Am I being racist?

[paigeoliver]

Lets see, other than world war II (which was state sponsored), I am fairly sure genocides only happen in 3rd world countries. Someplace our western laws have absolutely nothing to do with.

[shmokes]

WTF???  It's a little late for a cop-out Paige, I already changed it to bank robbery.

[Dartful Dodger]

There were different reasons for killing the guy.

[ChadTower]

Lets see, other than world war II (which was state sponsored), I am fairly sure genocides only happen in 3rd world countries. Someplace our western laws have absolutely nothing to do with.

Yeah, all those Native Americans did pretty well once the Europeans shot them, destroyed their hunting pools, and gave them deadly diseases.

[ChadTower]

There were different reasons for killing the guy.

[shmokes]

Why is it worse to kill a particular member of society because of their skin color, than it is to kill the SAME person during a robbery?

The penalty should be the same--regardless of WHY you killed them.

I already explained this in detail, and then reiterated the explanation to Paige.

Criminal Law deals with crimes against society.  If a black guy who is killed in a hate crime and his family sues the killers in civil court, then there should be no difference.  The family's damages are exactly the same regardless of the motive.  They lost a family member and they're seek compensation, probably monetary compensation.  Again, that is civil law, not criminal law.

They are separate.  That's why OJ can be found not guilty, and then suid again in civil court and be ordered to pay damages.

Criminal law, again, deals with crimes against society.  In fact, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT can bring criminal charges.  I cannot sue you in criminal court.  I can't hire my own lawyer to bring criminal charges against you.  I can press charges at the police department and the district attorney will bring charges if he/she wants to.  The DA has pretty much 100% discretion on what cases to try. 

Criminal law is not concerned with making it right for the victim.  Had OJ been found guilty he would have been sentenced to prison or death, but the Goldmans and Browns would still have to take him to civil court to get any personal compensation.

Criminal justice punishes crimes because it hurts society when crimes are committed and we want to teach a perpetrator a lesson so he/she won't commit the crime again, as well as deter crimes from being committed in the first place with the threat of punishment.  The point isn't to punish the criminal for hurting the victim, per se.  It's for hurting society.

While you're right that the victim suffers pretty equally regardless of motive, the damage done to society as a whole by hate crimes is greater than that of otherwise identical crimes without that motive.  It is society's suffering, not the suffering of the individual victim, that is the concern of criminal law.

I'm not just mincing words.  It's pretty damned significant that we have two complete, non-overlapping justice systems in our country.  They are so non-overlapping, in fact, that double-jeopardy doesn't apply -- again, think OJ Simpson.  We do not consider a person to be tried for the same crime twice, even if that person is found not-guilty in the criminal trial and guilty in the civil trial.

The punishment for every crime is decided based on the severity of the damage it does to society.  A hate-crime murder does greater damage than another one.  Don't ask me to explain that damage, as I'll just repeat what I've already explained in earlier posts.

[ChadTower]

In fact, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT can bring criminal charges.

[Dartful Dodger]

Not comparable.

[ChadTower]

Unintentional vs intentional

Hitting a pedestrian by accident is unintentional and race is not a factor, nor is intent, because the killer didn't even mean to do kill anyone.

[shmokes]

Even if you don't think Dartful's comparison is legitimate, the whole F him he killed a baby thing illustrates it well.  A baby's life does not have greater worth than an adults.  And a baby is no more helpless than someone who gets shot in their sleep. 

So if killing is killing is killing, why the uproar? 

[NoOne=NBA=]

We can't force people to be tolerant of other

Yes we can.
That is EXACTLY what harassment/menacing laws are intended to do.
You don't have to LIKE the person, but you must TOLERATE them.

, but we can force them to think twice about committing a crime against another person, strictly on race.

Let me phrase this another way, and see if everyone's answers are the same.

Why should we EXCUSE the actions of the guy that kills the black bank teller to keep him from ID'ing him?
Is the teller's life worth less because the guy didn't HATE him?
How do you quantify that part that was played by hate if the guy did hate blacks?
Suppose that the guy DID hate black people in general, but that he still shot this particular black guy to keep him from ID'ing him.

It is my contention that telling the victim's family that "he wasn't worth enough to society for us to go for the maximum sentence against his killer" is going to be MUCH worse for society than having the same law apply equally to all.


Given my own preference, I would treat what is now 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, and Attempted Murder with equal severity.
Just because you FAILED to kill someone, doesn't mean that you didn't INTEND to kill them.
The attempt is just as terrible to me--despite the results.

We had a case in Oregon awhile back, where a group of teens got mad at a guy working a Christmas tree lot, and went back and hit him in the head with a baseball bat--causing severe brain damage.
They were tried on aggravated assault charges, which I thought was a complete travesty of justice.
There is no way you can convince me that they didn't know that hitting someone in the head with a bat MIGHT kill him.
My conclusion therefore is that they MEANT to kill him, and should be tried for murder.
The fact that they were too incompetent to actually complete the act should have no bearing on the severity of the charges.

In my book there are only THREE types of homicide.
There is MURDER. (You killed someone intentionally, or attempted to kill them intentionally).
There is MANSLAUGHTER. (You killed someone completely by accident, or through negligence).
There is JUSTIFIABLE. (You killed someone because you HAD to, to protect the life of another person--including yourself).

[shmokes]

Why should we EXCUSE the actions of the guy that kills the black bank teller to keep him from ID'ing him?.

I love how when you make ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- up that other people are saying so you can knock down the strawman, you don't even try to be subtle about it.  You actually put emphasis on it by putting the stuff that you're claiming that other people are saying, but in reality was pulled out of your ass, in caps.

That sort of thing makes my day.

[TheVengeance]

This THREAD , like so many others , TEETERS on the brink of Post Hell !

[Dartful Dodger]

Why should we EXCUSE the actions of the guy that kills the black bank teller to keep him from ID'ing him?
Is the teller's life worth less because the guy didn't HATE him?

Why should we excuse the actions of the guy that kills a black pedestrian because he couldn't predict the man was going to walk into the street.

Is the pedestrians life worth any less because the driver didn't hate him?

at the bottom of your post you state:
"In my book there are only THREE types of homicide."

Which means you understand what am saying, there are different reasons for killing and they should be treated differently.

[NoOne=NBA=]

I love how when you make ---auto-censored--- up that other people are saying so you can knock down the strawman, you don't even try to be subtle about it.

What did I make up?

Follow your own logic path.

You said "A hate-crime murder does greater damage than another one.  Don't ask me to explain that damage, as I'll just repeat what I've already explained in earlier posts.".

I disputed this by claiming that punishing any OTHER type of murder less severely does greater harm to society than this.


In your earlier posts, you said "If I loan you my rare sword in Everquest and you turn around and sell it on Ebay for $700, I might come over and stab you to death.  It was a crime of passion.

How so?
You DECIDED that you would kill me, then you came over, and actually did it.
That is premeditated murder.
It's not like we got in a fight at a bar, and you hit me with a bottle in the heat of the fight.
THAT would be manslaughter.

Then you said "There was a "reasonable" motive, aside from, 'you are alive, and the only way to fix that is by making you dead'."

Who decides what motive is "reasonable"?
That sounds every bit as unreasonable to me as killing someone because they are black.

Then you went on to say "When a person gets killed for being a cashier in the wrong place or for performing an abortion, or in a random act of violence....., you hear about it, you think, "jesus, that's horrible," and you go on with your life."

I do, but I bet there are THOUSANDS of cashiers, abortion doctors, and random citizens who might get killed that don't.
I don't happen to fit THAT profile, just like I don't fit the black profile.
To me it's just as horrible that ANY of them died.

Then you said "When a gay high school kid gets tied to a fense and beat to death with the butt end of a pistol, merely for existing, it plants fear into thousands of people.  He was killed WITH MOTIVE but, unlike most murders, that motive did not disappear with his death.  It applies to every other person like him who also are guilty of the crime of existence.  It's a death threat to millions of people."

I'm guessing there are MORE convience store clerks and bank tellers in this country than there are gays.
Hey, some of the bank tellers may BE gay--which would make them targets on TWO fronts.
So once a bank teller is killed, there are no more bank tellers that need to be worried?

Then you went on to say "When a cross is burned on someone's lawn or a brick is tossed through their window that says "nig.ger" it isn't a simple act of vandalism.  It contains an implicit threat, and contributes to hatred that oppresses millions of people, as well as the national economy."

You're right, it's not vandalism.
That's why we have menacing laws.

Then you say "Nobody is saying that given identical circumstances a white person killing a black person deserves a harsher punishment than a white person killing a white person.".

Who gets to determine what the killer's motives were?
If intentionally killing someone is bad, it should be EQUALLY as bad for everyone, regardless of the context.
Anything less requires someone to guess at the killers motives.
The only result of that is that some people's lives will be arbitrarily worth less than others because someone decides so.

EVERY murder terrifies the entire portion of society that identifies with the victim.
Making one group more important than another can have NO end, except to denigrate the value of whichever group is arbitrarily decided to be LESS important.

Your arguments to the contrary just don't hold water.

[shmokes]

What did I make up?

Definition of Excuse:

   1. To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.
   2. To make allowance for; overlook: Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience. See Synonyms at forgive.

In your earlier posts, you said "If I loan you my rare sword in Everquest and you turn around and sell it on Ebay for $700, I might come over and stab you to death.  It was a crime of passion.

How so?

Then you said "There was a "reasonable" motive, aside from, 'you are alive, and the only way to fix that is by making you dead'."

Who decides what motive is "reasonable"?
That sounds every bit as unreasonable to me as killing someone because they are black.

Because I worked hard for the sword.  You injured me and it pissed me off.  I was ---smurfing--- passionate about that sword.

In one case you did something that injured me.  You stole something that belonged to me and sold it.  In the other case you simply existed.  When I kill you for selling my sword you will never sell my sword again.  When I kill you for being black, well, I just didn't even put a dent in my problem.

I'm guessing there are MORE convience store clerks and bank tellers in this country than there are gays.
Hey, some of the bank tellers may BE gay--which would make them targets on TWO fronts.
So once a bank teller is killed, there are no more bank tellers that need to be worried?

Then you went on to say "When a cross is burned on someone's lawn or a brick is tossed through their window that says "nig.ger" it isn't a simple act of vandalism.  It contains an implicit threat, and contributes to hatred that oppresses millions of people, as well as the national economy."

You're right, it's not vandalism.
That's why we have menacing laws.

You're missing the point.  Cashiers aren't being killed for being cashiers.  They're being killed for loot.  In fact, if they were being targeted simply for being cashiers that would be considered serial killing, which would also be dealt with more severely than murder with a "reasonable" motive.

Who gets to determine what the killer's motives were?

  Who do you think?  Who else would do it besides the same entity that will decide every other aspect of the accused's guilt?  The Court. 

At this point I think you're just trying to ask me questions to death.  You figure I'll get so tired of filling in all the bloody quote tags that I'll just let the rest go...

[DrewKaree]

Drew, I owe you an apology for my last post.   

I was gonna read it, but it was so long I......

but what's this?  Wait a minute!  Get a load of this!

Why is it worse to kill a particular member of society because of their skin color, than it is to kill the SAME person during a robbery?

The penalty should be the same--regardless of WHY you killed them.

I already explained this in detail, and then reiterated the explanation to Paige.

Criminal Law deals with crimes against society. If a black guy who is killed in a hate crime and his family sues the killers in civil court, then there should be no difference. The family's damages are exactly the same regardless of the motive. They lost a family member and they're seek compensation, probably monetary compensation. Again, that is civil law, not criminal law.

They are separate. That's why OJ can be found not guilty, and then suid again in civil court and be ordered to pay damages.

Criminal law, again, deals with crimes against society. In fact, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT can bring criminal charges. I cannot sue you in criminal court. I can't hire my own lawyer to bring criminal charges against you. I can press charges at the police department and the district attorney will bring charges if he/she wants to. The DA has pretty much 100% discretion on what cases to try.

Criminal law is not concerned with making it right for the victim. Had OJ been found guilty he would have been sentenced to prison or death, but the Goldmans and Browns would still have to take him to civil court to get any personal compensation.

Criminal justice punishes crimes because it hurts society when crimes are committed and we want to teach a perpetrator a lesson so he/she won't commit the crime again, as well as deter crimes from being committed in the first place with the threat of punishment. The point isn't to punish the criminal for hurting the victim, per se. It's for hurting society.

While you're right that the victim suffers pretty equally regardless of motive, the damage done to society as a whole by hate crimes is greater than that of otherwise identical crimes without that motive. It is society's suffering, not the suffering of the individual victim, that is the concern of criminal law.

I'm not just mincing words. It's pretty damned significant that we have two complete, non-overlapping justice systems in our country. They are so non-overlapping, in fact, that double-jeopardy doesn't apply -- again, think OJ Simpson. We do not consider a person to be tried for the same crime twice, even if that person is found not-guilty in the criminal trial and guilty in the civil trial.

The punishment for every crime is decided based on the severity of the damage it does to society. A hate-crime murder does greater damage than another one. Don't ask me to explain that damage, as I'll just repeat what I've already explained in earlier posts.

I'm of the opinion that you in fact weren't sorry, but may or may not be ashamed of yourself.

Or something.

[NoOne=NBA=]

Definition of Excuse

I was using it in the number two form: to make allowance for.
Your system requires people to make allowances for the factors behind the crime, and further requires them to overlook the severity of the crime itself, in favor of getting into the mind of the killer.
My system requires proof of guilt....period.
You either DID, or did NOT intentionally kill that person.
I don't care WHY you did it, just THAT you did it.

In one case you did something that injured me.  You stole something that belonged to me and sold it.

Relating this back to the bank teller, how did he injure the killer prior to death?
There is no payback motive there, just like killing the black man for being black.
The fact that the bank teller had money that the killer wanted is irrelevant because the money didn't belong to the killer.

You're missing the point.  Cashiers aren't being killed for being cashiers.  They're being killed for loot.  In fact, if they were being targeted simply for being cashiers that would be considered serial killing, which would also be dealt with more severely than murder with a "reasonable" motive.

It's not that I am missing the point as much as disagreeing with the underlying principles to it.
You are saying that there are "reasonable" murders, that should be punished less severely than other murders.
I honestly don't see how intentionally killing the same person, under different circumstances, or in a different location, should be penalized LESS severely than if the circumstance were different.

That's the part of my argument I think you are missing.
I am saying that regardless of reason, regardless of color/religion/weight/disability, intentionally killing a person should have the same penalty--be that death, life in prison, double-amputation, blinding, whatever.

The ONLY way you can make the penalty more severe in one case is by giving the killer in that case the TRUE maximum, and giving another a lesser sentence.
Under my system, there would be no more severe penalty to give for a hate crime.
Under your system, there MUST be a lesser sentence to give to the guy that kills the bank teller, however.

At this point I think you're just trying to ask me questions to death.  You figure I'll get so tired of filling in all the bloody quote tags that I'll just let the rest go...

No, I'm really trying to understand your point of view because it makes absolutely no sense to me from my perspective, and experience.
Why would you want anyone, who committed a crime as horrible as murder, to get anything less than the maximum sentence allowed by law?

The main point of difference that I see is that for some reason you think there are reasons that it would be "not as bad" to intentionally kill another human being without imminent threat to life and limb.
To me there is absolutely no justification for killing another human being EXCEPT to protect life and limb; and I think that, if you do kill somebody, you should pay the absolute maximum for it.

[knuttz]

I am hereby banning all posts related to Race, Religion, Politics, and Free Ipods.

The Bac0n can stay.

[Stingray]

I am hereby banning all posts related to Race, Religion, Politics, and Free Ipods.

The Bac0n can stay.

I've tried and failed. I wish you better luck. Check threads with the word cheesecake in the title when you've had enough of politics.

-S

[DrewKaree]

I've tried and failed. I wish you better luck. Check threads with the word cheesecake in the title when you've had enough of politics.

-S

Is that a hard and fast rule, because I enjoy politics AND cheesecake, so I don't bother to wait until I've had enough of politics.  If I have to wait, I may miss the cheesecake, PLUS I also have offered some valuable contributions in the cheesecake threads, so YOU might be missing out.

Help me figure this one out.  You're the closest thing I have to a guidance counselor anymore....wait.....heeeeeyyyyyyyy!

[Crazy Cooter]

In summary (if I have this right)

CASE #1: A criminal kills a person for what they have (cashier = loot).
CASE #2: A criminal kills a person for who they are (hate crime).

Either way a person is dead.  I see Shmokes point that #2 has a greater perceived impact on "society".  But think of this: if a criminal kills a lesbian, it scares lesbians.  If a criminal kills a gas station cashier, doesn't that scare other cashiers as well?  I used the word "perceived" for a reason.  Society could just as easily start saying gas station cashiers can't get married  .  That would then classify #1 as a hate crime too.  It's all a matter of perception.  Maybe the criminal hated cashiers as much as some hate lesbians.  To the perp it was a hate crime even though we don't recognize it as such.  I think NoOne=NBA= is saying that instead of trying to decipher the motive for the crime, we should just punish the criminal for the intent of the crime.  And have the stiffest penalties possible.

[jbox]

It seems like the "against" people are not arguing against hate crime laws per se, but against someone found guilty ever being given anything less than the maximum penalty? In other words, that the circumstances of the event are not as relevant as the outcome of the event (to a point)? "Zero Tolerance" as it is called.   

What particular part of that process we argue about is just confusing the issue if that really is the case, since it just makes each side think the other side are bigots.   

[NoOne=NBA=]

I think NoOne=NBA= is saying that instead of trying to decipher the motive for the crime, we should just punish the criminal for the intent of the crime.  And have the stiffest penalties possible.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

That way EVERYONE gets the same sentence, so there can be no claims of racial bias, etc...
It also gives the victim's family, and those who identify with the victim's profile (same race, etc...), comfort in the fact that the guy "got what was coming to him".

[ChadTower]

It should be a combination of intent and consequences.  A man who murders another man, a victim with no children or wife, has killed a man and a son.  A man who murders a man who has kids and a wife has killed a man, a son, a husband, and a father, and the consequences for that are worse than the first scenario.

I'm not sure how that would be implemented legally, but the second murder has hurt a lot more people than the first one did.

[shmokes]

Luckily, living in Utah, I have access to the largest geneological library in the world.  So if I'm going to kill someone I will be able to guage how severe a sentence I am likely to get.

Chad, I don't remember what your postition is on this.  Do you agree that hate crime should be dealt with more severely?  Because your last post suggests to me that you should.  The victim is not a party to a criminal case (I mean, of course a murder victim isn't, but neither are his loved ones).  At most they might be called as witnesses if they were, actually witnesses.

The criminal justice system is not meant to compensate the victims of crimes.  It's meant to compensate society for crimes against society.  That's why criminal cases are things like California v. Greenwood, or Rummel v. Estel (Rummel being the district attorney, not the victim of Estel's crime).  For the victims to receive compensation they must bring a suit in civil court, where the extent of damage (did he leave behind a family, etc.) would be taken into account.

Many here seem stuck on, how is one black family going to feel if the person who murders their son/brother doesn't have the hate component successfully attached, when another person who committed a similar crime is convicted of a hate-crime.  The answer is that they'll feel that he should have had a more severe penalty.  But again, the criminal justice system isn't there to compensate the family.  If the wife of a murder victim didn't see anything or have any material evidence to offer the judge most likely won't allow her to even take the stand. 

Think of civil cases for a second against Ford Motor Company for the faulty tires that caused rollovers.  Let's say a stay-at-home father of four is suing because his wife, a succesful physician who brought in a salary of $180,000 per year, was killed when her Explorer rolled over.  Now, let's say another suit came from a 22 year-old girl who's husband of six months who was a shift supervisor at Target was recently killed in a similar rollover.  The two lives have reasonably equal face value.  But the damage done to the father was greater than the damage done to the young girl.  Both lost the person they love most in the world, which would be nearly unbareable.  But the father lost his livelihood and the means to support his children.  The father lost a $180,000 salary.  Ford Motor Company is going to be liable for that and will receive a harsher penalty, assuming negligence is proven.  They will have to pay out more to that guy than the young girl, not because we are assigning different values to different lives, but because the damage to the victim was greater in one case than in another.

It's the same in the criminal justice system, but in the criminal justice system, the victim is society, not the individual directly harmed in the course of the crime.  It's the reason we have menacing laws.  Because deliberate, targeted vandalism, while on its face is the same as any vandalism, does more harm than a random tag on the side of a building.  It's not a matter of, "Those are two different crimes, one is vandalism one is menacing."  They are only two different crimes because we have defined them that way, just as we define hate crimes as being worse than simply murder or vandalism, in spite of having the same face value as their non-hate counterparts.  When we punish a hate crime more severely than a non-hate crime we aren't assigning a value to the life of the direct victim of the crimes.  We are assigning a value to the damage done by those crimes to society. 

[NoOne=NBA=]

I'm not sure how that would be implemented legally, but the second murder has hurt a lot more people than the first one did.

But you're right back to saying that Person A is "worth less" than Person B, based solely on his marital status.

Suppose victim A was a single abortion doctor, killed because he's an abortion doctor; and victim B was a gas station attendant killed during a robbery.
Which should be punished more harshly then?
Maybe a single abortion doctor is worth the same as a married gas station attendant?
If the abortion doctor is white, and the gas station attendant is black, how does that affect the sentences?

I'm trying to show you what a slippery slope issue this is.
If we START trying to quantify the value of human lives, who is going to be worth the least?

[Crazy Cooter]

I'm trying to show you what a slippery slope issue this is.
If we START trying to quantify the value of human lives, who is going to be worth the least?

Slippery it is. - Yoda

[Dartful Dodger]

Just remember, my life is worth more than all of yours put together.

[ChadTower]

But you're right back to saying that Person A is "worth less" than Person B, based solely on his marital status.

That's not what I said.  I said that crime B has more victimst han crime A under this model.  I count as victims not only the dead guy, but the children who lost their father and the woman who lost her husband.

e.g.:
Crime A - 3 victims (parents, dead guy)
Crime B - 6 victims (parents, dead guy, wife, two children)

[NoOne=NBA=]

Shmokes,

You keep dodging the issue on this, by substituting family for community.

Your contention is that we need legislation that will classify hate crimes as inherently more damaging than non-hate crimes, and will demand stiffer penalties for them, the end goal being to give comfort to the people who fit the profile of the victim of a hate crime (his community), correct?

You also hold that the hate crime element is not necessary to get the maximum penalty you are willing to see given (life without parole, based on your other posts), correct?

If ANYONE can get the maximum penalty under the current system, how do you plan to change that to comfort the above targeted people if a person convicted of killing someone "just like them" receives LESS than the maximum sentence?


Case In Point

If I go out and kill a gay person during a mugging, without KNOWING that he's gay, and the gay community later learns that I have a history of hating gay people, how are they going to feel if the prosecution can't PROVE that I killed him because he was gay, and I don't get an "additional" sentence tacked on to make them feel better?

This is all a perception issue, and substance has nothing at all to do with your plan.
It doesn't matter why I really killed him, the perception in the gay community will be that I'm a gay-basher, and that this was a hate crime.
If it's not prosecuted AS a hate crime, because it WASN'T a hate crime, that won't make any difference to them, and your system will have failed to give them the comfort it was designed to.

[ChadTower]

If I go out and kill a gay person during a mugging, without KNOWING that he's gay, and the gay community later learns that I have a history of hating gay people, how are they going to feel if the prosecution can't PROVE that I killed him because he was gay, and I don't get an "additional" sentence tacked on to make them feel better?

Who cares how the gay community feels about it?  They are not victims in this case, they are spectators.  Law is not set up to make people happy.

[NoOne=NBA=]

I said that crime B has more victimst han crime A under this model.

So if we use number of victims as a measure for sentencing, we should be able to shoot homeless panhandlers, and get off relatively easy for it then?

How about teenage runaways?
Their parents don't actually know where they are, so they won't know that they died.

[ChadTower]

So if we use number of victims as a measure for sentencing, we should be able to shoot homeless panhandlers, and get off relatively easy for it then?

Well, there is still one victim, and the charge is still Murder.

[NoOne=NBA=]

Who cares how the gay community feels about it?  They are not victims in this case, they are spectators.  Law is not set up to make people happy.

The goal of punishment is to prevent similar behavior in the person committing the crime, and in others who would consider committing the same crime.

To that end, you must consider the perception of society in any sentence given.
If a given community sees that one of their own has been murdered, it immediately instills a fear that they may be next--thus they are victims of the terror associated with the actual crime.

[ChadTower]

So what you're afraid of is gay vigilantes.

[shmokes]

If ANYONE can get the maximum penalty under the current system, how do you plan to change that to comfort the above targeted people if a person convicted of killing someone "just like them" receives LESS than the maximum sentence?

Jesus tap dancing christ....is this deliberate?  For the last time, criminal law is not interested in comforting or compensating the direct victims of a crime.  THAT IS NOT ITS PURPOSE.  That's what Civil courts exist for.  The parties to a criminal proceeding are the state (petitioner) and the alleged criminal (respondent).  There is no such thing as a plaintiff in criminal law, because a citizen cannot bring a complaint to criminal court.  A direct victim cannot take someone to criminal court.  If the DA decides not to prosecute the guy who murdered your entire family, that's the end of it.  That guy doesn't go to prison, isn't put to death, doesn't pay a fine.  You have no recourse except to take him to Civil court, where you can collect damages from him (but cannot impose criminal punishments such as imprisonment or death).  Please for the love of god commit this to memory.  I think this is like the 453 time I've explained it to you.  I'm not making it up.  It's not a matter of opinion.  It's just a fact.  We do, in fact, have two court systems in as real a sense as we have two separate chambers of congress in D.C.

I am not substituting community for family.  The law has already made that substitution.  I did not create our system of law.  I have nothing to do with making two distinct, non-overlapping, parallel court systems in this country.  The difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that they exist, while you insist on blurring the line between them.[/i]

Of all the hard-headed, rattesnagen....sonofa....   

[NoOne=NBA=]

Shmokes,

You are missing the fact that I'm arguing on two fronts.

I'm fully agreeing with you that it is not the intent of law, nor the purpose of law, to compensate the victims of a crime.
My replies directly to you reflect this position.
I keep making "community-based" arguments, which you then answer with "family-based" rebuttals.

The other side of this is that I am pointing out to those who DO hold the compensation stance that it is impossible to achieve, by making them go FURTHER down that road of thought--agreeing with their supposition of compensation, for the sake of argument.
Unfortunately, those are the posts you keep answering, rather than the ones I am actually directing to you.

Please review my case in point above, and tell me how your system would achieve it's stated goals of providing comfort to the gay community for atrocities committed against a member of their community.

[shmokes]

Case In Point

If I go out and kill a gay person during a mugging, without KNOWING that he's gay, and the gay community later learns that I have a history of hating gay people, how are they going to feel if the prosecution can't PROVE that I killed him because he was gay, and I don't get an "additional" sentence tacked on to make them feel better?

This is all a perception issue, and substance has nothing at all to do with your plan.
It doesn't matter why I really killed him, the perception in the gay community will be that I'm a gay-basher, and that this was a hate crime.
If it's not prosecuted AS a hate crime, because it WASN'T a hate crime, that won't make any difference to them, and your system will have failed to give them the comfort it was designed to.

I've already addressed this.  There's nothing new about a burden of proof.  It rests on the accuser.  If the prosecutor doesn't believe he/she has enough evidence to go for a hate-crime legislation they won't go for it, in the same way that the same prosecutor might prosecute what he/she believes was a homicide as manslaughter because of a lack of concrete evidence.

Look, you think O.J. was guilty....or if not let's pretend you do.  So, by your logic we should not prosecute people for murder because how will Nicole Brown's family feel when they see other people convicted of murder, while Nicole's killer went free.

It's ridiculous.  If we can't pin a hate crime conviction on somebody who committed a hate crime, that really is too damned bad for us.  Lucky break for the criminal.  At least he'll still be punished the same as what any other criminal would get without the hate-crime component.  But just because one guy managed to weasel his way out of conviction doesn't mean we should not try to get the other ones.

[NoOne=NBA=]

Let's assume that they DO think there's enough evidence that it was a hate crime, and go for a hate crime conviction, but fail to prove the hate crime portion of their case because it wasn't there.

I MUST now get a lesser sentence than I would have gotten if they'd proven the hate crime portion of the crime, under your system, correct?

That is because there IS an additional burden of proof.

It is also because, for your system to function at all, the penalties for a hate crime MUST be higher than those for the same crime without the hate element.

Anything other than this is the current system that we have.