to borrow from criminals than this officer behaved legally, but I do think you should acknowledge that his actions were not that responsible. It's a shame if the banks turned him down or something . . . that's society!

[PredatorOC]

Nazism is, very nearly, an ideology of aggression, militants, and hatred. You answer.

So a Jew and a Nazi should receive different sentences for the same crime?

The criminal activity was wrong, but it was, nearly, inevitable.

So your life should be worth less in the eyes of the justice system, if you know bad people?

when the Mafia exists and does what the Mafia does then crime exists.

Yes. And to prosecute them the police should have evidence against them. Correct? Or should the police just imprison people based on affiliations?

This is a silly phrase and you should know that.

Why?

Agreed, but the dark path w/o it is . . . this police officer's murder!

You are demanding premonition on the part of the police. They can't arrest people based on hunches and guesses on who is going to kill.

[Zyx]

So a Jew and a Nazi should receive different sentences for the same crime?

I do not see it being the same crime. If it is than yes. Remember I efforted to outline a situation in which the Jew were not a bad person and the Nazi was, if the roles were reversed (by some miracle) then certainly I would wish for equal treatment under the law.

So your life should be worth less in the eyes of the justice system, if you know bad people?

I think what should be punished is the root of the crime; again, I cannot pass judgment on this scenario because I do not know what the officer was doing before being killed. I think in terms of devaluing one's life it should be done if the person provoked an attack in some way. Otherwise, I would have to promote murder through self-defense and murder through an ideology of hate as equally punishable offenses . . . you may think so but I do not.

Yes. And to prosecute them the police should have evidence against them. Correct? Or should the police just imprison people based on affiliations?

When they do not . . . crime happens. What part of this is so confusing? Look, you have this one guy . . . who notices a Mafia . . . and then negotiates with the Mafia . . . and then is killed by the Mafia; if this person never noticed the Mafia this would not have happened, meanwhile you seem to uphold the rights of the Mafia and sort of legitimize this person's death. Come now! Be more intelligent!

Why did this person die? Is not the affiliation and its allowance at the root of this death? Should the police "prevent" crime from happening AGAIN or from happening? You decide? So long as you believe the former . . . people die!

Why?

Lol, you borrow money and do not have to pay it back?!? That's silly. What's the point of loaning the money? As well, the conditions were most likely agreed upon by the officer. I dunno, you are sort of legalizing thievery in this phrase . . . as if I asked my neighbor to borrow his lawnmower for 3 days and decided to never return it! I agree the neighbor should not kill me; but come on! Why did I ask to borrow?!?

You are demanding premonition on the part of the police. They can't arrest people based on hunches and guesses on who is going to kill.

If you say so, but again the officer is dead here; and the Mafia still exists! Meaning . . . more "people" are going to die! And the Mafia will continue to exist . . . meaning . . . you get the picture!

[PredatorOC]

I do not see it being the same crime.

So why demand consideration and leniency for other criminals, but not for nazis? It seems to be a double-standard.

provoked an attack in some way

Here is the problem. Provoking doesn't justify a crime. If it did, people would be claiming it left and right. "She provoked me to rape her because of her skimpy dress".

When they do not . . . crime happens.

Please answer my question; should people be arrested based on affiliations? Because that is the only way to arrest people without evidence.

meanwhile you seem to uphold the rights of the Mafia

Everyone's rights should be upheld. That is the basic principle of a free society. You don't arrest people without evidence.

So long as you believe the former . . . people die!

I have a solution for this. Let's put every citizen on house-arrest. Put electronic tags on them so they never leave their homes. Allow only police on the streets and government officials who deliver food to the people. With a SWAT team supporting them, of course. This way, no one has to die a violent death and we've prevented every damn crime! Wonderful, eh?

Lol, you borrow money and do not have to pay it back?!? That's silly.

It happens all the time, especially with small amounts. And every time the borrower takes the risk that he won't get the money back, since he doesn't have proof that he loaned the money in the first place. I'm not sure what is so unusual about this.

If you say so, but again the officer is dead here; and the Mafia still exists!

I'm not gonna get anywhere with you, am I? We'll just keep going around in circles. I guess this is my cue to get out of this.

[Zyx]

So why demand consideration and leniency for other criminals, but not for nazis? It seems to be a double-standard.

There is no double-standard; killing out of an ideology of hatred and killing out of an ideology of self-preservation are two different things. I have said, in an identical situation the punishment ought be identical.

Here is the problem. Provoking doesn't justify a crime. If it did, people would be claiming it left and right. "She provoked me to rape her because of her skimpy dress".

Again, justifiable crimes are ones done under the pretext of self-preservation; you are blanketing the issue and ignoring a legitimate methodology.

Please answer my question; should people be arrested based on affiliations? Because that is the only way to arrest people without evidence.

Criminal Affiliation: yes. Heard of Entrapment? A scenario like this, you are Muslim and a Muslim approaches you convincing you toward performing a terrorist attack on American soil . . . you concoct a considerable amount of preparatory research and are days within carrying out your plan. Then, you are arrested because the original prompter was a government agent. Is this an ugly way to be put away for life? Yes. Did (Does) it happen? Yes. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily, but if crime prevention is utmost then yes! Besides, this particular story may make others consider twice before even devising plans, no? It's horrible, I admit (maybe you think it is not) but it is an example that has its benefits.

Do I think Mobsters should convene in public, no? Neither in private, of course; but, if people are actively exploiting the evils of their organization to intimidate and complicate the lives of folks like me and you then they should be stopped; even if it means arrests on reasonable suspicion.

Everyone's rights should be upheld. That is the basic principle of a free society. You don't arrest people without evidence.

Again, so dies the officer. Not to say that the blood is on your hands, but . . .

I have a solution for this. Let's put every citizen on house-arrest. Put electronic tags on them so they never leave their homes. Allow only police on the streets and government officials who deliver food to the people. With a SWAT team supporting them, of course. This way, no one has to die a violent death and we've prevented every damn crime! Wonderful, eh?

When do they work? Be more imaginative. Besides, if you want to exaggerate then maybe I ought to give an example in which everyone belongs to a gang or so. Oh, here check this youtube video out: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U-hbzigUqc[/url] It is relevant and perhaps more your fit towards your utopian view . . . joke.

It happens all the time, especially with small amounts. And every time the borrower takes the risk that he won't get the money back, since he doesn't have proof that he loaned the money in the first place. I'm not sure what is so unusual about this.

It's silly on the loaners part, that's what silly about it!

I'm not gonna get anywhere with you, am I? We'll just keep going around in circles. I guess this is my cue to get out of this.

Ha! Fine, your conclusion is to change nothing socially but put the criminals in jail forever . . . then when it happens again, since it likely will, the same thing save that the criminals would have committed more than one murder maybe . . . until their crimes keep upgrading and being unreported because they (as a group) get better while crime prevention remains the same. I agree, it'd be hard for me to adapt your view.