I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...

[shmokes]

No, I wouldn't.

There is no way that increasing the burden of proof necessary to get a maximum sentence would ever make sense to me--regardless of my skin color.

If you have a maximum sentence for murder of the death penalty, you should not have to PROVE that the guy that killed me is guilty, AND that I was killed because of my skin color, to get it.

What kind of nonsense is this?  Here you go again (actually, I think this one you just genuinely hadn't thought through).

NBA, nobody is suggesting that we...god I laugh just thinking about it...nobody is suggesting that we make hate a requirement for maximum penalty.  WTF?  Nobody is even suggesting that hate crimes should always receive the maximum penalty allowed.  You think I want people put to death or sent to prison for the rest of their lives for burning a cross or throwing a brick through a window?

If it is a hate crime it should be given a more severe penalty.  If the crime itself already garners the  most severe penalty allowed, well, that's fine.  I'm not going to complain that the Ted Bundy got the same penalty as Timothy McVeigh even though McVeigh killed way more people. 

Do you really interpret the things we say like this, or are you deliberately setting up strawmen because you have no faith in your position?

[DrewKaree]

I want to read what you have to say, but it's the longest post in the history of mankind

I see I have work to do.  What's the word limit per post?

[NoOne=NBA=]

Without quoting anything from you because you seem not to like that, tell me where my logic falters.

1) You claim you want more severe penalties for hate crimes.
2) You claim that the hate component is not necessary for the maximum sentence in a given crime.
3) You claim that hate crimes may not even receive the maximum sentence.

If you sentence ANYONE in a hate crime case to less than ANYONE in a non-hate crime case, you've completely destroyed anything you set out to accomplish.

If the hate component is not necessary for a maximum sentence, then you can't give stiffer penalties for having it.

That's exactly the system we have now.


To put it in math terms, for those that are more math inclined:

X = non-hate crime sentence
Y = hate crime sentence
Z = maximum sentence

Hypothesis X < Y

If X <= Z
And Y <= Z

For X = Z
Y <= X

THEREFORE: X is NOT < Y


If you were arguing mandatory sentencing guidelines, like I am, you'd have a defensible argument.
As it stands, you don't really HAVE a position.

I have full faith in my position on this.
Please by all means try to find holes in it.

[NoOne=NBA=]

I will even restate my position to make it easier for you.

1) I hold that there should be no "additional" sentence for the same crime just because it has a hate element to it.
This excludes cross-burning and "note on a brick" crimes because these are not simple vandalism; and are, in fact, covered by our current menacing laws.

2) I hold that there are only three types of homicide.
There is intentional homicide, which is murder.
There is accidental homicide, which is manslaughter.
There is justifiable homicide, which requires defense of life or limb.

3) I hold that crime should be judged on the INTENT, not the success.
If you TRY to kill someone, you should be tried as if the attempt had succeeded--not judged on your degree of success.

4) I hold that there should be absolute sentences for each crime, and that only guilt should need be proven to achieve that sentence.
This will prevent prejudice on the part of our judges in sentencing violent criminals.

5) I hold that there should be no parole.

6) I hold that our prisoners should have to live in the same conditions in which we make our sailors live.
3 to a bunk in shifts, stacked so tight they can't sit up without banging their heads on the bunk above them.
8-hour shifts/7 days a week to maintain their facilities, etc...

I think that's about it.
Where are the holes in it?

[Bones]

There comes a time when men must acknowledge that although we all have good points worthy of consideration, there will be times when we can never agree.

[shmokes]

To put it in math terms, for those that are more math inclined:

X = non-hate crime sentence
Y = hate crime sentence
Z = maximum sentence

Hypothesis X < Y

If X <= Z
And Y <= Z

For X = Z
Y <= X

THEREFORE: X is NOT < Y


I have full faith in my position on this.
Please by all means try to find holes in it.

Thank you for your permission.  Don't mind if I do.

The biggest problem with your equation, aside from being written poorly, making it extremely difficult to understand what you're trying to say, is that your definitions for X and Y are absurdly broad.  X=non-hate crime.  Y=hate crime.  What does that mean?  Is X walking into an elementary school with an M-16 and opening up, while Y is keying the word nig.ger into the side of a black family's car?  It is not my contention that hate-crimes are always worse than non-hate crimes.

My contention is that all things being equal, the added hate component (and I mean hate as it is defined in the context of a hate crime) makes a crime worse.  It's perfectly manageable.  And if the two crimes are one person walks into an elementary school and opens fire because the person is a sick sociopath, while another person walks into an elementary school because it is an all-black school and they're trying to keep the little buggers from having a chance to reproduce to make more black kids, well they're both just going to qualify for the maximum penalty.  That's the tricky thing about a maximum.  You can't go above it.  It's kinda like if there's an afterlife the D.C. Sniper will probably be in Hell, but so will Hitler. 

Think of it in terms of financial aid for schools.  There's a maximum amount you can qualify for.  Let's say that a full grant of $4500/year plus unsubsidized loans of up to $3000 is the most you can get.  Let's say that any single person who makes less than $4000 per year can qualify for the full amount.  Do you see where I'm going with this?  A person who makes $2000 a year is worse off than a person who makes $3999 per year.  But they still only qualify for the maximum amount of financial aid.  I'm sorry that the person who is worse off can't get more help, but that's just the nature of a maximum.  The fact that they can't get more help, however, doesn't mean that making only $2000 per year isn't worse than making $3999 per year. 

Similarly, just because I can't give the mass murderer a stiffer sentence because of the hate component doesn't mean that the hate component was meaningless.  It simply means that he's already getting the maximum sentence, with or without the hate component.  Just like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Bundy shared the same fate.





....Well, I see that Bones has posted while I was typing this.  I agree with every word.  I think we've probably exhausted this.  We both know I'm right anyway.

[Grasshopper]

You hold that societal protection is the goal of punishment from what I am reading, correct?

I would certainly say that is the main goal but not the only goal.

Why do we need to punish the man who kills his wife in a jealous rage, if he's no longer a threat to society then?

Well for a start to deter any future men from murdering their wives in similar circumstances, and to send out a message that society doesn't regard such behaviour as acceptable.

If all acts of murder aren't equal, then all victims of murder must be worth differing amounts of punishment, correct?

Your statement seems to be based on the assumption that the only purpose of punishment is to gain revenge for what has been done to the victim and that each murder victim deserves an equal amount of revenge. I don't accept that assumption. I prefer to see a system of justice that places less emphasis on revenge and a greater emphasis on deterrence/societal protection. My primary concern (but not my only concern) would be to prevent future victims.

Based on the above, you believe that the killer's career, tax dollars, and family are more important than the victim's life was?
What about the Victim's career, the Victim's tax dollars, and the Victim's family?
Why are they worth less than the killer's?

Sounds like I've been served a strawman here. I simply didn't say that. I certainly wouldn't base someone's sentence on their future earnings capability, or indeed the lost earnings capability of the victim. I was simply making a general point that punishment incurs a cost to society as a whole, which is pretty obvious really. Therefore there is a downside to the superficially attractive idea of giving everyone the "maximum" punishment (whatever that may be) for any given crime.You may think the upside of this policy justifies the downside but I don't.

[ChadTower]

Where is the autocensor when we need it?  Why can we get censored on bacon but not strawman?

[shmokes]

I agree.  It irritates me when I have to waste time and space identifying straw men.  It would be nice, indeed, if NBA would stop making wild claims about what his opponents are saying.

[ChadTower]

It would be nicer if people would stop referring to other posters as opponents.

[Stingray]

It would be nicer still if everyone who reads this thread FedExed me a beer.

-S

[ChadTower]

A guy I went to college with was arrested for sending people coke via FedEx.

[Stingray]

I didn't know that it was illegal to ship Coca-Cola. Must be some kind of Pepsi-led conspiracy.

-S

[Bones]

Pepsi sux. Ohh yeah, I work for Coca-Cola, I have to say that.

[DarkKobold]

I'm addicted to Pepsi, in all reality.

I hope it isn't punishable by death, as a hate crime against Coca-Cola.

[shmokes]

He didn't say Coca-Cola, mind you.  Maybe there is a very good reason the guy was arrested.   

[Stingray]

Perhaps I should have labled that post as a joke.

-S

[ChadTower]

There was a damn good reason, but he never went to jail for it.  He was put in jail before that one went to trial for a road rage incident.

[shmokes]

I actually really thought Chad was talking about the soft drink...

[ChadTower]

I wasn't.

[NoOne=NBA=]

I agree.  It irritates me when I have to waste time and space identifying straw men.  It would be nice, indeed, if NBA would stop making wild claims about what his opponents are saying.

Shmokes,

If you are going to be a lawyer, you need to realize that words have meanings, and those meanings may be contrary to your intended position.

Saying that you want stiffer penalties for an identical crime with a hate component MEANS that you want lesser penalties for an identical crime without the hate component.
You can try to explain it away with "that's not what I SAID", but any other conclusion invalidates your original argument.

If you MEAN that you want stiffer penalties across the board, or advocate mandatory sentencing guidelines, you should SAY so--rather than hiding behind the "feel-good" claim that you want hate crime legislation.
As it stands, your position is completely contradicting, and indefensible.


I would really like you to think about the following, and tell me how you consolidate it in your mind into a single rational position.

1) You are lobbying for stiffer penalties for identical hate crimes, than for the same crime with no hate element.

2) The current maximum penalty for a non-hate related murder is death (in most states).

3) You hold that the death penalty should be abolished because it is ineffective as a deterrent, and is prone to error.

4) If the current penalty for the above guy, shooting the black kids at school, is death (in most states), how can you rationalize the claim that you want stiffer penalties, while still arguing that the current maximum sentence is too harsh for that same individual (in most states)?

[ChadTower]

I object to council's statement that words have meanings and I move that it be stricken from this thread.

[Stingray]

I object to council's statement that words have meanings and I move that it be stricken from this thread.

Sustained.

-S

[shmokes]

God, how classic it would be if suddenly a line of NBA's post was replaced with "Removed by moderator"?

[NoOne=NBA=]

I will even restate my position to make it easier for you.

1) I hold that there should be no "additional" sentence for the same crime just because it has a hate element to it.
This excludes cross-burning and "note on a brick" crimes because these are not simple vandalism; and are, in fact, covered by our current menacing laws.

2) I hold that there are only three types of homicide.
There is intentional homicide, which is murder.
There is accidental homicide, which is manslaughter.
There is justifiable homicide, which requires defense of life or limb.

3) I hold that crime should be judged on the INTENT, not the success.
If you TRY to kill someone, you should be tried as if the attempt had succeeded--not judged on your degree of success.

4) I hold that there should be absolute sentences for each crime, and that only guilt should need be proven to achieve that sentence.
This will prevent prejudice on the part of our judges in sentencing violent criminals.

5) I hold that there should be no parole.

6) I hold that our prisoners should have to live in the same conditions in which we make our sailors live.
3 to a bunk in shifts, stacked so tight they can't sit up without banging their heads on the bunk above them.
8-hour shifts/7 days a week to maintain their facilities, etc...

I think that's about it.
Where are the holes in it?

Still waiting for the holes to be poked.

[NoOne=NBA=]

I would really like you to think about the following, and tell me how you consolidate it in your mind into a single rational position.

1) You are lobbying for stiffer penalties for identical hate crimes, than for the same crime with no hate element.

2) The current maximum penalty for a non-hate related murder is death (in most states).

3) You hold that the death penalty should be abolished because it is ineffective as a deterrent, and is prone to error.

4) If the current penalty for the above guy, shooting the black kids at school, is death (in most states), how can you rationalize the claim that you want stiffer penalties, while still arguing that the current maximum sentence is too harsh for that same individual (in most states)?

And still waiting for an answer to this.

[DrewKaree]

Now, I'm one of those sick freaks who actually enjoy reading your ongoing debate here, but I was toodling around the 'net and found this pic.  I INSTANTLY thought of this thread even though I think this is good reading.

Have I given enough disclaimers about liking this thread (and others like it, btw)?  Yes?  Are you sure?  Ok.  Here for your enjoyment:

[Bones]

 

[shmokes]

I would really like you to think about the following, and tell me how you consolidate it in your mind into a single rational position.

1) You are lobbying for stiffer penalties for identical hate crimes, than for the same crime with no hate element.

2) The current maximum penalty for a non-hate related murder is death (in most states).

3) You hold that the death penalty should be abolished because it is ineffective as a deterrent, and is prone to error.

4) If the current penalty for the above guy, shooting the black kids at school, is death (in most states), how can you rationalize the claim that you want stiffer penalties, while still arguing that the current maximum sentence is too harsh for that same individual (in most states)?

And still waiting for an answer to this.

No you're not.  You are waiting for me to answer it again.  There's a limit to how many times I'm willing to answer the same question in a single thread.  If anybody else has a question for me about any of those things I'll be happy to answer.  For you, jesus, wtf is the use?  I give you financial aid, elementary school shootings, burden of proof and god knows how many more. 

I don't think you're dumb, NBA.  But I think you pretend to be in order to keep arguments going. 

[Grasshopper]

NoOne=NBA=, if I understand correctly you're saying that all victims of murder should be worth the same amount of punishment. Is that correct?

If it is then let us suppose that the fixed penalty for murder under your system is life imprisonment. It could if you prefer be execution as that doesn't affect the point I'm making.

Let us also suppose that someone kills two people and is successfully convicted for both murders. The courts can't give the perpetrator a longer sentence than life imprisonment. It simply wouldn't make sense unless you are able somehow to artificially prolong his lifespan just for the purposes of imprisoning him. So the victims' families will only have received half of the standard revenge each, and basically they'll feel cheated (assuming of course they share your philosophy). Your simplistic system cannot provide "fairness" (according to your philosophy) in this situation. So how do you deal with that?

OK, it's a dumb question but it's similar to the point you keep putting to smokes.

[NoOne=NBA=]

I don't think you're dumb, NBA.  But I think you pretend to be in order to keep arguments going. 

I'm not playing dumb here.


I'm trying really hard, but CANNOT understand how someone can:

1) SAY they want stiffer penalties, with the goal of comforting the community of the victim.
2) ACT toward softening the current maximum penalties for the SAME crime.
3) Want to enact legislation that would require a higher standard of proof to obtain the same sentence.
4) Believe that they are not contradicting themself.

I judge people on their actions; and, as such, believe that these methods are in direct opposition to the stated goals--yet you keep insisting that they are not, and that they make perfect sense to you.
I'm trying to understand how you put this together in your mind to create a single cohesive stance on crime, and just don't get it.

If this makes sense to anyone else please chime in on it.
Is there a LOGICAL way in which someone can truly believe that they are not working AGAINST themself, while at the same time believing/working for the above?

If so, can you please explain it to me in plain English?

[NoOne=NBA=]

NoOne=NBA=, if I understand correctly you're saying that all victims of murder should be worth the same amount of punishment. Is that correct?

Not exactly.

I agree with Shmokes that the victim should play no part in the punishment.
Punishment is there for the protection of society....period.
If you decide one day to intentionally kill another human being, under whatever circumstance, I have absolutely no place in my society for you--EVER AGAIN.

This excludes justifiable homicide where you intentionally decide to kill someone to protect the life/limb of yourself, or another.

To me it is like owning a dog.
If that dog bites you, or someone else, there is no way that you can EVER trust that dog again.
If you know the dog has bitten, and is therefore a potential future threat, you are criminally/civilly liable for any further bites.

As a society, we have an obligation to protect our members from these potential threats.
If we are going to allow these predators back into society, we are the ones that will suffer from our own stupidity.

So the victims' families will only have received half of the standard revenge each, and basically they'll feel cheated (assuming of course they share your philosophy). Your simplistic system cannot provide "fairness" (according to your philosophy) in this situation.

Again, it's not about repayment to the family, revenge for the victim, or even "fairness"--it's about protecting society.
We need to remove the predatory scum from our society.
That will give EVERYONE, including others who fit the victim's profile, a sense that society is doing it's utmost to protect them.

The "fairness" in my system is that EVERYONE would receive the same penalty for committing the same crime--regardless of HOW they did it, WHY they did it, or WHOM they did it to.
There would be no arguing that the white guy got a lesser sentence than the black guy, who got a lesser sentence than the Jew, etc....
There would be no questions regarding why the white guy that killed the black guy got less time than the black guy who killed the white guy.

As it sits, sentencing is usually up to the whim of the judge involved.
There are guidelines, but they are very liberal in what CAN be handed down.
I would like to take that right out of the hands of judges, and put it in the hands of the people.
If the people in a given area decide that execution is the just penalty for murder--so be it.
If they decide that life without parole is just--so be it.
If they decide that 10 years is just--so be it, but don't make ME move there.
THEY are the ones that have to live in that particular society, and should be the ones to decide how safe they want that society to be.

[shmokes]

2) ACT toward softening the current maximum penalties for the SAME crime.

Okay...I'll respond to this.  Your confusion with 3 and 4 stems from your confusion with 2.

Hate crime legislation does not reduce a single maximum sentence for any crime.  It doesn't increase the burden of proof for any crime.  Anything that would have got you the death penalty before hate crime legislation will get you it after hate crime legislation.

Hate crime legislation only increases penalties for some people and leaves it the same for everyone else.  It doesn't reduce the penalty for anybody.  It doesn't make it more difficult to get the maximum penalty for anybody.  If someone is convicted of a hate crime they get either a higher or the same (sometimes in the case of death or life in prison) penalty they would have got without it.  If they are not convicted of the hate component they get the same penalty they would have got if the hate crime legislation didn't exist.

[Grasshopper]

...

Again, it's not about repayment to the family, revenge for the victim, or even "fairness"--it's about protecting society.
...

Heh, you appear to have have shifted your position slightly, or perhaps I simply misunderstood your response to one of my earlier posts, but whatever.

You've ducked the point I was making which is simply that under most sentencing systems including yours, and regardless of whether or not you allow for a possible death sentence, there will always be a maximum sentence, and there will always be situations where it seems appropriate to give the perpetrator more than the maximum sentence. I only brought this up because you used this fact to try and undermine smokes position that hate crimes should receive stiffer sentences than ordinary crimes. Anyway smokes has pretty much nailed down that issue so I'll leave it at that.

I do have two questions for you though. Is your idea that everyone should get a fixed penalty for committing a crime only applicable to murder or does it apply to all crimes? Also, what would be the mechanism for determining what people in a particular area consider to be an appropriate sentence? Would you for example put it to the vote and then take an average or what?

[ChadTower]

You've ducked... you just don't get it... I'll answer AGAIN... you're inconsistent with the verbage used in previous postings on the same subject... you're flip flopping... you didn't change your underpants.

[NoOne=NBA=]

See Shmokes?

Your last post says that hate crime legislation doesn't "increase the burden of proof for any crime", but doesn't clarify that you are viewing the hate element as a SEPARATE crime.

You go on to say that it "INCREASES the penalties for some people and leaves it the same for everyone else", not that it provides an ADDITIONAL penalty to some people.

Then you say that "it doesn't make it more difficult to get the maximum penalty for anybody", again without clarifying that you mean there will be an additional penalty for the hate component.

Then you say that "if someone is convicted of a hate crime, they get either a higher or the same penalty".
My problem understanding this was that there would be no HIGHER penalty to give if you view the hate component as PART of the original crime.

Had you not focused so heavily on murder and property crimes, I think I would have made the connection earlier.
Hate crime legislation is basically worthless in both those instances.
Murder already garners the maximum penalty to can inflict on someone, and menacing covers the rest; and, just like you can't charge someone for Murder AND Assault, you can't charge them with Vandalism AND Menacing.


Now that I understand your position, based on your response in the other thread, your position makes more sense to me.

I still think it is flawed, based on it's failure to address random acts of violence, and that addressing the hate component of the crime during sentencing would make it much simpler to the RESULTS you are desiring, but at least I finally understand it.

[shmokes]

You go on to say that it "INCREASES the penalties for some people and leaves it the same for everyone else", not that it provides an ADDITIONAL penalty to some people.

Am I the only one here scratching his head?

Murder already garners the maximum penalty

Murder garners the minimum penalty, plust whatever the judge or jury gives him.  Not every murderer is put to death, or even sentenced to death in a death penalty state.  Not every murderer gets life in prison in a non-death penalty state.  Everything I've been saying applies as much to property and murder as it does to assault.

 and, just like you can't charge someone for Murder AND Assault, you can't charge them with Vandalism AND Menacing.

Yes you can, and yes you can.

Your failure to understand my position on this isn't from my failure to be clear about it.  It was crystal to everyone else reading this abour four or five pages ago.  You don't understand my position because you get a preconceived notion in your head and refuse to listen to anyone after that.  You're constructing your rebuttal by the time you've read or heard the third word in someone else's argument.  Here's an exercise.  It'll take a while, but if you skip that one post of yours it should cut the time in half.  Now that you know my position, go back and read through the thread from the beginning.  Both threads actually.  See just how vague or ambiguous I was about my position. 

If you honestly didn't know my position, and I have my doubts, it was because you have a serious problem listening.  If you want to keep a wife for any length of time I suggest working on that.

[Bones]

Man are you dudes still going hard at it?

How much life have you lost due to this thread?

I demand the pair of you go and get laid RIGHT NOW!

[shmokes]

Man are you dudes still going hard at it?

Unfortunately...yes.

How much life have you lost due to this thread?

Hours, literally.  It's inexcusable.

I demand the pair of you go and get laid RIGHT NOW!

I'll see if my wife is still awake.  If not I'll have to shoot for the morning.  I hope it cures me of this thread, but I won't hold it against you if it doesn't.  It's a good idea regardless.

[NoOne=NBA=]

Heh, you appear to have have shifted your position slightly, or perhaps I simply misunderstood your response to one of my earlier posts, but whatever.

My responses were of the "If we assume that, then... what about this" variety.
I think that's where the confusion came in.
I was not stating that as MY position, but showing why I DIDN'T hold that opinion; and where I thought it would lead, if we adopted it as the basis for punishment.

There will always be situations where it seems appropriate to give the perpetrator more than the maximum sentence.

I don't agree with that.
The maximum is the MAXIMUM you can get for a particular crime.
You can get MULTIPLE sentences, in the case of lesser crimes, but each carries a mandated maximum.

In the case of the multiple murder you mentioned above, you COULD give them two life sentences if it makes you feel better about it--but that is a pointless exercise.
The truth of the situation is, that if he GETS life (or death in states that allow it), society is safe, and the "terror" associated with a hate crime has been abated as much as is possible by the fact that the individual involved will NEVER see life outside prison again.

I have also stated my position that we should try crimes based on the intent, not the success.
In the case of assault, it is my position that hitting someone in the legs with a baseball bat should be tried as assault; hitting them in the head should be tried as MURDER.
There is nobody in this world stupid enough to believe that you can hit someone in the head WITHOUT there being a good chance that you MIGHT kill them.
Therefore, if you DO hit someone in the head with a bat, the only logical conclusion to make as to what you MEANT to do, is that you MEANT to kill them and failed.

I don't want a bunch of inept "potential" killers running around society, any more than I want successful ones.

Is your idea that everyone should get a fixed penalty for committing a crime only applicable to murder or does it apply to all crimes?

I would LIKE to see a full overhaul of the current sentencing guidelines for every crime, to prevent bias from entering the equation.
Simple robbery would have a mandatory sentence, while armed robbery would have a higher sentence, etc...

Also, what would be the mechanism for determining what people in a particular area consider to be an appropriate sentence? Would you for example put it to the vote and then take an average or what?

The legislature in a given community is responsible for creating the laws, and should also be responsible for setting the penalties for violation.
They are diverse enough, in most areas, to ensure that the overall view of the community would be satisfied with regard to the severity of the crimes.