For one to even start deluding themselves into believing ‘murder is murder,’ one would have to define murder in a way that passes common approval, in this case, the killing of ‘a’ human being. The ‘a’ in that definition implies any number of people killed, which exposes the flaws in the argument of ‘murder is murder.’ By not specifying the number of people killed, an accident such as a flowerpot tumbling from an apartment windowsill that kills an unfortunate passerby, which would normally be considered second-degree manslaughter at best, would instead coincide in the same seriousness as a mass killing of an entire nation. Simplifying not just murder, but all crimes, as simply one charge instead of degrees would cause ridiculousness such as
…show more content…
Without degrees of television, anything that appears on television would be defined as television, which would cause legal confusion, considering that any movie (made-for-TV or otherwise), advertisement, or made-for-television programming would be defined as television merely because it appears on television. Applying such logic to any other crime exposes the same flaws; for example, theft, which is defined as the taking of property without consent or legal right. If one were in the midst of paying for their groceries at a cashier, and the money was stolen straight from their hands during the transaction by a robber, no one would ever compare their loss to a high-profile robbery of the Federal Reserve Bank which took months of preparation and detailed planning to pull off. Without degrees of crime, both the statistics and background of either crime wouldn’t matter, with the 20 dollars stolen during the grocery transaction being considered just as serious as the 20 million dollars stolen during the bank heist, nor would the intent and premeditation matter, as the now internationally famous ‘El Grocery Bandito’ only thinking of stealing the 20 dollars when they walked in the grocery would now be compared to a bank robbery that his been meticulously planned since the perpetrators were
Without degrees of television, anything that appears on television would be defined as television, which would cause legal confusion, considering that any movie (made-for-TV or otherwise), advertisement, or made-for-television programming would be defined as television merely because it appears on television. Applying such logic to any other crime exposes the same flaws; for example, theft, which is defined as the taking of property without consent or legal right. If one were in the midst of paying for their groceries at a cashier, and the money was stolen straight from their hands during the transaction by a robber, no one would ever compare their loss to a high-profile robbery of the Federal Reserve Bank which took months of preparation and detailed planning to pull off. Without degrees of crime, both the statistics and background of either crime wouldn’t matter, with the 20 dollars stolen during the grocery transaction being considered just as serious as the 20 million dollars stolen during the bank heist, nor would the intent and premeditation matter, as the now internationally famous ‘El Grocery Bandito’ only thinking of stealing the 20 dollars when they walked in the grocery would now be compared to a bank robbery that his been meticulously planned since the perpetrators were