As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

1272830323360

Posts

  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    More likely to be convicted!=more likely to commit.

    I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that a large percentage of convictions are for crimes that weren't committed? I'm sure that happens, but not so often that it negates my argument.

    No, I'm saying that rich and/or white people are a lot less likely to be caught/prosecuted/sent to jail.

    I agree that that is also true. However, I doubt that accounts for the fact that around 32% of black males born in 2001 will spend time in prison, vs. 6% for whites.

    source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/young_black_males_headed_for_e_1.html

    NotYou on
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Look, a much better argument for hate crime sentences differing from regular assault sentences is that regular assaults harm just the people involved, while hate crimes do more than that - they are intended to, and necessarily, terrorize the local hispanic/black/asian/gay/insert minority populace.

    I wouldn't say that hate crimes necessarily encourage copycats. Even if it's true, it's debatable and also an unnecessary argument when others serve much better.

    SithDrummer on
    It's an easy game to hate
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Regardless, have we figured out how punishing hate crimes harsher infringes on one's right to freedom of religion?

    Do we actually punish them harsher? My understanding of hate crimes is it just gives the Feds an excuse to come in and prosecute a case, because a lot of times, local courts won't be willing to prosecute a couple of good ol' boys out for a round of good old fashioned gay-beating.

    The sentencing is more harsh. Mostly it bothers stupid white folks who tend toward violent crime and don't want to pay extra for racism that they may or may not have exhibited in their day to day criminal activities.

    Also it bothers people who think it's not a very rational way of punishing people. 2 guys go beat the crap out of 2 different people. One of them hates the guy he beats up because he just doesn't like him. The other hates him because he doesn't like the way he looks. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? What if he beat him up but just did it for fun rather than out of hate. Should that also receive a different sentence? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    One guy goes out and shoots a man in Reno, just to watch them die. Another guy accidentally hits someone with their car and they die. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    moniker on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    This whole "motive doesn't matter" bullshit needs to die in a fire. If it's okay for courts to consider motive when charging a defendant for killing someone, it's ok for them to consider motive when charging someone for other crimes. There is a difference between accidentally someone during a fight and plotting to kill someone, just like there's a difference between a gang of white guys beating a homeless man to death because they think it'd be funny and the same group of white guys beating the man to death while shouting racial slurs.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • JONJONAUGJONJONAUG Registered User
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Regardless, have we figured out how punishing hate crimes harsher infringes on one's right to freedom of religion?

    Do we actually punish them harsher? My understanding of hate crimes is it just gives the Feds an excuse to come in and prosecute a case, because a lot of times, local courts won't be willing to prosecute a couple of good ol' boys out for a round of good old fashioned gay-beating.

    The sentencing is more harsh. Mostly it bothers stupid white folks who tend toward violent crime and don't want to pay extra for racism that they may or may not have exhibited in their day to day criminal activities.

    Also it bothers people who think it's not a very rational way of punishing people. 2 guys go beat the crap out of 2 different people. One of them hates the guy he beats up because he just doesn't like him. The other hates him because he doesn't like the way he looks. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? What if he beat him up but just did it for fun rather than out of hate. Should that also receive a different sentence? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    One guy goes out and shoots a man in Reno, just to watch them die. Another guy accidentally hits someone with their car and they die. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    You're either an idiot or a blatant troll.

    His example listed two cases where harm was intentional, you listed one case where harm was intentional and one where it wasn't.

    The idea behind hate crime laws is to counteract racism. Racism doesn't exist to the extent that it did back when the laws were passed, so in some states/cases it works and in others it just causes a giant clusterfuck.

    JONJONAUG on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I'm okay with it. Motive is a factor in the severity of sentencing all crimes, as it should be. Explicitly increasing the penalties for crimes spurred by a certain motivation held to be especially socaially destructive doesn't strike me as abhorrent.

    It's mostly white straight dudes caterwauling that the world ain't fair. Fuck em.

    That's probably the most succinct way to shut the stupid whiny fucks up I've ever heard.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Or it could just be that hate crimes are underreported. I mean, what else would explain how a big city like Indianapolis can report ZERO hate crimes for an entire year while much smaller cities report double digit hate crimes?

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    More likely to be convicted!=more likely to commit.

    I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that a large percentage of convictions are for crimes that weren't committed? I'm sure that happens, but not so often that it negates my argument.

    No, I'm saying that rich and/or white people are a lot less likely to be caught/prosecuted/sent to jail.

    I agree that that is also true. However, I doubt that accounts for the fact that around 32% of black males born in 2001 will spend time in prison, vs. 6% for whites.

    source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/young_black_males_headed_for_e_1.html

    Really? So you think Blacks are just more predisposed to crime than Whites?

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    There's also the issue of disparate sentencing. White guy is convicted of killing a black guy = average sentence. Black guy is convicted of killing a white guy = holy shit, these black people will go off at the slightest thing! MAXIMUM SENTENCE!

    KalTorak on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    More likely to be convicted!=more likely to commit.

    I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that a large percentage of convictions are for crimes that weren't committed? I'm sure that happens, but not so often that it negates my argument.

    No, I'm saying that rich and/or white people are a lot less likely to be caught/prosecuted/sent to jail.

    I agree that that is also true. However, I doubt that accounts for the fact that around 32% of black males born in 2001 will spend time in prison, vs. 6% for whites.

    source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/young_black_males_headed_for_e_1.html

    Really? So you think Blacks are just more predisposed to crime than Whites?

    This sounds like the start of a new thread wherein stupid ideas about race and crime are destroyed.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    JONJONAUG wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Regardless, have we figured out how punishing hate crimes harsher infringes on one's right to freedom of religion?

    Do we actually punish them harsher? My understanding of hate crimes is it just gives the Feds an excuse to come in and prosecute a case, because a lot of times, local courts won't be willing to prosecute a couple of good ol' boys out for a round of good old fashioned gay-beating.

    The sentencing is more harsh. Mostly it bothers stupid white folks who tend toward violent crime and don't want to pay extra for racism that they may or may not have exhibited in their day to day criminal activities.

    Also it bothers people who think it's not a very rational way of punishing people. 2 guys go beat the crap out of 2 different people. One of them hates the guy he beats up because he just doesn't like him. The other hates him because he doesn't like the way he looks. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? What if he beat him up but just did it for fun rather than out of hate. Should that also receive a different sentence? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    One guy goes out and shoots a man in Reno, just to watch them die. Another guy accidentally hits someone with their car and they die. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    You're either an idiot or a blatant troll.

    His example listed two cases where harm was intentional, you listed one case where harm was intentional and one where it wasn't.

    The idea behind hate crime laws is to counteract racism. Racism doesn't exist to the extent that it did back when the laws were passed, so in some states/cases it works and in others it just causes a giant clusterfuck.

    COLOR="RoyalBlue"]CITATION NEEDED[/color

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • JONJONAUGJONJONAUG Registered User
    edited October 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    More likely to be convicted!=more likely to commit.

    I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that a large percentage of convictions are for crimes that weren't committed? I'm sure that happens, but not so often that it negates my argument.

    No, I'm saying that rich and/or white people are a lot less likely to be caught/prosecuted/sent to jail.

    I agree that that is also true. However, I doubt that accounts for the fact that around 32% of black males born in 2001 will spend time in prison, vs. 6% for whites.

    source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/young_black_males_headed_for_e_1.html

    Really? So you think Blacks are just more predisposed to crime than Whites?

    He could be saying that people in certain living conditions are going to be more predisposed to crime due to having lax social values due to an unfavorable environment, which affects more blacks than whites.

    JONJONAUG on
  • TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This whole "motive doesn't matter" bullshit needs to die in a fire. If it's okay for courts to consider motive when charging a defendant for killing someone, it's ok for them to consider motive when charging someone for other crimes. There is a difference between accidentally someone during a fight and plotting to kill someone, just like there's a difference between a gang of white guys beating a homeless man to death because they think it'd be funny and the same group of white guys beating the man to death while shouting racial slurs.

    You're talking about intent, not motive. I agree that intent should be taken into consideration when sentencing, but I don't think that motive should. That hobo in your example got beaten to death either way, what should it matter why the perpetrators wanted to do it?

    TheMarshal on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    TheMarshal wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This whole "motive doesn't matter" bullshit needs to die in a fire. If it's okay for courts to consider motive when charging a defendant for killing someone, it's ok for them to consider motive when charging someone for other crimes. There is a difference between accidentally someone during a fight and plotting to kill someone, just like there's a difference between a gang of white guys beating a homeless man to death because they think it'd be funny and the same group of white guys beating the man to death while shouting racial slurs.

    You're talking about intent, not motive. I agree that intent should be taken into consideration when sentencing, but I don't think that motive should. That hobo in your example got beaten to death either way, what should it matter why the perpetrators wanted to do it?

    You're right, I got two things mixed up there. My point still stands, though. Motivation will decide the severity of your crime. If I go rob a bank for personal gain, it's just armed robbery. If I do it in order to finance terrorism, it's suddenly a terrorism charge.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Regardless, have we figured out how punishing hate crimes harsher infringes on one's right to freedom of religion?

    Do we actually punish them harsher? My understanding of hate crimes is it just gives the Feds an excuse to come in and prosecute a case, because a lot of times, local courts won't be willing to prosecute a couple of good ol' boys out for a round of good old fashioned gay-beating.

    The sentencing is more harsh. Mostly it bothers stupid white folks who tend toward violent crime and don't want to pay extra for racism that they may or may not have exhibited in their day to day criminal activities.

    Also it bothers people who think it's not a very rational way of punishing people. 2 guys go beat the crap out of 2 different people. One of them hates the guy he beats up because he just doesn't like him. The other hates him because he doesn't like the way he looks. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? What if he beat him up but just did it for fun rather than out of hate. Should that also receive a different sentence? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    One guy goes out and shoots a man in Reno, just to watch them die. Another guy accidentally hits someone with their car and they die. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    Those aren't the same action or the same crime.


    To clarify my view, of course motive can be a factor when sentencing. I'm all for extenuating circumstances. What I don't like is tacking on a harsher sentence because the criminal thinks a certain way. I don't think racists should receive harsher sentences. I don't think fundamentalists should either. Or atheists. Or people who think blood is aesthetically pleasing. Or whatever unpleasent underlying personality trait you see in someone. Maybe rage-a-holics should all get extra time in prison. Or nihilists.

    If the sentence for assault is 10 years, and there are no laws to give a racist a harsher punishment over someone who just was super fuckin angry when he kicked the crap out of someone, would you lessen the punishment of a the angry person. Is not being a racist such a positive factor that they should do less time. It's all relative.

    NotYou on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JONJONAUG wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Regardless, have we figured out how punishing hate crimes harsher infringes on one's right to freedom of religion?

    Do we actually punish them harsher? My understanding of hate crimes is it just gives the Feds an excuse to come in and prosecute a case, because a lot of times, local courts won't be willing to prosecute a couple of good ol' boys out for a round of good old fashioned gay-beating.

    The sentencing is more harsh. Mostly it bothers stupid white folks who tend toward violent crime and don't want to pay extra for racism that they may or may not have exhibited in their day to day criminal activities.

    Also it bothers people who think it's not a very rational way of punishing people. 2 guys go beat the crap out of 2 different people. One of them hates the guy he beats up because he just doesn't like him. The other hates him because he doesn't like the way he looks. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? What if he beat him up but just did it for fun rather than out of hate. Should that also receive a different sentence? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    One guy goes out and shoots a man in Reno, just to watch them die. Another guy accidentally hits someone with their car and they die. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    You're either an idiot or a blatant troll.

    His example listed two cases where harm was intentional, you listed one case where harm was intentional and one where it wasn't.

    The idea behind hate crime laws is to counteract racism. Racism doesn't exist to the extent that it did back when the laws were passed, so in some states/cases it works and in others it just causes a giant clusterfuck.

    COLOR="RoyalBlue"]CITATION NEEDED[/color

    When's the last time we had an honest-to-god race riot in this country? Rodney King? Maybe up in Detroit at some point after that?

    Salvation122 on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Could you guys go make a hate crime legislation thread? I mean, there's obviously enough diversity of opinion to support one without getting the GOP thread locked AGAIN.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong For Workgroups Version 3.11 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Are there any intelligent conservatives here?

    I suppose if there were, they'd stay the hell out of this thread, but I think it would keep us more on track and less "REPUBLICANS HARGLBARGL"

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Regardless, have we figured out how punishing hate crimes harsher infringes on one's right to freedom of religion?

    Do we actually punish them harsher? My understanding of hate crimes is it just gives the Feds an excuse to come in and prosecute a case, because a lot of times, local courts won't be willing to prosecute a couple of good ol' boys out for a round of good old fashioned gay-beating.

    The sentencing is more harsh. Mostly it bothers stupid white folks who tend toward violent crime and don't want to pay extra for racism that they may or may not have exhibited in their day to day criminal activities.

    Also it bothers people who think it's not a very rational way of punishing people. 2 guys go beat the crap out of 2 different people. One of them hates the guy he beats up because he just doesn't like him. The other hates him because he doesn't like the way he looks. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? What if he beat him up but just did it for fun rather than out of hate. Should that also receive a different sentence? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    One guy goes out and shoots a man in Reno, just to watch them die. Another guy accidentally hits someone with their car and they die. One gets a harsher sentence? Why? The justice system has far too much leeway to over-punish some groups of people rather than others. Or under punish if you want to look at it from the other perspective.

    Those aren't the same action or the same crime.


    To clarify my view, of course motive can be a factor when sentencing. I'm all for extenuating circumstances. What I don't like is tacking on a harsher sentence because the criminal thinks a certain way. I don't think racists should receive harsher sentences. I don't think fundamentalists should either. Or atheists. Or people who think blood is aesthetically pleasing. Or whatever unpleasent underlying personality trait you see in someone. Maybe rage-a-holics should all get extra time in prison. Or nihilists.

    If the sentence for assault is 10 years, and there are no laws to give a racist a harsher punishment over someone who just was super fuckin angry when he kicked the crap out of someone, would you lessen the punishment of a the angry person. Is not being a racist such a positive factor that they should do less time. It's all relative.

    It's not just about thinking a certain way, it's about acting out on those thoughts. What is the point of punishment except to deter future behavior that society finds unacceptable? I think we all agree that it's bad for people to commit violence against others based on race/sex/religion. Hate crime laws seek to deter that behavior.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Are there any intelligent conservatives here?

    I suppose if there were, they'd stay the hell out of this thread, but I think it would keep us more on track and less "REPUBLICANS HARGLBARGL"

    'Sup.

    Salvation122 on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Are there any intelligent conservatives here?

    I suppose if there were, they'd stay the hell out of this thread, but I think it would keep us more on track and less "REPUBLICANS HARGLBARGL"

    'Sup.

    There aren't any intelligent Republicans left on the board though. Unless maybe if Yar still self identifies?

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When's the last time we had an honest-to-god race riot in this country? Rodney King? Maybe up in Detroit at some point after that?

    Obama's inauguration.

    @Salv:I assume that intelligent conservative means you were one of the dudes talking about adopting an egalitarian system of mandatory conscription and limiting CEO salary to x percentage of what all their workers are paid?

    Edith Upwards on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I've seen Deacon in SE, I think he's been staying in there though.

    KalTorak on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    JONJONAUG wrote: »
    You're either an idiot or a blatant troll.

    His example listed two cases where harm was intentional, you listed one case where harm was intentional and one where it wasn't.

    The idea behind hate crime laws is to counteract racism. Racism doesn't exist to the extent that it did back when the laws were passed, so in some states/cases it works and in others it just causes a giant clusterfuck.

    The point stands. A woman is found murdered in bed. The sentence for that murder will be different if
    • she was killed by her husband who found her with a lover
    • she was killed by her husband for her inheritance
    • she was killed by an armed robber
    • she was killed for fun OR
    • she was killed over drugs
    Increasing sentencing for certain situations is implicit and completely understood.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    JONJONAUG wrote: »
    You're either an idiot or a blatant troll.

    His example listed two cases where harm was intentional, you listed one case where harm was intentional and one where it wasn't.

    The idea behind hate crime laws is to counteract racism. Racism doesn't exist to the extent that it did back when the laws were passed, so in some states/cases it works and in others it just causes a giant clusterfuck.

    The point stands. A woman is found murdered in bed. The sentence for that murder will be different if
    • she was killed by her husband who found her with a lover
    • she was killed by her husband for her inheritance
    • she was killed by an armed robber
    • she was killed for fun
    • she was killed over drugs OR
    • she was killed by a minority
    Increasing sentencing for certain situations is implicit and completely understood.

    You forgot one.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2009
    Are there any intelligent conservatives here?

    I suppose if there were, they'd stay the hell out of this thread, but I think it would keep us more on track and less "REPUBLICANS HARGLBARGL"

    'Sup.

    There aren't any intelligent Republicans left on the board though. Unless maybe if Yar still self identifies?

    Yar, Jeff, Sal. Occasionally we get a few that stick around for a while before either melting down or just giving up. There were never too many.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Are there any intelligent conservatives here?

    I suppose if there were, they'd stay the hell out of this thread, but I think it would keep us more on track and less "REPUBLICANS HARGLBARGL"

    'Sup.

    There aren't any intelligent Republicans left on the board though. Unless maybe if Yar still self identifies?

    Yar, Jeff, Sal. Occasionally we get a few that stick around for a while before either melting down or just giving up. There were never too many.

    Yeah, Salvation finally gave in and left the Republican Party around the Palin pick (I suppose he would say it left him) and Jeffe hasn't been a Republican for years now.

    That's why I differentiated between conservative with Republican there. As this is technically the GOP thread and not the American conservatism thread.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    JONJONAUG wrote: »
    You're either an idiot or a blatant troll.

    His example listed two cases where harm was intentional, you listed one case where harm was intentional and one where it wasn't.

    The idea behind hate crime laws is to counteract racism. Racism doesn't exist to the extent that it did back when the laws were passed, so in some states/cases it works and in others it just causes a giant clusterfuck.

    The point stands. A woman is found murdered in bed. The sentence for that murder will be different if
    • she was killed by her husband who found her with a lover
    • she was killed by her husband for her inheritance
    • she was killed by an armed robber
    • she was killed for fun
    • she was killed over drugs OR
    • she was killed by a minority
    Increasing sentencing for certain situations is implicit and completely understood.

    You forgot one.

    Which is, again, why we have hate crimes legislation. It's pretty much affirmative action.

    jothki on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    At best you're kind to find people who have some conservative views, generally fiscal ones.

    Trying to keep the government from being TOO prominent in daily affairs can actually be rational depending on what you're talking about. Small government as a concept is not in itself absurd, so long as it isn't taken to the level of absurdity.

    Most of the rest requires cognitive dissonance, ignorance, questionable ethics, and a bit of zealotry.

    Incenjucar on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    # she was killed by her husband who found her with a lover
    # she was killed by her husband for her inheritance
    # she was killed by an armed robber
    # she was killed for fun

    Wouldn't all of these be considered First Degree Murder and carry a life sentence anyway?

    Second degree murder covers murder that is done out of hate but not premeditated. It usually comes with a life sentence as well.

    Other than using race as a factor to get first or second degree murder to stick instead of, say, the "lesser" charge of manslaughter, I'm not sure the use.

    Sheep on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    # she was killed by her husband who found her with a lover
    # she was killed by her husband for her inheritance
    # she was killed by an armed robber
    # she was killed for fun

    Wouldn't all of these be considered First Degree Murder and carry a life sentence anyway?

    I think the first one would count as manslaughter.

    Couscous on
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    # she was killed by her husband who found her with a lover
    # she was killed by her husband for her inheritance
    # she was killed by an armed robber
    # she was killed for fun

    Wouldn't all of these be considered First Degree Murder and carry a life sentence anyway?
    The first would probably have temporary insanity all over it.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    That's second degree murder. Murder out of reaction but without intent.

    EDIT

    The third would count as Felony Murder but only if the murder was unintentional. Even then, first degree Felony Murder carries a life sentence, which is the sentence if you commit a felony and then purposefully murder someone.

    Sheep on
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    And the third, and possibly the fourth would be murder in the second degree.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    And the third, and possibly the fourth would be murder in the second degree.

    I would say murdering someone just because you want to be deliberate and premeditated.

    Sheep on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    That's second degree murder. Murder out of reaction but without intent.

    EDIT

    The third would count as Felony Murder but only if the murder was unintentional. Even then, first degree Felony Murder carries a life sentence, which is the sentence if you commit a felony and then purposefully murder someone.

    Purpose has nothing to do with it. If you give an old lady a heart attack because you hide from the cops in her house it counts as felony murder. And several of them would be second degree murder charges rather than first degree murder charges based solely on the 'thought crime' of the dude who killed people. Not to mention the degree of punishment likely to be sought in each individual case by the DA.

    moniker on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sheep wrote: »
    That's second degree murder. Murder out of reaction but without intent.

    EDIT

    The third would count as Felony Murder but only if the murder was unintentional. Even then, first degree Felony Murder carries a life sentence, which is the sentence if you commit a felony and then purposefully murder someone.
    There have been many types of voluntary manslaughter, which have not been differentiated because they are so closely related or indistinguishable that many jurisdictions don't differentiate between them.[1] The following are some examples of defences which may be raised to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter:

    * Provocation: A killing occurred after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose control.

    A google search gives this 2000 South Carolina case.
    http://m.sccourts.org/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=25184
    While adultery may, in some instances, serve as sufficient legal provocation to

    warrant a voluntary manslaughter charge, spousal adultery is not a license to

    kill. See State v. Gadsden, 314 S.C. 229, 233, 442 S.E.2d 594, 597(1994). In

    general, South Carolina has allowed martial infidelity to support a charge of

    marital voluntary manslaughter only when the killer finds the other spouse and

    paramour in a guilty embrace or flagrantly suggestive situation

    Couscous on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Could you guys go make a hate crime legislation thread? I mean, there's obviously enough diversity of opinion to support one without getting the GOP thread locked AGAIN.

    Cyan'd for I agree.

    Henroid on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    That's second degree murder. Murder out of reaction but without intent.

    EDIT

    The third would count as Felony Murder but only if the murder was unintentional. Even then, first degree Felony Murder carries a life sentence, which is the sentence if you commit a felony and then purposefully murder someone.

    Purpose has nothing to do with it. If you give an old lady a heart attack because you hide from the cops in her house it counts as felony murder. And several of them would be second degree murder charges rather than first degree murder charges based solely on the 'thought crime' of the dude who killed people. Not to mention the degree of punishment likely to be sought in each individual case by the DA.

    Regardless, any murder that's premeditated, or any murder made and was premeditated, or made in the heat of the moment, tends to carry a life sentence.

    I can only thinkg of using hate crime legislation to make first or second degree murder stick, which is not the argument I usually see presented. People know when they are commuting a crime and know that there will be harsh punishment in the case of murder. In the case of a prosecutor or DA being reluctant to punish someone because they may be "good old boys", there should be a penalty for their misconduct.

    As is, I don't see much difference in murdering some one because they are rich and you want their money or because they are black.

    EDIT

    CousCous, Voluntary Manslaughter is often considered second degree murder in many cases.

    Sheep on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Are there any intelligent conservatives here?

    I suppose if there were, they'd stay the hell out of this thread, but I think it would keep us more on track and less "REPUBLICANS HARGLBARGL"

    'Sup.

    There aren't any intelligent Republicans left on the board though. Unless maybe if Yar still self identifies?

    Yar, Jeff, Sal. Occasionally we get a few that stick around for a while before either melting down or just giving up. There were never too many.

    Yeah, Salvation finally gave in and left the Republican Party around the Palin pick (I suppose he would say it left him) and Jeffe hasn't been a Republican for years now.
    I decided to vote for Obama after the Palin pick. I renounced my affiliation to the party when McCain dicked around with the bank rescue by pushing a plan on the House Republicans that amounted to "1. Suspend Capital Gains taxes for ten years 2. ????????? 3. Profit!"

    The utter insanity of the party since the election hasn't really done anything to make me regret that.

    Salvation122 on
This discussion has been closed.