The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: Zakk on September 12, 2005, 01:03:50 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm
This kind of crap has me riled probably as much as the American gun troubles rile you guys. I've studied Islam a bit at University, and a lot of it centered on the prophet mohammed. Let's just say that if you don't know about mohammed, you should google him some time, and then see if you would want to follow a religion based upon his 'rather unique view of the world'.
I'd like to hear some other opinions on this, but I can't see why we need to add ANYTHING muslim or Islam to our laws and/or Constitution. I feel we've got everything covered pretty well, and none of our kids are convinced that they'll get 12 virgins if they blow themselves up. Am I way off?
I think this whole post would be considered blasphemy in Islam (mohammed's teachings don't hold up very well to any kind of scrutiny, so it's a sin punishable by death to even question them). :-\
-
With the sense of entitlement people have here in the US, they expect thingsfrom the gov't far less likely than 12 virgins.
-
Without even reading your post.
Yes.
-
I also feel that babystabbers are bad. F them.
I'll bring the whole thing full circle right now:
They're just like the Nazis.
-
I'm a firm believer in the separation of church & state so I'm not sure I even understand the rationale behind allowing religious groups to have their own justice systems. There should be one justice system that applies to the entire nation IMO. This is the first I've heard about this particular aspect of Canadian law, so I very well may be missing something.
-S
-
If I commit a crime with a harsh penalty in one religion, can I then convert to another religion that carries a lesser penalty?
Religion is manufactured, you cannot base law on it.
-
You're criticising aspects of a religion rather than a race. So no you're not being racist. Unfortunately race relations organisations often fail to make this distinction.
I'm astonished to hear that in Canada Jews can settle their civil disputes in a religious court. Is that true? And if so how does it work? For example can a Jew sue a non-Jew and insist the trial takes place in a religious court?
-
Unfortunately race relations organisations often fail to make this distinction.
They don't fail, they purposely ignore it. It is in the organization's best interests for there to be a racial issue, so they make sure that there is one. Racial discimination cries by organizations are often no more than bully tactics to get something from whoever is being decried.
-
Included in the people being bullied by those playing the race card here are all the christian, atheist, bhudist, jewish, agnostic, mormon, hindu and jedi asians and middle easterners. It ain't a race issue.
-
Actually in the Netherlands they are finally cracking down on a extremist christian political party. Women cannot become a full member in this party. They are considered lesser beings. So it's not just muslim parties. Finally they justice department has decided that they are discriminating so they won't get state funding anymore.
Pim Fortuyn (our killed would be prime minister) called the muslim religion (or culture) "backward" because in some areas it resembles the christian culture of 50 years ago (ie women oppression). He got a lot of heat for that from the left wing politicians (actually he used a word that could also be interpreted as "retarded"). Unfortunately he's now dead (killed by an animal rights freak).
-
For sure... any organization that would exclude hot chicks should be banned.
-
Yes. Very much so.
You guys should have put up a stink against having religious courts, now the floodgates are open.
btw, your college professor is a moron. Muhammad deserves no more criticism than Jesus. In fact (ironically), while christianity rejects Muhammad, Islam does not reject Jesus... and if your teacher said anything about Muhammad wanting kids to strap bombs to themselves, then they shouldn't be teaching. Muhammad actually turned people away from the belief in many gods to the belief in one. He also unified the area politically, socially, and economically. He also insisted on "civilized" warfare and would not have endorsed sucide bombers anymore than Jesus would have.
-
It's not racist at all to support that EVERYONE be held to the same, generally agreed-upon laws.
That is how a TRULY colorblind society should function.
That's why I was against the "Penalties for shooting lawyers should be worse than shooting the average citizen" law they tried (or may have successfully) passed in California, in the wake of a law office shooting.
I am against the "drug-free" zones we have up here in the Northwest, where it's worse for drug dealers to sell within "x" feet of a school, or public park.
The guy either WAS, or was NOT selling drugs--sentence him accordingly.
I am against ALL of the "hate crime" laws.
Killing is killing is killing.
It either WAS justified, or it was NOT justified.
If it was NOT justified, then it should be dealt with the exact same degree--regardless of WHO got killed, or WHY they got killed.
If it was an accident, it's manslaughter.
If it was intentional, it's murder....PERIOD.
Getting back to the topic at hand, my thought is that, if you like the law elsewhere so much, you have two choices:
1) Lobby to change the law for EVERYONE where you are currently living.
2) GO BACK THERE!!!!!!
Changing the law for "some" people is assinine.
Following that logic, how long will it be before it's OK for "aryan" whites to kill "non-whites" because it's "part of their religion", and they have to be tried in "aryan" courts?
Bet that would send shivers down the spine of the people supporting Sharia law, Jewish law, and African law up there.
I bet there's a few "displaced" Klansmen from New Orleans that would LOVE to move up there, if you passed that law.
Trying my best to NOT sound like Forrest Gump here, my Mom taught me that there are two kinds of people in the world.
There are people that ARE Manually Censored, and people that are NOT Manually Censored.
The color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their education, their occupation, etc... are all non-factors.
It is their ACTIONS that tell the story of who they are.
-
The article in question is misleading and out of date.
The attempted introduction of Sharia was an end-run around an Ontario arbitration law (14 years old) that allowed binding decisions to be made based on religious law in the matters of family (e.g. divorce and custody) if both parties agreed. Any decisions were subject to the charter of rights and freedoms and the greater legal system.
All debates, discussion and arguments aside, the Ontario govenment has already announced that it will "prevent the use of religious law to settle divorce and custody disputes in a binding fashion."
Cheers.
EDIT for typo and clarification -- I was against the law when it passed and am glad to see it being struck down.
-
Yes.
-
No apology needed, I'm not Muslim.
You can't expect non-biased information in the page you linked to. It's title is: "Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part I". It's like quoting Aleister Crowley on the importance of monogomy. ;)
btw, Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet. Same with Muhammad (Whom they believe was the last "true prophet" sent by god to clarify what the others had not). PHD or not, the guy left out some pretty important information that can be found in any encyclopedia. I'd check to see what online university he got his degree from.
-
True true, it was just the first page that came up that kind of demonstrated what I was talking about (well, to the extreme).
I just wonder how forgiving they would be if things were reversed. Say I wanted to go to Pakistan and start a yearly halloween dance in public schools (since they have had all references to Halloween banned in our schools), and ban the Islamic prayers (since I don't want my kids exposed to it, for example). How would that go over?
I guess it comes down to: I don't think the religion in the middle east is working well for them, and I don't want that, and the resulting conflicts, to come here. I don't mind the people at all, even though I like the 'westernized' second generations much better (like girls/women who don't have to wear jawa outfits). That's why I don't think it's really a matter of race for me. It's not appearance or color of skin, it's the culure shock that does me in. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go play Xbox with my neighbor mohammed mohammed mohammed smith. ;D
-
That religion works just as well as Judism in Israel. They have their suicide bombers too. It's not the people or the religions that are scary, it's all these nuts running around. We've got them, they've got them, everyone has them.
-
I am against ALL of the "hate crime" laws.
Killing is killing is killing.
It either WAS justified, or it was NOT justified.
If it was NOT justified, then it should be dealt with the exact same degree--regardless of WHO got killed, or WHY they got killed.
If it was an accident, it's manslaughter.
If it was intentional, it's murder....PERIOD.
I disagree. If criminal law were concerned with the actual victim, instead of viewing the crime as it victimizes society as a whole, maybe. All things being equal one victim's life should be worth roughly the same as another's. But hate crimes are more than that.
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. There was a "reasonable" motive, aside from, "you are alive, and the only way to fix that is by making you dead." Hate crimes also lend themselves to mob mentality, and stimulates oppression in general on huge portions of society. 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, or in a family dispute, or because some crazy lady thinks that god told her to drown her five kids, you hear about it, you think, "jesus, that's horrible," and you go on with your life. 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. 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.
If hate crimes are a bigger drain on society than their non-hate counterparts, they should be treated as such, just like grand theft is treated more severely than petty theft. It's not lust a matter of stealing is stealing is stealing, chop off the hand.
-
All crimes are hate crimes.
When the clerk at the gas station is shot during the robbery, is that not a crime of existance? Was the clerk not shot simply because they existed?
Motive should be absolutely irrelavent.
And how does one determine if a crime is a hate crime?
I might go off killing Korean people because I hate them. Or I could go off killing Korean people because I love Korean people and want to make myself a Korean person suit.
I personally think both motives are terrible, actually the second one might even be worse.
What if I love gay people, but tie some gay high schooler to a post and beat him to death because I don't like HIM.
What if I try to drive my black neighbor out of the neighborhood, not because he is black, but because he has a barking dog that never shuts up?
I'm sorry, I just can't see how the motive effects how terrible the crime is.
And truthfully, how many VIOLENT crimes TRULY have hatred of a race or culture as their primary motivation? Very few.
-
Actually, he was a PHD, and hardly a moron.
-
Actually, he was a PHD, and hardly a moron.
I know several people with Doctorate degrees. They are some of the dumbest people I know. They have no concept of what it takes to work, produce, and survive in real society because they have spent their entire lives in the artificial reality of a University. No common sense whatsoever.
Very intelligent, hard working, dumb people.
I agree. There are several PHDs where I work. They're just scatterbrained dingalings who happened to have the financial backing to stay in school for a ridiculous amount of time. I wouldn't trust any of them enough to take my dog for a walk.
-S
-
Actually, he was a PHD, and hardly a moron.
-
Hey, I didn't hire the guy ;)
I also didn't ask him to change my alternator. The whole class was theory, so by definition he should have been fine to teach it. It was some kind of history class, and what it attempted to do was take 'god' out of religion and look at the historical 'facts' behind religious beliefs/myths. It was pretty interesting really, I think it went into things like people who thought they had found eden or noah's ark, etc etc. Of course, it was more than 10 years ago, and I don't even know what mark I got in it.
I also don't know why I'm defending PHD's ;D However, I disagree with Chads (inevitable) black and white view on it. I will agree that some of them are 'booksmart idiots', but there are some of them who are very intelligent, in theory and application. I might as well say "I know a Chad, and all chads are close minded, negative windbags". :P
Doctors do the same thing you know, stay in school for rediculous amounts of time, and many of them are 'booksmart'. Who would you trust to remove that tumour in your brain, your street-savvy mechanic, or maybe the guy you buy your weed from...he's a man of the world.
-
I might as well say "I know a Chad, and all chads are close minded, negative windbags".
-
I might as well say "I know a Chad, and all chads are close minded, negative windbags".
-
That joke sucked when it was new.
-
That joke sucked when it was new.
ahhh!
I almost forgot to mention that most, or pehaps only ONE is just a drunken f
-
Dude, are you on ritalin?
-
Dude, are you on ritalin?
-
Creepy.
-
All crimes are hate crimes.
When the clerk at the gas station is shot during the robbery, is that not a crime of existance? Was the clerk not shot simply because they existed?
::) No, he was shot because he was standing between the robber and the money. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The killer might become best friends with the cashier if they'd met under different circumstances.
And how does one determine if a crime is a hate crime?
This ain't rocket science. Look it up in the damned dictionary. It's not like a hate crime is some kind of bizarre, abstract concept.
Hate Crime: A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group
I might go off killing Korean people because I hate them. Or I could go off killing Korean people because I love Korean people and want to make myself a Korean person suit.
Paige, you're equivocating on two distinct meanings of love/hate. It may simply be from inexperience with rhetoric and/or formal logic, but if you actually understand what you're doing cut it out. I love Indian cuisine. I love my wife. That doesn't mean that I would like to eat my wife. Words have multiple meanings. You don't get to just pick and choose the meaning your going to go with in any given context. Let me give you an example that might make what I'm saying more clear:
If thomas gives Marie a ring, then Thomas and Marie will be engaged. Thomas did give Marie a ring. In fact, he phoned her just the other night. Therefore, Thomas and Marie are engaged.
You can't just switch between word meanings in the middle of your argument.
What if I love gay people, but tie some gay high schooler to a post and beat him to death because I don't like HIM.
What if I try to drive my black neighbor out of the neighborhood, not because he is black, but because he has a barking dog that never shuts up?
::) Then it's not a hate crime, is it? Please refer to the definition of a hate crime. 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.
I'm sorry, I just can't see how the motive effects how terrible the crime is.
American law has always considered a person's state of mind in determining the severity of a crime. If a wife walks in on her husband and his mistress, and in a fit of rage grabs a knife sitting on the bedside table and stabs them to death she gets second degree murder. If, on the other hand, a wife knows that her husband will be with his mistress, so plants the knife on the bedside table earlier in the day and goes in and performs exactly the same murders in exactly the same way, it's first degree murder. It's called malice aforethought. The act of murder was identical in both cases, but the punishment is worse for one because of the killer's state of mind while doing the killing.
This doesn't just apply to murder. If I get caught with a half ounce of weed I'm going to be charged with posession. If I get caught with a half pound of weed I'm going to be charged with posession with intent to sell. The latter carries a much more severe penalty, even though I haven't actually sold any weed yet.
And truthfully, how many VIOLENT crimes TRULY have hatred of a race or culture as their primary motivation? Very few.
::) So? How often is genocide attempted? Should we just let genocide go because it's rare?
edit: had to fix some quote tags.
-
Drew, I owe you an apology for my last post. :P
-
::)
-
Agreed. I replace my example with bank robbery.
edit: Re-reading your post I get the impression that you might have misunderstood my reference to genocide. I was giving it as an example of a crime that doesn't happen very often, not as an example of a hate crime. Still, bank robbery works.
-
I didn't misunderstand it. I used it as a chance to mock you.
You have been mocked.
Mocky, mocky.
-
My bad.
-
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.
-
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.
You're driving down the street and a black pedestrian walks out in front of your car, you try to stop, but you hit him, he dies.
You're driving down the street and a black pedestrian walks out in front of your car, you stop pull over, tie him to the back of your car and drag him a couple of miles, he dies.
If you don't understand why the second one is worse, I won't be able to explain it to you.
-
That is a foolish example.
One is an accident.
One is a malicious and brutal murder.
-
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.
-
WTF??? It's a little late for a cop-out Paige, I already changed it to bank robbery.
-
There were different reasons for killing the guy.
-
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.
-
There were different reasons for killing the guy.
-
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.
-
In fact, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT can bring criminal charges.
-
Not comparable.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
This THREAD , like so many others , TEETERS on the brink of Post Hell !
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=excuse)
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...
-
Drew, I owe you an apology for my last post. :P
I was gonna read it, but it was so long I...... ;) ;D
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.
-
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.
-
I am hereby banning all posts related to Race, Religion, Politics, and Free Ipods. :police:
The Bac0n can stay.
-
I am hereby banning all posts related to Race, Religion, Politics, and Free Ipods. :police:
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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. :police:
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. :'(
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
Just remember, my life is worth more than all of yours put together.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So what you're afraid of is gay vigilantes.
-
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.... ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well...it's state by state, but it's not like I'm saying nobody has hate crime legislation but should. The system I'm describing is already in place, "functioning", all over the country. I am simply in favor of it and explaining why I think hate crimes differ from, and should therefore be punished differently than non-hate crimes.
And yes, if I try to prove that you did something in court and fail to prove it I would certainly hope that you would not receive a sentence for that.
My answer to your inevitable response to the above:
I am aware that some people guilty of hate-crime would have received the same sentence even if the crime did not have a hate component. I just don't give a ---auto-censored---.
-
So you would agree with me that:
1) In a state with NO hate crime legislation in place, it is only necessary to prove guilt of the actual crime in order to get the maximum sentence allowed by law?
2) In a state with NO hate crime legislation, once guilt of the actual crime is proven, the DA need only show that it is LIKELY that you committed the given crime with a hate motive, and are therefore more likely to reoffend, in order to gain a stiffer sentence from the judge?
3) In a state that HAS hate crime legislation they can STILL get the maximum penalty for a non-hate crime by only proving guilt, the exact same as the above?
4) In a state that HAS hate crime legislation, if they choose to put the person on trial for the hate crime component they must prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" during the trial, rather than proving that it is "likely" during the sentencing phase?
5) In a state that HAS hate crime legislation, if you attempt to prove the hate component, and fail, that person MUST get a lesser sentence for the same crime he could have received the maximum for, if you had NOT tried to prove the hate component?
If you can give me yes/no to the above, I think this has pretty much played itself out.
-
No, I don't agree with you, because hate-crime legislation makes the law view a crime with the hate component as more severe. Therefore they increase the maximum penalty for the crime. So, if the maximum penalty for assault with a deadly weapon is five years in prison, the maximum for assault with a deadly weapon in a hate crime might be 10 years in prison. They aren't going to lower current maximum to make room for hate-crime penalties. What weird logic that swims around in that head of yours.
So, if there is NO hate crime legislation, the maximum sentence is lower than it is WITH hate crime legislation. And as with EVERY component of the crime, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, according to a jury. Sometimes a jury might believe that a crime was "hate" motivated even, when it wasn't. But that's the system we have....jury of your peers. And these aren't just my wild and idealistic ideas about how hate crime legislation could work. It is how it DOES work.
A person convicted of a non-hate crime can only get the same maximum penalty as a hate crime if we are talking about the maximum penalty being the absolute maximum available, life in prison or death. Or, of course, if we're talking about two completely different crimes. Obviously a non-hate murder will be punished more severely than a hate-based property crime.
And yes. In a state that has hate crime legislation, if you cannot prove the hate component the person cannot be given the extended penalty. What's your big issue with this? Is that not reasonable? You know when you're watching A Few Good Men and the jury reads the verdic....something like, "On the charge of murder in the first degree we find the defendents....not guilty. On the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer we find the defendents....guilty." It's perfectly normal for a person to be found guilty for only some of the charges brought against them. If the prosecutor can't prove guilt, the defendent should be found not guilty. We are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if we ARE guilty, we should be found innocent if it can't be proven.
The hate crime legislation does not make non-hate crime get a lesser punishment than they would have without the hate crime legislation. In the example above the maximum penalty for a an assault was 10 years before hate crime legislation and it was ten years after hate crime legislation. The hate crime legislation raised the maximum penalty for some of those criminals. It did not reduce the maximum for any of them.
Your number 5 above is being deceptive when it uses the word "lesser". If the prosecutor is unable to prove the hate crime component the criminal can be given the EXACT SAME maximum penalty that they could be given if the hate crime legislation did not even exist.
Would you like it in math terms?
Assault Maximum (10 years) + Hate (5 years) = 15 years maximum
Assault Maximum (10 years) +Failure to prove hate (0 years) = 10 years maximum
Assault Maximum (10 years) + No hate crime legislation (0 years) = 10 years maximum
Criminals do not serve less than the maximum if hate isn't proven. They simply don't serve time for a crime they did not commit. If we cannot prove that they did it, the law says they didn't do it.
-
OK, I think I now finally understand your position on this--yeah!!!
You are proposing that we have an EXTRA sentence for the hate part, in addition to the actual sentence.
You kept arguing that the hate crime should get the maximum sentence, but didn't need the hate component proven to get the maximum sentence if the crime were bad enough, and that a non-hate crime could still get the maximum sentence if IT was bad enough.
That's where you were throwing me.
Do you see where I was having a problem understanding that now?
Our positions on this aren't THAT far apart, but there are a few differences I would like to point out.
1) You think that there should be a NEW law, that the defendant must be PROVEN guilty of violating, to get the additional sentence.
I think the maximum sentences should be raised across the board; allowing judges, at minimum, to sentence whomever they feel deserves it to the higher sentence.
I would LIKE to see this changed to have absolute sentences for the crime committed, but know the likelihood of that occurring is minimal.
2) Your system requires us to prove that there is a 99% probability (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the perpetrator committed his crime with hate as a motive.
You admit that we can't ever know the true motive, so any "proof" of guilt will be at best an educated guess, based on how the jury "feels" about the defendant.
My system requires no such proof to get the new higher sentence.
If the judge believes that the circumstances of the crime warrant the new higher maximum, he can issue it--based only on guilt of the actual crime.
I know you all will miss this thread, but I've finally gotten what I wanted out of it.
Thanks for your patience Shmokes.
I really wasn't TRYING to be a pain in the butt.
I WANTED to understand your thought process, and think I do now.
Here's likely my parting shot on this subject, now that I THINK I finally understand the position that you hold on it.
According to your sentencing guidelines above for the assault case:
1) Someone who was proven to have targeted a black guy for the assault would face a MAXIMUM of 15 years. (10 for the assault + 5 for the hate crime).
The same guy, under my system, would face the 15 year maximum regardless of circumstance.
2) Suppose the same guy was just mad, had a baseball bat, and a black guy happened to be the one unlucky enough to encounter him.
This guy would face 10 years maximum under your system, but could still get 15 under mine.
If providing comfort and security to the black community when one of their own comes under attack, and protecting society, are the goals of the hate crime legislation, it falls short in the random violence arena.
I hold that anyone who would viciously and randomly attack someone for just being there, regardless of race/religion/etc..., is JUST as much a threat to society as someone that would specifically target someone from a given community.
This crime will also create the exact same fear within the black community, as it would if the person had targetted a black person.
Therefore this crime should garner the absolute maximum penalty allowed, if that penalty is to be higher for targeting a specific member of the community.
Your system would not allow this.
-
You kept arguing that the hate crime should get the maximum sentence, but didn't need the hate component proven to get the maximum sentence if the crime were bad enough, and that a non-hate crime could still get the maximum sentence if IT was bad enough.
That's where you were throwing me.
Do you see where I was having a problem understanding that now?
I don't think I kept arguing that. Actually, I don't mean to split hairs here, but I don't think I said that even one time.
And my system allows exactly what your saying. We would just raise the maximum for assault to 15 years, and the maximum for assault in a hate crime would be 20.
In fact, anything you say plus 1.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm
This kind of crap has me riled probably as much as the American gun troubles rile you guys.
-
We would just raise the maximum for assault to 15 years, and the maximum for assault in a hate crime would be 20.
So you hold that, if a white guy randomly assaults a black guy in the park with a baseball bat, he should only face the maximum for assault under your system?
The terror he has inflicted on the black community with the crime should have no relevance in the charges brought against him, or in the sentence he receives if proven guilty?
-
No, I think he should be convicted of arson too. You know...just to give him more years.
-
Isn't the whole idea of hate crime laws putting the focus on what are becoming more and more isolated incidents in western countries? Not to mention the fact that it is almost impossible to prove, and the sheer idea borders on thoughtcrime.
More food for thought.
What if I hate vietnamese people, and I beat one of them with a baseball bat, not actually because he is vietnamese, but because he owes me money?
What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?
Are minority burglars, carjackers, scam artists, or beggars who specifically target white people subject to these laws? I know when I was layed over in the bus station in Chicago (overnight), I was approached by no less than 6 different people who tried to get money from me in various ways. I watched them, they slowly wandered from one white person to the next until they exhausted all of them, and then they sat down, ignoring all the black people in the terminal.
-
A black guy looked at me funny once.
I was dressed like a clown.
-
Isn't the whole idea of hate crime laws putting the focus on what are becoming more and more isolated incidents in western countries? Not to mention the fact that it is almost impossible to prove, and the sheer idea borders on thoughtcrime.
More food for thought.
What if I hate vietnamese people, and I beat one of them with a baseball bat, not actually because he is vietnamese, but because he owes me money?
What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?
Are minority burglars, carjackers, scam artists, or beggars who specifically target white people subject to these laws? I know when I was layed over in the bus station in Chicago (overnight), I was approached by no less than 6 different people who tried to get money from me in various ways. I watched them, they slowly wandered from one white person to the next until they exhausted all of them, and then they sat down, ignoring all the black people in the terminal.
For christ's sake. Enough with the what if questions that you already know the answers to.
The first one...it's not a hate crime, though you may be mistakenly charged and convicted of a hate crime because the investigation turns up all your journals that you talk about planning to start attacking vietnamese people cos you hate them so bad. Maybe that was just venting that you never intended to act on, but tough break. The system let you down.
#2 Maybe you'll be charged with a hate crime. Quit targeting protected classes (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) moron.
For specifics you'll have to check with your state. 44 states have hate crime laws and there are a lot of differences. Sexual orientation is only protected in about half of states' hate crime laws. I don't know if hate-crime can be attached to any law, such as burglary. Maybe it can in some states and not in others. But if a black person is assaulting or murdering white people out of racism than yes, hate-crime would apply. It doesn't only protect minorities (though in practice that is nearly all it does as hate-crimes disproportionately target minorities)
-
A black guy looked at me funny once.
I was dressed like a clown.
Shmokes, you never addressed my point.
Why are you ducking me? :P
-
Pfft :P Ya say ONE THING about him taking a bath like a nancy and he's all touchy and stuff.
;)
-
A black guy looked at me funny once.
I was dressed like a clown.
He should have killed you. All clowns should be murdered.
-
Don't bother with Drew. His life is already over. His boss, wife, and mom are all the same person.
-
OK, I give up--you can be Drew's retard.
Now we are supposed to USE public opinion/reaction to a crime as the entire basis to tell us which crimes ARE hate crimes, and thus deserving of stiffer penalties--EXCEPT when YOU decide they are NOT hate crimes, we are just supposed to just ignore that same public opinion/reaction, and let them all suffer in terror.....OMG!!!
Do you, or do you NOT, care how these "terrorized" people feel?
You said before that you "didn't give a @#$#@ if people got away with hate crimes that we couldn't prove against them".
That would lead me to believe that RESULTS are not really as important to you as the EFFORT.
If you DO care about these people, why would you not support using the most efficient means possible to give them back their sense of security in society?
If NOT, what is your REAL reason for supporting hate crime legislation?
-
You ask questions as if you expect answers. Silly rabbit.
-
I was really playing devil's advocate this whole time to teach all the poor BYOAC sheep how to think for themselves. I truly encourage hate crimes.
-
Since, well, you know, you are so much wiser and more intelligent than everyone else here.
-
That last post was tongue-in-cheek mimicking one of NBA's posts in the other retarded thread.
-
I agree about the retarded tongue in cheek. Well said.
-
Thanks. I thought of it myself.
-
What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?
See topic title. ;)
In my 'hood... no such thing exists. White/Green/Blue/Black/Clear... doesn't matter. Property values are through the roof and it doesn't matter who lives where. I don't think a C.H.U.D. family would have any effect. If there was an area that had lower property values, people would climb over each other to get "the discount" and drive the price right back up. In the city "slum", it'll cost you $200k+ to have a house between a brothel and a crack den.
-
That is the case in my town, too. Wouldn't matter as anyone who could afford a house wouldn't abuse it and take the property values down. There aren't many nonwhites in my tiny town and most of the black folks here play for the Patriots.
-
OK, I give up--you can be Drew's retard.
Don't be so fast to give up....I haven't even shown you my short bus yet.
Will this change your mind?
-
it'll cost you $200k+ to have a house between a brothel and a crack den.
Well I should hope so. That's a lot of convenience!!!
-
A black guy looked at me funny once.
I was dressed like a clown.
how was your day, honey?
terrible. some clown tried to kill me!
-
What if I send threats to minorities in my neighborhood not because I actually hate them, but because I dislike the effect they have on my property values?
See topic title.
-
I wonder how many people in this country understand the difference between racism and racial discrimination.
Racism is natural and part of recognizing the difference between yourself and another individual. Any decison based on race can be called racism and is not in and of itself always a bad thing. Mentioning that someone is black, when you are not, should be no different than mentioning that they are blonde and you are not. It's a simple observation.
Racial discrimination is the decision that an individual is somehow inferior to yourself on the basis of their race differing from your own. This is where the problem comes in.
-
That's not true. Racism refers specifically to the belief that one race is superior to another.
-
Not always.
Say I'm a barber. I see a white guy and a black guy in the waiting chairs. I am aware that I will need to use different methods to cut each of their hair. This is a racist conclusion.
Is it discriminatory?
The main problem our society has moving forward are the competitive notions of a homogenous society (you're not allowed to mention race) vs the constant call for diversity. How exactly are people supposed to ignore race while at the same time being sensitive to cultural differences? If a man being black is of no relevance, how can I be sensitive to his race's history and culture? Not many people are or will ever be intelligent enough to find a reasonable balance there if one even exists.
So, when people become confused. When people are confused they get defensive and often angry. How does Joe White deal with those Hispanics in that state of mind? Unpredictable but rarely positive.
-
Just looked up racism in the dictionary. You're right, it is actually listed as a synonym for racial discrimination. That, right there, is a major part of the problem. We don't even have a term for decisions based on race that are not discriminatory in nature, meaning that 90% of our population never considers that basic concept.
-
We don't even have a term for decisions based on race that are not discriminatory in nature, meaning that 90% of our population never considers that basic concept.
thats because it's not necessarily a decision based on race. its a matter of pragmatism. to use your example above, what is the barber considering? not the colour of the customers skin, but the type of hair. it wouldnt matter what colour the customer is if they have kinky hair. now i once went to a barber who turned over the cushion i was about to sit on because an aboriginal had just sat on it. THAT is racsist...
-
If my example is not based on race, but on hair, then yours is based on height, not on race.
The closest our language can come to what I was talking about is prejudice, which again is such a hot button topic that no one wants to touch it. Few people understand it and most just shut down their brain when such a topic comes up.
I'll give an example. I am prejudiced against stupid people. Black, white, yellow, whatever, I dislike all stupid people for the same reason.
-
Prejudiced is pre-judging, you can't judge a stupid person before you meet them, they need to earn the right to be called stupid.
I am prejudiced against fat people.
-
prej
-
We may need, or even already have a word for what you're talking about, but the word racism differs from racial discrimination in important ways. A racist person can go his whole life without ever racially discriminating. I think of racism as something one is, and racial discrimination as something one does. One is used as an adjective, e.g., our racist president, or describes a class, e.g., our president is a racist ---maternal-smurf---. The other is usually used as a verb, e.g., "our president racially discriminates as a general rule."
To help keep things straight I've constructed the following sentence that should be committed to memory and recited on a daily basis -- hey, maybe it could replace our unconstitutional pledge in classrooms:
Our racist president is a racist ---maternal-smurf--- who racially discriminates as a general rule.
:P
-
...aaaaaaaaaand the thread takes the usual turn into Bush bashing.
We all agree that the guy's a total turd, but do we have to crap up every thread with it?
-
Lighten up.....
-
A person who types is a typist, so Bush can't be a racist.
He won't be racing again, because Bush WON!!!... twice.
-
Chad remember recently when I referred to something you posted as the least funny joke in the history of mankind? I owe you an apology.
-
No you don't... at the time it may have been. It is no longer.
-
Lighten up.....
-
Lighten up.....
Racist! We can't all be white!
-
Lighten up.....
Racist!
-
Can a mod remove that picture. It's discusting.
-
Yeah, but...um.....I don't want him to be lumped in with "us" :-[
-
If my example is not based on race, but on hair, then yours is based on height, not on race.
If you're talking about MY example, WHAT are you talking about? How could the fact that my barber turned over a cushion so i wouldn't sit on the same side as the last customer who was aboriginal, be about height?
-
Barber booster seats are usually higher on one side than the other. Anyone who has brought a small boy to the barber would have seen that.
-
Barber booster seats are usually higher on one side than the other.
-
I wonder how many people in this country understand the difference between racism and racial discrimination.
Racism is natural and part of recognizing the difference between yourself and another individual.
-
is that like if you have a flat tyre all you have to do is turn it around so the flat bit is at the top? i guess im going to have to spell it out. it wasn't a booster seat, it was just a thin cushion thingo like you might use in a car. It doesn't matter which side you turn it, it will still be the same height. When the previous customer left (who was about the same height as me and not a small boy), the barber looked at me, screwed up his nose and made a deal out of turning the cushion over...
Just give up your dumb analogy. It doesn't work. There aren't any barbers in an Aboriginal tribe.
-
I am not racist.
-
That's where pointing comes in.
They keep telling me THAT's not polite either, but it has its uses.
You point at the kid, and say "You, in the red shirt".
That way all the OTHER kids in the red shirts know you're not talking to them.
-
is that like if you have a flat tyre all you have to do is turn it around so the flat bit is at the top? i guess im going to have to spell it out. it wasn't a booster seat, it was just a thin cushion thingo like you might use in a car. It doesn't matter which side you turn it, it will still be the same height. When the previous customer left (who was about the same height as me and not a small boy), the barber looked at me, screwed up his nose and made a deal out of turning the cushion over...
Just give up your dumb analogy.