Do you honestly believe that, for example, a date rapist and a serial rapists who tortures his victims for hours should receive the same exact punishments? While all acts of rape are reprehensible, they are not equally reprehensible. This is also true with murder and many other crimes. And the law seems to agree with me as not all rapists and not all murders are punished equally.
The clarification helps. Thanks.
I see where you're going with the point that crimes are sometimes carried further in certain cases, but I think, personally, that after a certain given line, that it becomes overkill and practically speaking, no longer matters. For an example: if I chop you up into little bits in one case, or chop you up into little bits in front of friends and family in the other, I've gone over the edge either way. The exact point where I jumped off was when I decided to make mince-meat of you. After that, its just icing.
So, if I consider rape heinous, yes, I can say that some rape is more brutal than others, but in practice, I treat them pretty much the same. Its like a judge giving you two consecutive life sentences instead of one. Sure, he can say you got two because you're so fucking vile that you deserve it, but its for show.
I believe a lot of the disparity in sentencing comes from who's reading and acting upon it too, and not just how its written. Though law is a fucking complex bitch no matter how you slice it.
