Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on May 11, 2009, 05:54:46 pm
-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Matthew_Shepard_killed_in_nonbias_robbery_Foxx_says.html
North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx is questioning whether the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old gay University of Wyoming student, was a bias attack motivated by his sexual orientation.
Shepard's mother Judy was in the gallery at the time, according to a senior Democratic aide.
The socially conservative Foxx, arguing against a new Democratic hate crimes bill that includes new protections for gays and lesbians, described the description of Shepard's murder as a anti-homosexual attack a "hoax" -- and questioned whether prior bias crime legislation should have been named after him.
...
She added: "This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.
Disgusting.
-
What. The ****?
-
I'm a little confused.... :confused:
-
The conservatives have really been losing their **** since the Democratic takeover. It's like the best miniseries ever.
-
This once was Abraham Lincoln 's party...
Ignorant Stupid Wench.
-
For ****'s sake, the defendants actually tried to use the "gay panic" defence in their trial. Thus admitting that the victim's homosexuality was a key factor in the death.
How anyone can claim that this was simply about a robbery is beyond me. :rolleyes:
-
So much for visiting the Outer Banks ever again, I might succumb to the temptation to beat some sense into its residents for electing such people.
Pity. It was a nice place.
The conservatives have really been losing their **** since the Democratic takeover. It's like the best miniseries ever.
It's sort of like The West Wing, only the cast is being portrayed as incompetent.
-
Even if this crime wasn't a hate crime, so what? Is Foxx really trying to claim that there are no attacks on gays and lesbians simply because of their sexual preferences?
-
Republican Party self-immolation in three...two...
-
Even if this crime wasn't a hate crime, so what? Is Foxx really trying to claim that there are no attacks on gays and lesbians simply because of their sexual preferences?
She probably thinks it's justified by the "Almighty" anyway
-
Maybe I'm the only one sitting here wondering why it matters.....
-
Maybe I'm the only one sitting here wondering why it matters.....
Why what matters?
-
Maybe I'm the only one sitting here wondering why it matters.....
Why what matters?
Honestly, why he was killed. It just gets under my skin a little when someone kills someone, it's just another murder, but when someone kills a "special" person,
OMIGOSH IT'S A HATE CRIME!
I just don't see the difference, both families lost a member, but one is much higher prioritized by society. Like this for instance.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who supports the hate crimes bill, stared in disbelief before answering a question about the statement.
"It's just sad the Republican caucus has been reduced such a fringe," she said. "It's sad they would go out of their way to prevent people from getting justice."
Ok, the two pieces of crap that killed this kid are in jail for the rest of their life, and more justice is needed? It just irks me a little. :doubt:
-
Ok, the two pieces of crap that killed this kid are in jail for the rest of their life, and more justice is needed? It just irks me a little. :doubt:
Because in 2007 alone there were 1400 reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm). Justice doesn't just mean ending it with the people who committed the original act, but ensuring it can never happen again.
-
The difference is intent. There is no such thing as a special person under hate crime legislation.
-
I don't understand why conservatives are so threatened by hate crimes legislation. I guess it's because that means more conservatives in prison longer...
-
Ok, the two pieces of crap that killed this kid are in jail for the rest of their life, and more justice is needed? It just irks me a little. :doubt:
Because in 2007 alone there were 1400 reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm). Justice doesn't just mean ending it with the people who committed the original act, but ensuring it can never happen again.
But how is that any more different than the untold number of assaults that were based on gender, age, and every other difference that wasn't just reported? If a guy hits another guy with glasses because he thinks the person is a geek is that a hate crime? I just don't see the difference. Hurting someone regardless of intent is still hurting someone.
Also tell me this, how is this "justice" gonna make sure it isn't gonna happen again? Murder has been illegal for how many years now and people are still killing each other?
-
It makes the punishment more severe. The thinking is that will deter it, but if not, at least they will get a higher minimum sentence. (To avoid the judges who are like "bah, the world needed less fags anyway.")
Intent does make a difference. It means the person thinks they were justified.
-
It makes the punishment more severe. The thinking is that will deter it, but if not, at least they will get a higher minimum sentence. (To avoid the judges who are like "bah, the world needed less fags anyway.")
Intent does make a difference. It means the person thinks they were justified.
Ok, now why? If a person kills someone, shouldn't it be just as bad, or are you saying there is a high and low? So if someone gets guilty of murder and gets 20 years, yet someone does a "hate crime" and does the exact same thing but gets life? So, the family of the first case has to deal with their loss being less important and the killer getting out much earlier? That makes no sense at all.
Intent does not make a difference. If you have the guts to kill someone, you would likely have at least some justification, like they cheated with your wife. Once again no difference.
-
Ok, now why? If a person kills someone, shouldn't it be just as bad, or are you saying there is a high and low? So if someone gets guilty of murder and gets 20 years, yet someone does a "hate crime" and does the exact same thing but gets life? So, the family of the first case has to deal with their loss being less important and the killer getting out much earlier? That makes no sense at all.
Intent does not make a difference. If you have the guts to kill someone, you would likely have at least some justification, like they cheated with your wife. Once again no difference.
We have differing levels of murder you know. Someone who kills someone in a drunk driving accident doesn't get the same sentence even though the family has to deal with the same loss.
-
Ok, now why? If a person kills someone, shouldn't it be just as bad, or are you saying there is a high and low? So if someone gets guilty of murder and gets 20 years, yet someone does a "hate crime" and does the exact same thing but gets life? So, the family of the first case has to deal with their loss being less important and the killer getting out much earlier? That makes no sense at all.
Intent does not make a difference. If you have the guts to kill someone, you would likely have at least some justification, like they cheated with your wife. Once again no difference.
We have differing levels of murder you know. Someone who kills someone in a drunk driving accident doesn't get the same sentence even though the family has to deal with the same loss.
Yes, that is true, not very right or fair though. But, at least in their defense, even though they were idiots of the highest degree, they still weren't out to kill anyone, thus had no intent.
-
Yea and the intent is to hurt someone because they are different (age/race/sex/whatever)
They wouldn't have committed the crime if the person wasn't _________ .
That's what makes it a hate crime. Not just that the person happens to be black, but BECAUSE they are black.
-
Yea and the intent is to hurt someone because they are different (age/race/sex/whatever)
They wouldn't have committed the crime if the person wasn't _________ .
That's what makes it a hate crime. Not just that the person happens to be black, but BECAUSE they are black.
But see that doesn't work. If I kill a person because he was black, it was because I hated his skin color. But, if I killed a person because he was rich, and because I despised him and didn't think he deserved his money, is that not a "hate crime" as well? What if like I said earlier, I killed a person because he was cheating with my wife? Wouldn't that make all of these hate crimes? But, why is only one called a hate crime?
-
But see that doesn't work. If I kill a person because he was black, it was because I hated his skin color. But, if I killed a person because he was rich, and because I despised him and didn't think he deserved his money, is that not a "hate crime" as well? What if like I said earlier, I killed a person because he was cheating with my wife? Wouldn't that make all of these hate crimes? But, why is only one called a hate crime?
Hate crime legislation has specifics. Right now they are only certain things.
And for the reason you gave, that doesn't meet hate crime statute because that person diddling your wife (or husband) wasn't killed because of their age, race, gender, sexual preference, skin color, religion etc.
Even in your argument, killing someone like that is usually not the highest murder charge. "Caught up in the moment" murders don't usually carry the same weight.
The intent of the person committing the crime is indeed relevant and it gets no more intent-y than hate crime.
-
What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?
Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person. Your born that way. Wealth, infidelity, actions are not. Thats what establishes it as a hate crime. Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening. From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.
-
I gotta side with Weather here. I don't mind having some layers of intent in different murder charges ("crime of passion" vs "premeditated" etc), but I fail to see why some types of hate-based murders are worse than others. If you killed someone because you hate them, I don't think it should matter WHY you hate them.
-
But see that doesn't work. If I kill a person because he was black, it was because I hated his skin color. But, if I killed a person because he was rich, and because I despised him and didn't think he deserved his money, is that not a "hate crime" as well? What if like I said earlier, I killed a person because he was cheating with my wife? Wouldn't that make all of these hate crimes? But, why is only one called a hate crime?
Hate crime legislation has specifics. Right now they are only certain things.
And for the reason you gave, that doesn't meet hate crime statute because that person diddling your wife (or husband) wasn't killed because of their age, race, gender, sexual preference, skin color, religion etc.
Even in your argument, killing someone like that is usually not the highest murder charge. "Caught up in the moment" murders don't usually carry the same weight.
The intent of the person committing the crime is indeed relevant and it gets no more intent-y than hate crime.
Why? It still doesn't make sense is the point I'm alluding too. If I shoot a person because of his skin, or if I shoot a person because I don't like that he's rich, he's still just as dead either way. But, yet if I kill him cause he's rich, it's possible I get off easier than if I kill because he's black, when in essence, the thing I've done is just as horrible in both cases.
And no, in my argument, I'm talking about premeditated murder, not "caught up in the moment", as in I know this guy is cheating with my wife, so I plan it and go kill him.
Now, I am very interested in the bold part. I can hate a person just as much if not more for reasons besides his race or sexual orientation.
-
What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?
Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person. Your born that way. Wealth, infidelity, actions are not. Thats what establishes it as a hate crime. Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening. From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?
-
Why? It still doesn't make sense is the point I'm alluding too. If I shoot a person because of his skin, or if I shoot a person because I don't like that he's rich, he's still just as dead either way. But, yet if I kill him cause he's rich, it's possible I get off easier than if I kill because he's black, when in essence, the thing I've done is just as horrible in both cases.
They are both hate crimes. Just the one you listed isn't enforced.
There are guidelines for federal crimes and for state crimes. It is not even across the country.
"Social class" is not viewed as a protected group. Just like "Guys named Phil" "People wearing yellow" and "Guys who stick their elbows out of the car window as they drive" aren't either.
-
What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?
Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person. Your born that way. Wealth, infidelity, actions are not. Thats what establishes it as a hate crime. Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening. From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?
You think people commit hate crimes because it's on TV?
-
Some probably do. Most probably do it because they, you know, hate something about someone.
-
So... lemme get this straight. If someone who is black is murdered because he is black (for example), it confers with it more of a punishment that if someone were killed for any other possible conceivable reason? Does that mean that the black person's life was worth more? If so, that is all kinds of f*cked up. If the murder was premeditated, the specific intent does not matter. What matters is that the intent was present before the actual murder was committed.
-
Why? It still doesn't make sense is the point I'm alluding too. If I shoot a person because of his skin, or if I shoot a person because I don't like that he's rich, he's still just as dead either way. But, yet if I kill him cause he's rich, it's possible I get off easier than if I kill because he's black, when in essence, the thing I've done is just as horrible in both cases.
They are both hate crimes. Just the one you listed isn't enforced.
There are guidelines for federal crimes and for state crimes. It is not even across the country.
"Social class" is not viewed as a protected group. Just like "Guys named Phil" "People wearing yellow" and "Guys who stick their elbows out of the car window as they drive" aren't either.
Now we are getting somewhere, so now why do we need hate crimes at all? Because I'd say nearly all premeditated murders are caused by some sort of under lying hate. Thus just punish the crap out of all of the people who kill others for any reason whatsoever.
What? As opposed to an "I really, really like you" crime?
Jokes aside though, race, gender, sexual orientation are intrinsic to your person. Your born that way. Wealth, infidelity, actions are not. Thats what establishes it as a hate crime. Like Blue Lion has mentioned, its not about making one victim's life more worthy then another its about trying to prevent it from happening. From the legislators point of view if the punishment is high enough it might cause a few more synapses to fire in the brain stems of those who would commit the crime.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?
You think people commit hate crimes because it's on TV?
No, I did not say that anywhere. I said it may increase the numbers because it would be published much more. Of course, what I said and meant was obvious.
-
Now we are getting somewhere, so now why do we need hate crimes at all? Because I'd say nearly all premeditated murders are caused by some sort of under lying hate. Thus just punish the crap out of all of the people who kill others for any reason whatsoever.
The guy who poisons his wife to get the insurance money and the guy who beats a guy to death cause he has a lisp are two different cases.
The community decided if you kill someone simply because of how they look or are, you get special punishment. This only works in certain areas like race or age, but still.
No, I did not say that anywhere. I said it may increase the numbers because it would be published much more. Of course, what I said and meant was obvious.
It may increase or it does increase?
It may go down because it's on tv. Anything to back up this conjecture?
-
So... lemme get this straight. If someone who is black is murdered because he is black (for example), it confers with it more of a punishment that if someone were killed for any other possible conceivable reason? Does that mean that the black person's life was worth more? If so, that is all kinds of f*cked up. If the murder was premeditated, the specific intent does not matter. What matters is that the intent was present before the actual murder was committed.
No, because that fails to graduate levels of intent. Premeditated murder because somebody is (percieved as or actually is) responsible for the death of a family member is a different level of unacceptable from premeditated murder of someone because you don't like their sexual orientation or race, which is a different level from premeditated murder because you don't like their haircut. If you don't believe me, ask a jury.
-
I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.
May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan? This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.
-
Now we are getting somewhere, so now why do we need hate crimes at all? Because I'd say nearly all premeditated murders are caused by some sort of under lying hate. Thus just punish the crap out of all of the people who kill others for any reason whatsoever.
The guy who poisons his wife to get the insurance money and the guy who beats a guy to death cause he has a lisp are two different cases.
The community decided if you kill someone simply because of how they look or are, you get special punishment. This only works in certain areas like race or age, but still.
Then we will never see eye to eye then. From my point of view, killing someone intently for one reason is just as bad as killing someone intently for any other reason.
It may increase or it does increase?
It may go down because it's on tv. Anything to back up this conjecture?
Maybe I'm wrong here, but what do you think is more likely, more stiff punishment would stop the crime( like life in prison or the death penalty isn't enough) or that the increased media attention due to it being a "hate crime" would give the killers much more limelight and thus a greater reason to commit it?
I never said maybe or it will, totally un-related point I was making here.
-
I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.
May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan? This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.
Ah, there we go. That makes more sense in terms of defending the idea of Why Have Hate Crimes. Thanks!
I'm still not sure I buy that having a separate class of "hate crimes" is a good idea, but at least you've given a rationale that makes sense to me.
-
Then we will never see eye to eye then. From my point of view, killing someone intently for one reason is just as bad as killing someone intently for any other reason.
If you can't see the difference between a guy hanging a black man from a tree and a guy shooting someone breaking into his house, we have problems.
It's the same reason killing a cop gets a tougher sentence.
I never said maybe or it will, totally un-related point I was making here.
Why even bring it up then? What on earth does TV have to do with hate crime? It was pretty clear you thought its exposure to everyone did something.
-
I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.
May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan? This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.
Scotty, WeatherOp, Esarai has it right - this is why hate crimes are worse.
Also, I totally edited Esarai's post in an attempt to quote it. Changes undone.
-
Someone just learned all the mod buttons
-
I want to point out that claiming a crime wasn't a hate crime and was in fact a hoax, and because of it good person died and now their grave is being pissed on is disgusting regardless of whether or not you think we need extra punishment for hate crimes. It's like saying "This guy died but you guys are twisting it around to further your own agendas." WHAT?!
-
I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.
May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan? This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.
:yes:
Nice to see someone can actually explain the reason properly.
WeatherOp wants to paint this as being equivalent to killing rich people or some other group that has never faced serious discrimination. When their are groups out there calling for the death of rich people then killing rich people would be a hate crime too.
-
ok, so I'm a rich guy and I want to scare all the lazy poor people into becoming more productive, so me and a bunch of my rich buddies decided to slaughter a few dozen slumdwellers, when I get caught why won't I be prosecuted with a hate crime.
or here is a really fun one, I get into a fight with a wesburough baptist, they claim hate crime, because I fought with them because of what their god tells them, this would be an accurate execution of the law.
-
Again what matters is whether those two are isolated incidents. If no one else is going to follow you then no, they aren't hate crimes.
-
ok, so I'm a rich guy and I want to scare all the lazy poor people into becoming more productive, so me and a bunch of my rich buddies decided to slaughter a few dozen slumdwellers, when I get caught why won't I be prosecuted with a hate crime.
You won't be prosecuted for a hate crime because current hate crime law doesn't exist for "salary level". The reason it doesn't exist is most likely because it almost never happens. People tend not to kill random people for the net worth. That's the "why". It's not a legal statute.
But in a basic principle, you would have committed a hate crime. You attacked people in a group with the intent to hurt or terrorize that group, not just that specific person. That is the essence of a hate crime. However, hate crimes have very specific things you "hate" on that get extra time. It's pretty straightforward.
or here is a really fun one, I get into a fight with a wesburough baptist, they claim hate crime, because I fought with them because of what their god tells them, this would be an accurate execution of the law.
The victim doesn't get to claim a hate crime any more than a victim can claim 1st degree murder or manslaughter. It's the job of the prosecutor to determine what crimes fit. A hate crime would fall under every normal due process of the judicial system.
There is leniency for people who have extenuating circumstances or have good behavior. They get extra time off. This is just the other end of the scale. This is an act a person has done that society considers "extra bad", so they get extra time. Society considers killing or harming a person because of their age or race or whatever to be even more serious.
This is not a "You happened to be black" this is "because you are black" that is what makes it a hate crime.
-
I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation. A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.
-
You get the same sentence for the actual crime. You get extra time for terrorism (which as was explained is what hate crimes are really about).
Or are you going to claim that a terrorist who only manages to kill one person in a bombing should get the same time as someone who only shot one person after an argument?
-
I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation. A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.
You're right, a crime is a crime, but more severe crimes receive more severe punishments. And a hate crime targets not just the victim but every member of the victim's minority group.
-
I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation. A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.
You're right, a crime is a crime, but more severe crimes receive more severe punishments. And a hate crime targets not just the victim but every member of the victim's minority group.
No, it doesn't. The crime targets the victim. Or are you suggestion that when a KKK member mugs a black man, he is mugging every black man everywhere?
-
Yet another strawman. First, how are you going to prove that a mugging is racially motivated?
Cause in how you prove that is the proof about whether or not it was a hate crime rather than a mugging.
And I notice you didn't answer my question.
-
And I notice you didn't answer my question.
Nobody's even been willing to touch "levels of unacceptable" I introduced, so I'm not terribly surprised.
-
I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation. A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.
You're right, a crime is a crime, but more severe crimes receive more severe punishments. And a hate crime targets not just the victim but every member of the victim's minority group.
No, it doesn't. The crime targets the victim. Or are you suggestion that when a KKK member mugs a black man, he is mugging every black man everywhere?
Sure it does. If that KKK member takes the man's wallet, beats him, and tells him that 'n*****s aren't welcome in these parts', he's not only committing a physical assault, he's making it clear that every black individual in the area should be afraid, is unwelcome, and might be targeted by the same assaults.
As Kara said, that's terrorism. It violates that group's right to freedom from fear. And, as ever, you can't address it by reductum ad absurdo - like rape, like genocide, like hate speech, its power to harm comes from the historical and social context.
-
It violates that group's right to freedom from fear.
Playing the devil's advocate for a minute:
Where did this magical right spring up from?
-
Actually, it's a UN-recognized human right.
-
Where did this magical right spring up from?
Pursuit of Happiness was the wording, I believe.
-
Yeah, the constitution, and FDR's Four Freedoms are pretty influential, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
-
I keep having Sam Fisher and the Fifth Freedom pop into my head here. :p
-
God damn it, Fisher! I told you not to kill any civilians!
This mission is over!
-
You get the same sentence for the actual crime. You get extra time for terrorism (which as was explained is what hate crimes are really about).
Or are you going to claim that a terrorist who only manages to kill one person in a bombing should get the same time as someone who only shot one person after an argument?
you know I think you just made the point I was trying to make, there are already laws on the book for dealing with this, we don't need to add another layer of laws that adds a special protected minority list on top of what we already have. if someone did something that was intended to instill fear through an at of violence, then charge them with terrorism, I think that would handle the KKK quite well, and just about any other situation I can think of without making it more likely for 'hate crime' to be tagged on your bill if you happen to get into a fight with a person from a minority and happen to mention there minority status as you are fighting with them.
-
The reason for a separate law is because the word terrorism denotes a certain image to people. If you tried to charge people who committed a lynching with terrorism pretty much any lawyer could talk the jury out of it by going on and on about how the defendants didn't plant any bombs or blow themselves up.
The fact that so many people on this board still don't get the terrorising effect of a hate crime even after having it explained to them is why you need to make special provision for it under the law. Yes, all it is doing is giving another name to a crime very similar to one already on the books but that's not something wrong or unknown. There are plenty of crimes on the books that are simply more specific names for more general crimes. If you want to make the argument that the charge of hate crime is unneeded for legal reasons then you're also arguing against having a separate charge for crimes like embezzlement which after all is basically theft or fraud.
-
I can see the reasoning behind it all, but I think the method is flawed. Unless of course it's a good thing to have to update the "Hate Crime" grand list every couple years.
Example: Typical white male has his car break down late at night and has to talk through an area of town that's mostly minorities. Call it a getto or what you will, that's not my point here. Now while walking to a gas station/payphone he's confronted by the local gang and gets his assaulted and or rubbed for being "In the wrong part of town".
If caught those that assaulted/robbed him get charged for assault and robbery.
Flip the same situation. Black/asian/Latino gets caught middle of the night in an area by a white gang of thugs. They get charged with assault/robbery AND have Hate crime as well.
Call it what you will, but it's a fact of life both examples will and have happened. In both examples if the victim were the "correct color" they'd more than likely have been left alone.
So my point is, where do we draw the line with adding "hate crime" laws and just having a judge use common freaking sense?
Honestly I think we're (U.S.) are far past lynching mobs. Not because people wouldn't do it, but because modern technology wouldn't allow it to get to the levels they used to when it was a problem. It's a bit difficult for a large group of people to maintain a normal lifestyle by day and lynch mob by night without getting caught. Then again I can very well be wrong, as I said, this is my opinion.
I just honestly think the more laws we add the more loopholes we begin to create. But then again, 90% (percentage randomly pulled from sky) of laws are written to help prevent the stupid from being stupid, and to punish them when they give in and be stupid anyways.
-
I can see the reasoning behind it all, but I think the method is flawed. Unless of course it's a good thing to have to update the "Hate Crime" grand list every couple years.
Update for who exactly?
You planning on genetically engineering new minorities every few years?
-
So you're saying that white people, wiccans, pagans, nerds, can't possibly be hated and attacked by anyone? Why do only minorities get special treatment? Equality ? where?
-
So you're saying that white people, wiccans, pagans, nerds, can't possibly be hated and attacked by anyone? Why do only minorities get special treatment? Equality ? where?
Who said it was minority only?
Every law I see says "based on race". I don't see anything that says "unless you're white"
EDIT- 3 of the groups you listed fall under current hate crime legislation.
Whites for race, wiccans and pagans for religion.
Nerds is such a weird grouping I don't think it will ever be included (how do you define a nerd in a legal sense?)
-
Also, if you look at the statistics, while a minority is less likely to be charged for a hate crime, they are also more likely to get a heavy sentence.
But typically, a gang made up of minorities isn't going to assault a guy because he's white. They're going to assault him because he looks like an easy target and like he might have something good on him. Sure, they might attack him because he's white, but whether they get charged with a hate crime or not, they are likely to get a pretty harsh sentence compared to a group of whites assaulting a black guy for the same reason (that is, because he looks like he has money.)
-
Also, if you look at the statistics, while a minority is less likely to be charged for a hate crime, they are also more likely to get a heavy sentence.
But typically, a gang made up of minorities isn't going to assault a guy because he's white. They're going to assault him because he looks like an easy target and like he might have something good on him. Sure, they might attack him because he's white, but whether they get charged with a hate crime or not, they are likely to get a pretty harsh sentence compared to a group of whites assaulting a black guy for the same reason (that is, because he looks like he has money.)
Hence my entire point about not truely needing more laws and merely needing a more competent legal system. A crime should be dealt with on it's issues case by case.
-
Hence my entire point about not truely needing more laws and merely needing a more competent legal system. A crime should be dealt with on it's issues case by case.
It is dealt with on the issues. A hate crime does not make a person more or less guilty. Most hate crime legislation takes the form of additional sentencing.
-
:wtf: I just plan old fashion don't see the point. *shrug* Good thing I'm not in the buisness of making laws I guess ;) I'm more of the thought that you are punished for the crime and your reasons for committing the crime effect the judge/jury's verdict. If assualts/murders/robberies are becoming more and more of a problem against all these various groups, just up the punishment for those crimes as a whole. God knows we could use less of them over all as much or more than less of them -agaisnt a certain list of groups.
-
But remember, hate crimes are targeted against specific groups, and that targeting is part of the crime.
It's not just a mugging when it's specifically targeted on a gay individual and he's beaten, humiliated, and called a fag. It's a mugging PLUS an act of terror against all the gay people in the community.
A mugging of a white male in which he's singled out for his race and told that whites aren't welcome would ALSO be a hate crime. They're just far less common.
So you're exactly right, the punishment should fit the crime. Which is why hate crimes get more severe sentences.
-
The point is
"People who commit crimes against people based on their race/age/gender etc etc get more time"
There really is no hidden message or meaning.
If you beat the **** out of a guy because he's different, guess what? Hate crime.
-
By that logic though we'll need to arrest thousands of middle school students.
-
By that logic though we'll need to arrest thousands of middle school students.
Are these middle school students being arrested on assault or murder charges? No? Then what does any additional time they could get if they were matter?
-
lol
Actually, from bits and pieces of news I've heard over the last few years, some have been arrested. Seems of late any fighting in a school gets the cops called instead of detention.
So then, if/when a child/teenager gets arrested for beating up the "different kid", and that difference applies to a listed protection under hate crimes, is it good that they too get a few extra years for it? Or does someone realize, "Hey,....**** happens?" and deal with the crime for what it is,..someone got assaulted?
No things would never get out of hand with legislation like this....
-
lol
Actually, from bits and pieces of news I've heard over the last few years, some have been arrested. Seems of late any fighting in a school gets the cops called instead of detention.
So then, if/when a child/teenager gets arrested for beating up the "different kid", and that difference applies to a listed protection under hate crimes, is it good that they too get a few extra years for it?
Yea, yea it is. If you're going to argue that they get charged as an adult for the crime, all the adult things come with it.
Or does someone realize, "Hey,....**** happens?" and deal with the crime for what it is,..someone got assaulted?
No things would never get out of hand with legislation like this....
I was unaware that bigotry qualified as "**** happens".
-
ok better put as "People do stupid **** for all kinds of stupid reasons". People are bigotted in thousands of ways. I just don't happen to agree that tacking on a few years for committing a crime to a "listed group". Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just means I don't agree with it.
But fear not. My lack of agreeing won't have any effect of the out come. :D
-
Do you realize that you don't have to actually BE black/gay/etc to be assaulted for it? Like, assaulting and murdering someone because he LOOKS gay. He's not gay, but you still get the hate crime. See? It's not "they just happen to be special."
-
Actually I would assume one would have to be black (at least in part) in order to be attacked for ,....being black.
But yes I can certainly understand that someone acting/looking gay might be attacked for it. Though I haven't heard of many cases of roaming anti gay lynch mobs in about 10 or more years.
-
ok better put as "People do stupid **** for all kinds of stupid reasons".
And if the stupid reason is "bigotry" you get extra years.
Just like if the stupid reason is "I was text messaging when I was driving" you probably won't be charged with 1st degree murder.
There is a scale, not only in the crimes you get charged with but even the sentences that come with them.
Bigotry just happens to get top billing. There are reasons that get you less time, this is a reason that gets you more time.
People are bigotted in thousands of ways. I just don't happen to agree that tacking on a few years for committing a crime to a "listed group". Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just means I don't agree with it.
There is no such thing as a listed group under hate crime legislation.
There is no race, age, sex, sexual preference or ethnicity "left out".
If someone beats you up because you're white, it's a hate crime.
If someone beats you up because you're a guy, hate crime.
If someone beats you up because you're straight, again.... hate crime.
-
:wtf:
Ok my bad.....having heard all week about maryland adding Homeless to those protected by Hate Crime legislation I obviously became stricten with confusing stupidity.
The reports I heard made it seem as if it's "Minoritys, gay-lesbian, homeless, people wearing kilts, Trekkies, etc." Instead of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and NOW Homeless.
Argh. Remind me to stop attempting to think rationally after Weds while working 15 hour days .....
-
I never heard about this in Maryland? :wtf:
Off to Google!
-
So you're saying that white people, wiccans, pagans, nerds, can't possibly be hated and attacked by anyone? Why do only minorities get special treatment? Equality ? where?
Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying why do you a) Imagine that there is a list of minorities? b) Imagine that it would need to be updated every few years even if there was one?
-
Why would be a list of minorities? Anyone who doesn't make up 50% or more of the population = a minority. Simple as that.
-
Why would this only affect minorities in the first place? Anti-racism laws don't need a list of ethnicities they protect do they? They simply have to state that discrimination on the grounds of race is intolerable.
So why would hate crime laws be any different? If the law is written with a specific list of protected minorities then it's a badly written law. But that doesn't mean that the concept of a hate crime law is any way flawed.
The claim of a list of minorities is a long argued strawman. And that's all it is. The Matthew Shepard Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01592:@@@L&summ2=m&) quite clearly defines "hate crime" as a violent act causing death or bodily injury because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability of the victim.
No list of minorities. No discrimination against white people. None of the utter bollocks we've seen in this thread arguing against hate crimes in fact.