A person steals a painting believing it is worth $300 , when it is
actually worth $10 mil as opposed to stealing a $300 painting in the
belief that it was valued at $10 mil.

BOfL

On May 17, 8:24 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:

I see exceptions are made in the USA but can't find a quick reference
to "further discovery" of evidence. Can you find something on this,
like in an appeal process or something?

On May 17, 4:24 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:

The crime should not consider the value of the item involved but the
effect of the potential loss upon the victim. Thus stealing all the
food from a starving family is a far greater crime than stealing a
$70,000 Mercedes Benz from a person who has 2 other cars.
However, we are faced with the reality that laws are never devised and
invoked to protect the poor and vulnerable, but to support the rich
and powerful. That is why you can get 30 years for robbing a post
office but only a suspended sentence for mugging an old woman on her
way home from collecting her pension from the same post office.
Such is democracy!

This answer is extraordinarily irrelevant.

On May 18, 4:24 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

Interesting. But then what about the criminal? Why did someone steal
food from a starving family unless he himself was starving? Or perhaps
addicted to crack and could get a fix by selling the food?

On 18 May, 11:52, tg earthlink.net> wrote:

I don't have a good ethical logic here, but it does hit at a moral issue
I've had with Calvinist principle. The Calvanist fundamental principle,
which most protestant churches adhere to, is that all things exist by the
'Grace of God'.

What this translates to is that there is NO degree of sin.

A mass murderer is as sinful, in God's eyes, as, I dunno...say, someone that
jaywalks intentionally against authority :).

The idea is that the "moral" sinner cannot gain good favor in God's eyes by
their deeds, but can ONLY be saved through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as
their savior, whereupon, ALL sins, great and small, are washed away "in
Christ's blood", as it were.

On May 18, 10:15 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 18, 1:25 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

Wrong. Since in the USA if the Judge has to decide what to do, if the
case has already been decided and there was a discovery of further
evidence the judge would have at least some limits in choices he or
she could make. If the discovery of the difference in worth, was made
during the trial my information would be somewhat irrelevant, but to
the topic of legal procedures. Therefore you need to defend the use
modifier "extraordinarily" in order to not appear overly biased in you
reasoning here.

On May 19, 12:37 am, "tooly" bellsouth.net> wrote:

Then that translation does not take into account the law of karma.