My spouse likes to watch crime shows. Our family room is definitely full of tales of murder, tests, and justice. Even though tragic, the tales themselves can be quite interesting. However, there’s one factor these shows will always be stating that just baffles me.

Regardless of situation, someone always needs to discuss the way the victim was “extremely killed”.

Well, I request you, just when was the final time someone was “pleasantly killed”?

Mentioning that the murder was brutal appears pretty redundant in my experience. How will it ‘t be? You can’t murder with empathy and caring, are you able to? Consider the court sentencing a charged killer by saying…

“Well, I understand you killed her, consider you had been considerate of her feelings throughout the procedure we’ll only provide you with 3 several weeks imprisonment along with a good stiff swat having a table tennis paddle. Just you shouldn’t be doing the work again, OK? Do there exists a deal? Seriously now, pinky swear.”

You shouldn’t be absurd! All killings are brutal, there is no alternative way they may be. I do not care what weapon or technique is employed or the number of occasions it’s used, if you are killing someone, that’s brutality.

Personally i think exactly the same way concerning the whole “hate crime” factor. We’ve laws and regulations designated and give people extra punishment when they commit violent functions due to hate.

Well again, I request you, how will you be violent without hate?

It’s redundant and stupid. Assault, battery, and murder are illegal. Yet, “hate crimes” aim to in some way allow it to be much more illegal when the condition can be you hated the individual that you attacked, battered, or killed?

Who pops up using these stupid ideas? Do you know me that anybody who assaults, batters, or killings does it with love and kindness within their heart?

Seriously! It’s all regulated a hate crime, completely around, always was, always is going to be. If you wish to give firmer penalties of these crimes, proceed, get it done. Why segregate out one murder like a “hate crime” and the other murder as not? If you are likely to label several things as “hate crimes” then you’ve got to be implying you will find other crimes that aren’t hateful?

Which may make sure they are what, love crimes?

“I loved her a lot, which i suffocated her with my Twinkie wrapper. Because, the thing is, I really like Twinkies, too, also it just appeared fitting.”

“Oh, it’s OK then, we know. We’ll help you find ‘not guilty by reason of Twinkie indulgence’. You can go.”

It’s dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Or must i be redundant, too, and refer to it as stupidly dumb? Will that make a difference?

Another factor I’ve found absurd happens when crooks receive several existence sentence.

“He was handed 5 existence sentences, each without the potential of parole.”

What exactly, after he dies you are likely to throw him back to his cell until he dies 4 more occasions? Have some fun waiting.

Maybe I simply do not understand the main difference.