Larry Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 the term hate crime is ridiculous. As if murder of a person is worse if it's done for a reason? Or if abuse of a person is worse if it's done for a reason. Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, harassment is harassment. So you'd be in favor of repealing the law against Murder, since the difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent? And in your opinion, there's no legal difference between terrorists and other criminals? Since, again, the only thing that makes them terrorists is their motives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 the term hate crime is ridiculous. As if murder of a person is worse if it's done for a reason? Or if abuse of a person is worse if it's done for a reason. Murder is murder, abuse is abuse, harassment is harassment. Murder is murder. And if the murder was done specifically to hold down, intimidate, punish black people, or white people, or gay people, or Christian people, then it is also a generalized hateful assault on blacks or whites or gays or Christians. So, it can be argued, it actually is even worse. But you knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 O'Connor's moderate. And I agree with 81 here :shutup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 So what happens in a black-on-black or gay-on-gay beating where the attacker uses a bigoted slur? That happens all the time. If a black guy is beating on another black guy and calls him the N-word, is that a hate crime? I would think not. But it seems like in that situation the color of the attacker's skin would make him immune to a hate crime charge, but a white person doing the exact same thing might be charged. It creates a situation where punishment depends on the color of a person's skin, which doesn't seem right to me. Personally, I don't think this accomplishes all that much, and is really just a political ploy to gain favor with certain groups. I don't think it's going to have terrible side effects, but I could be wrong. Only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 So what happens in a black-on-black or gay-on-gay beating where the attacker uses a bigoted slur? That happens all the time.If a black guy is beating on another black guy and calls him the N-word, is that a hate crime? I would think not. Personally, I don't think this accomplishes all that much, and is really just a political ploy to gain favor with certain groups. I don't think it's going to have terrible side effects, but I could be wrong. Only time will tell. The law says absolutely nothing about the race (or any other characteristic) of the accused or the victim. So quit trying to claim that it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Nothing wrong with that. It is human nature.I know a lot of people who identify themselves as conservatives, but are liberal on one issue (the one that affects them, and they really, really understand). Orrin Hatch - conservative who supports stem cell research (he has a child with genetic issues). Sandra Day O'Connor - conservative except on women's issues (faced discrimination early in her law career). Dick Cheney - conservative, but not on gay issues (gay daughter). And so on. So you think laws should reflect human nature? A action is right or wrong irregardless of any external influences Hate crime laws are biased by default and are pandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 So you'd be in favor of repealing the law against Murder, since the difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent? And in your opinion, there's no legal difference between terrorists and other criminals? Since, again, the only thing that makes them terrorists is their motives? The repeal murder argument doesn't work because the argument isn't if one meant to commit that crime, but why one committed that crime. It's not, "I only meant to hurt him, not kill him", it's, "I meant to kill him because he's one of those ____." I'm not really a fan of some hate crime legislation because punishing someone more for their belief (whether it's Wrong/Evil or not) seems like an infringement on what one is permitted to think/feel/believe. Of course, equating it to terrorism is a much stronger argument, and I'm not sure how, or even if I want, to mark the differences, if any; except to say that, perhaps they should be charged as terrorists, if that can be proven. Now, if the hate crime legislation only goes so far as permitting one's hatred for _____ as evidence against them into court, I'm just fine with that, as it goes to motive. But I'm not sure why that wouldn't be permitted already. I'm also uneasy about making this a federal issue; shouldn't a crime (or multiple crimes, committed by the same person) have to cross state lines before the Feds are allowed to get involved? I'm not sure about this, I'm asking. I'll also say that I'm a little uneasy about charging someone for a hate crime if all that can be proven is that they used slurs during some altercation. If it's a bunch of morons that all got together and sought out someone that is a ____, jumped them and called them _____, then, yeah, sounds like the victim's ____ness was an issue there. But if I'm collateral damage in a bar fight, get knocked out and called a [bundle of sticks], I don't think I should be able to charge the person that assaulted me with a hate crime as well as assault. It wasn't really the reason I got my ass handed to me, it was just all the moron could come up with as an insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 hate crimes punish thoughts. Murder is murder whether you did it because you don't like the guy or because you don't like his color. Hate crimes are when you prosecute based on someone's thoughts. I can't back any law legislating thought crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Exactly...if I kill you in a attempt to save someone else does that excuse my action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The law says absolutely nothing about the race (or any other characteristic) of the accused or the victim. So quit trying to claim that it does. I'm not trying to claim anything. I'm asking a question. The whole point of the law is to add additional punishment based on characteristics of both the accused and the victim, as well as the motive. Are you saying that prosecutors are going to be completely blind to those characteristics when trying to determine the motive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Hate crime laws are a great idea because a hate crime is a bigger crime than a regular crime. If you think otherwise I really don't think you are thinking much at all. The difference is simple, if there is a murder in a community people are shocked and come together. If there is a hate crime people are enraged and driven apart. The effects of hate crimes on a community are far greater than those of ordinary crimes. They dig up the ghosts of the past and breed distrust and anger between neighbors. The fall out is incomparable to that of a regular crime. The reason I now oppose hate crime legislation entirely is that district attorneys simply can't be trusted to ever uphold the spirit of a law. The laws are written to increase the punishment on crimes of hate. However if a black guy and a jew get in a fight over a girl at a bar and either one of them mentions "black" or "jew" during the fight we have a hate crime charge. I can't stand that. There is a difference between words and motive and hate crime laws are applied via technicalities unjustly to increase penalties severely. Not only are people incarcerated for longer than they should be neighborhoods are told there is violent hatred happening when that is simply not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I keep remembering a 60 Minutes piece I saw, a decade or more ago. The subject of the piece was a special unit that had been established in the Houston PD, to deal with hate crimes against gays. (The term hadn't been invented yet, but that's what they were after.) For a bit of perspective here,I was rolling in the Westheimer area before the police finally got concerned. Back then I'd rather fight than ****,and nobody hurt my friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky72 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Hate crime laws are a great idea because a hate crime is a bigger crime than a regular crime. If you think otherwise I really don't think you are thinking much at all. The difference is simple, if there is a murder in a community people are shocked and come together. If there is a hate crime people are enraged and driven apart. The effects of hate crimes on a community are far greater than those of ordinary crimes. They dig up the ghosts of the past and breed distrust and anger between neighbors. The fall out is incomparable to that of a regular crime. It isn't illegal to shock communities, isn't illegal to dig up ghosts of the past, isn't illegal to breed distrust and anger between neighbors, isn't illegal to cause greater fallout. If the justification for it is to protect society from fallout, then people like Fred Phelps and the KKK should be prosecuted simply for "hate". (they shouldn't, and neither should hate crimes) I agree with PokerPacker--hate crime is thought crime. Let's say a normal murder gives 15 years, and a murder with the hate crime addition gets 20 years. That's five years for "hate". Do we give people five years for just hate? It's ridiculous, I vehementaly oppose all hate crime legislation. I do agree that as long as it does exist it should apply to all minorities (and actually everyone), and the precedent for extending it to homosexuals is wonderful for being a landmark other gay-rights stuff can build off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The difference is simple, if there is a murder in a community people are shocked and come together. If there is a hate crime people are enraged and driven apart. Its not nearly this simple. What pulls a community together in the face of a crime is that one of "us" has been attacked. There are several groups within our geographical boundaries that we don't identify as "us". When one of "those people" are violated, it heighten the pre-existing divisions within the community regardless of the attacker. If the attacker was from the same in-grouping, that group tends to feel both remorse and shame while the other groups tend to feel superior. If the crime is perpetrated across group boundaries, the knee jerk assumption will almost always be that the attack happened because one group hated the other. In both cases, its the pre-existing sense of "us" sets the narrative long before the facts of the case are known. So, what pulls us together or pushes us apart isn't a hate crime, it is hate that exists between the community groups before the crime ever occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I hate hate crime legislation. Crime is crime Seems like away around double jeopardy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Usually I'm on the side of crime = crime and hate is a silly thing to add to it. But I've got to admit that LJS has made me think on it some more. What bothers me most about this bill is that it was another sneaky approach used by attaching it to a defense bill. Bills should never be allowed to be attached to something unrelated just to get them passed. If its a good bill, it should pass on its own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 It isn't illegal to shock communities, isn't illegal to dig up ghosts of the past, isn't illegal to breed distrust and anger between neighbors, isn't illegal to cause greater fallout. Actually you seem to be confused because the reason we are having this discussion is because it is illegal. Also the motive for a crime has damn near ALWAYS mattered. Ever notice that if you murder someone in a fit of emotion without planning it, the charge isn't the same as if you did plan it and meant to murder them? You know why? Because motive is part of any crime and it greatly influences the punishment society attaches to your actions. This is no different. It's also the reason terrorism is separated from other crimes that may involve the exact same actions. It is not a punishment on thought or any other ridiculous cop out. I promise you that if you hate your gay neighbor not one government agent will kick in your door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Its not nearly this simple. I disagree with your entire point here. I've seen hate speech and hate crimes breed distrust where their was none. I've seen families of immigrants that would speak wonders about the US and how amazing American people are change their tune after some ******* assaults their family member while telling him American's don't want their kind here. These people didn't hate or distrust their community until a member of it decided to reach out and violate them and point out their difference as the main reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Des since motive already matters why the need for the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Des since motive already matters why the need for the law? Again, I do not support these laws because of the way they will be misused. Your question however is strange, the need for the law is obvious, this aspect of motive was not previously singled out. Also for the sake of consistency why aren't you people arguing for terrorism to be treated the exact same way as the crimes they are committing while engaging in terrorism? Where are the chants of thought crime? What does it matter why they plan to bomb a subway or down an airplane? Those are both crimes right? Are we going to argue that "all crimes terrorize" now as well to avoid the "thought police" tag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Again, I do not support these laws because of the way they will be misused. Your question however is strange, the need for the law is obvious, this aspect of motive was not previously singled out. Also for the sake of consistency why aren't you people arguing for terrorism to be treated the exact same way as the crimes they are committing while engaging in terrorism? Where are the chants of thought crime? What does it matter why they plan to bomb a subway or down an airplane? Those are both crimes right? Are we going to argue that "all crimes terrorize" now as well to avoid the "thought police" tag? Are we now gonna have a War on Hate to go with the WOT and WOD's? Terrorism is addressed as a national threat,do hate crimes reach that standard? The only redeeming part to the Hate crime law is the federal involvement,which is also the most troubling;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Des has done a great job on this issue over the years making me rethink my position. I still oppose any hate crime legislation, but not because I have issue with legislating thoughts. My opposition is that I dont know how we can adequately and fairly decide which crimes are actual hate crimes and which one are not. It leaves too much room to make a simple case into a massive media created cultural circus. I also think this will be a handy campaign point for the GOP in moderate districts next fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Hate crime laws are biased by default and are pandering. And yet you refuse to provide any evidence of this, or to even come out and make the statement that you're trying to imply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 A action is right or wrong irregardless of any external influences I suppose you mean that it is wrong to commit murder, assault, etc., regardless of the reasons why one commits such crimes? If so, you must disagree with existing law which already looks to the criminal's motivations. For example, if you kill your wife because you find her cheating on you and are simply in the "heat of the moment," you will likely receive a less severe sentence than if you kill her simply for insurance money. Or, if you dissect an animal in the name of science, you will not be prosecuted for animal cruelty. If, however, you disembowel a cat because you want to hear it scream, you are likely going to have to stand before a judge. Similarly, not all assaults are created equal. For example, suppose that I am in a bar wearing a Redskins hat and a Cowboys fan starts talking a lot of trash. I am a little tipsy and so I pop the guy in the face. Now that's criminal. However, it's nowhere near as bad as driving to a town, finding a gay bar, and beating up a gay guy simply because you don't like his sexual orientation. You apparently disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.