If I recall correctly, the root of the "Hate crimes are worse" argument lies in the broader social impact. If you kill a black person for being black, it sends a message to the local black community, spreads fear, intimidation, etc.
It's therefore considered a crime with more negative side effects than a simple murder, and it's usually assumed that those negative effects are intended, making the hate crime not just the act on an individual, but an act of intimidation towards a whole community.
I'm sure he understands the legal distinction. I think Johannen is arguing that killing someone accidentally and planning and executing a murder should garner the same punishment.
I'm not entirely sure I disagree, either.
Like, if I steal bread because I'm starving or I steal bread because I wanted to sell it for five dollars so I could buy crack...well, the crime is unchanged. The motivation isn't the crime, stealing the bread is the crime.
There's more to a legal 'crime' than whether or not you physically break the law, though. The consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors; the defendant's attitude to the case - remorse or intransigence - all of this is a much a part of the law as "A did B y/n". And I think a legal system / society that takes into account to what ends a law was broken in a particular case is much healthier and more humane than one that doesn't.
Would you really dole out the same punishment to the two bread-stealers in that case?
listen fuckmonkeys: tolerance =/= approval. That's why casket isn't banned yet. I'm wholly tolerant of his ability to be a trolling, mouthbreathing mental deficient, but I retain the right to call him such and thoroughly disapprove of his words. The same goes for emenememewhatevergetarealname's insistence that NAMBLA and the Childcare Worker's Union of America are fundamentally the same kind of organisation, and therefore we shouldn't judge.
*throws up hands higher*
People wanted to misinterpret what I wrote - intolerance was presented as an issue and people thought I was some kind of Confederate flag waving nut. Enough happy calumny for tonight. Good job. Black lesbian Jews with a love of socialism and fine Chinese silks have nothing to fear from the D&D board ... and therefore we shouldn't hate.
listen fuckmonkeys: tolerance =/= approval. That's why casket isn't banned yet. I'm wholly tolerant of his ability to be a trolling, mouthbreathing mental deficient, but I retain the right to call him such and thoroughly disapprove of his words. The same goes for emenememewhatevergetarealname's insistence that NAMBLA and the Childcare Worker's Union of America are fundamentally the same kind of organisation, and therefore we shouldn't judge.
*throws up hands higher*
People wanted to misinterpret what I wrote - intolerance was presented as an issue and people thought I was some kind of Confederate flag waving nut. Enough happy calumny for tonight. Good job. Black lesbian Jews with a love of socialism and fine Chinese silks have nothing to fear from the D&D board ... and therefore we shouldn't hate.
What? What? What?
Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I wouldn't feel better that because my brother was killed in a drunk fight that his killers should not be given as bad a punishment as those who kill due to a different reason.
This is really a nonissue. The FBI reports that in 2004 there were 9,035 hate crime style offenses, of which exactly five were murders. Thirty percent were racial intimidation, and another thirty percent were property crimes (vandalism, arson, etc.).
As was stated above, burning a cross in someone's lawn is way different from leaving flaming poop on their doorstep. Hate crimes laws exist to make sure that skinheads don't get treated like fun-loving scamps.
We don't have laws to be "fair." We have them to incentivize and disincentivize behavior. Society disapproves of racism, so society is perfectly within its rights to make the punishment for racism harsher.
People wanted to misinterpret what I wrote - intolerance was presented as an issue and people thought I was some kind of Confederate flag waving nut. Enough happy calumny for tonight. Good job. Black lesbian Jews with a love of socialism and fine Chinese silks have nothing to fear from the D&D board ... and therefore we shouldn't hate.
Dude, your last like, five posts have no apparent logical connection to either each other or anything else that's been written here. Are you even having the same conversation as the rest of us?
People wanted to misinterpret what I wrote - intolerance was presented as an issue and people thought I was some kind of Confederate flag waving nut. Enough happy calumny for tonight. Good job. Black lesbian Jews with a love of socialism and fine Chinese silks have nothing to fear from the D&D board ... and therefore we shouldn't hate.
Dude, your last like, five posts have no apparent logical connection to either each other or anything else that's been written here. Are you even having the same conversation as the rest of us?
People wanted to misinterpret what I wrote - intolerance was presented as an issue and people thought I was some kind of Confederate flag waving nut.
Dude, you linked Adversity.net. Look at the front page. It seems to deal exclusively with "THE MINORITIES ARE TAKING OUR JOBS" thing under the label of "A Civil Rights Organization for Color Blind Justice"
Look at their site. This is their definition for Ethnic Cleansing (emphasis added)
ETHNIC CLEANSING is the practice of eliminating, minimalizing, or marginalizing individuals with whose skin color, national origin, culture, language, or religion a nation-state disagrees.
Nazi Germany: Before and during World War II Nazi Germany sought to "ethnically cleanse" its country of Jews because Germany's charismatic, megalomaniac dictator (Hitler) believed Jews were inferior to blond-haired, blue-eyed "native" Germans.
Middle East: For many centuries -- far longer than the U.S. has been in existence -- and right up to the present, Middle Eastern nations have ruthlessly murdered and/or tortured those within their borders who have differing religions, races, skin colors, and ethnic origins. In 2003 these Middle Eastern countries continue to use torture, brutal murder, stoning, dismemberment, chemical agents, car bombings, and other means to "free" their countries of those with whom they disagree. These countries also hate the U.S. because we are so prosperous.
United States: In 2003 the ethnic cleansing of the United States takes a somewhat more subtle and less violent form, albeit just as insidious. In the U.S. today descendants of the original European settlers of the U.S. are routinely prohibited from getting jobs, promotions, contracts, and educational opportunities because they are European descendants, otherwise described as "white" or as "non-minority"!
It is popular in the U.S. to bash, denigrate, and marginalize our European-American settlers. So-called "affirmative action" programs have essentially defined our original European settlers as evil, malignant, racists who do NOT deserve equal treatment under the law without regard to skin color or ethnic origin (as promised by the U.S. Constitution). Under the terms of modern day "affirmative action" European-American citizens in the U.S. are to be reviled, denied jobs, and otherwise marginalized simply because they arrived in the U.S. from European countries instead of from "preferred countries" (presumably more deserving countries) such as African nations, Mexico, Middle Eastern nations, South American nations, and certain Pacific Island nations.
Under this pretext, murder and violent crimes against U.S. citizens of European descent are classified as mere "crimes of violence" BUT murder and violent crimes against U.S. residents (citizens as well as non-citizens) who are descended from any non-European country, and/or who are dark complected, are classified as "hate crimes" which invokes federal law enforcement resources and overrides local and state law enforcement efforts.
I wouldn't feel better that because my brother was killed in a drunk fight that his killers should not be given as bad a punishment as those who kill due to a different reason.
This is really a nonissue. The FBI reports that in 2004 there were 9,035 hate crime style offenses, of which exactly five were murders. Thirty percent were racial intimidation, and another thirty percent were property crimes (vandalism, arson, etc.).
As was stated above, burning a cross in someone's lawn is way different from leaving flaming poop on their doorstep. Hate crimes laws exist to make sure that skinheads don't get treated like fun-loving scamps.
We don't have laws to be "fair." We have them to incentivize and disincentivize behavior. Society disapproves of racism, so society is perfectly within its rights to make the punishment for racism harsher.
That's an opinion though, and not a fact. People don't have the right to do something based plainly on the fact that it is the social norm. Unless i'm misinterpreting what you're saying?
I don't believe that because we all think that people thinking a certain way is wrong that we should punish them differently. As Drez said, the crime is what needs to be punished, and people should have to do the time they are given.
It's like how fucking furious Paris Hilton getting out so early for what she did makes me. It's because she is in the public eye that she gets special treatment.
What also annoys me is the whole Cheryl Tweedy incident with the wash-room lady. The punishment is different for those in the public eye aswell.
It's of course a different issue but all those who do a crime should be punished for the crime they commit and their motive and who they are should not be accounted for in the actual sentencing.
People wanted to misinterpret what I wrote - intolerance was presented as an issue and people thought I was some kind of Confederate flag waving nut.
Dude, you linked Adversity.net. Look at the front page. It seems to deal exclusively with "THE MINORITIES ARE TAKING OUR JOBS" thing under the label of "A Civil Rights Organization for Color Blind Justice"
Look at their site. This is their definition for Ethnic Cleansing (emphasis added)
ETHNIC CLEANSING is the practice of eliminating, minimalizing, or marginalizing individuals with whose skin color, national origin, culture, language, or religion a nation-state disagrees.
Nazi Germany: Before and during World War II Nazi Germany sought to "ethnically cleanse" its country of Jews because Germany's charismatic, megalomaniac dictator (Hitler) believed Jews were inferior to blond-haired, blue-eyed "native" Germans.
Middle East: For many centuries -- far longer than the U.S. has been in existence -- and right up to the present, Middle Eastern nations have ruthlessly murdered and/or tortured those within their borders who have differing religions, races, skin colors, and ethnic origins. In 2003 these Middle Eastern countries continue to use torture, brutal murder, stoning, dismemberment, chemical agents, car bombings, and other means to "free" their countries of those with whom they disagree. These countries also hate the U.S. because we are so prosperous.
This thread reminds me of all those little teenage twits that think they're all special, saying shit like "If we got White Entertainment Television, it'd be racist!"
This thread reminds me of all those little teenage twits that think they're all special, saying shit like "If we got White Entertainment Television, it'd be racist!"
Fucking morons.
It would also be called wet, which is definitely already taken by a porn channel.
Joh, your post is confusing motive with social position and richness. That doesn't make sense. Paris didn't get off easy because she, like, totally didn't mean it, she got off easy because her family hired a crapton of lawyers and bribed everyone in a hundred mile radius. Its a totally separate issue from considering motive during charging and sentencing.
The Cat on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
As Drez said, the crime is what needs to be punished, and people should have to do the time they are given.
And what everyone else is saying is that they're not the same crime. Setting a cross on fire in someone's lawn has a psychological impact on the whole community that lighting a flaming bag of dog poop does not.
Under this pretext, murder and violent crimes against U.S. citizens of European descent are classified as mere "crimes of violence" BUT murder and violent crimes against U.S. residents (citizens as well as non-citizens) who are descended from any non-European country, and/or who are dark complected, are classified as "hate crimes" which invokes federal law enforcement resources and overrides local and state law enforcement efforts.
I can't remember the particular case off-hand, but some Asian kids got done in the UK a while ago for beating up a white kid because he was white. I'd imagine in the US hate crimes count both ways too.
It's of course a different issue but all those who do a crime should be punished for the crime they commit and their motive and who they are should not be accounted for in the actual sentencing.
.. Changed your mind?
And what do you mean by "who they are" being accounted for? It's not. A black guy can be convicted of a hate crime against another black guy, if it happened.
There are not really "levels" to how hate-crimes laws are applied. They're used in pretty clear circumstances. If it's not "right" then you need to bust out the philosophy to show why one-size-fits-all justice is better.
I don't believe in one-size-fits-all justice being better. I merely think that believing that hurting someone for one reason is worse than hurting someone just as badly for another reason is better.
In that it leads that judgement shouldn't be passed based on the motivation for the crime. Take it into account to find the killer hell yes, but don't say that because they were killed for x reason you should be punished worse. I wouldn't feel better that because my brother was killed in a drunk fight that his killers should not be given as bad a punishment as those who kill due to a different reason.
That was an example by the way and didn't happen.
I'm sure last time we had this debate, someone pointed out to you the difference between pre-meditated murder and 'accidental' (eg, hit them in a bar fight) type of murder. I absolutely support the legal distinction between the two and am baffled that you don't.
I'm sure he understands the legal distinction. I think Johannen is arguing that killing someone accidentally and planning and executing a murder should garner the same punishment.
I'm not entirely sure I disagree, either.
Like, if I steal bread because I'm starving or I steal bread because I wanted to sell it for five dollars so I could buy crack...well, the crime is unchanged. The motivation isn't the crime, stealing the bread is the crime.
But the crime has already been committed and we thus have 3 goals: to deliver recompense to the victims, to rehabilitate the offender (if possible) and to deter future crimes.
Someone who steals bread because their starving isn't going to dissuaded from stealing more bread by the same means as someone who steals it so they can get crack, and we do ourselves a disservice to say "well the crime is the same" - it isn't.
And what do you mean by "who they are" being accounted for? It's not. A black guy can be convicted of a hate crime against another black guy, if it happened.
I'm fairly certain it has happened. Case of an assault by an African immigrant from Ethiopia against somebody who came from Eritrea. I believe it took place in New York, but at this stage I can barely remember any details.
It's of course a different issue but all those who do a crime should be punished for the crime they commit and their motive and who they are should not be accounted for in the actual sentencing.
Fucking... oh God my fucking hemorrhoid.
Listen, if I hit somebody with my car because I didn't see them, do I deserve to get the same punishment as somebody who msliciously chased down a motherfucker because they're trying to hit them? If the evidence in both cases provide that conclusion for the juries, should they punish myself and the other guy equally?
Fucking no, they shouldn't. Motive is absolutely vital in determining the nature of a crime. Yeah, the crime still gets punished, because I need to pay more attention when I'm driving through downtown Atlanta, but that dangerous motherfucker should be put the fuck away.
As Drez said, the crime is what needs to be punished, and people should have to do the time they are given.
And what everyone else is saying is that they're not the same crime. Setting a cross on fire in someone's lawn has a psychological impact on the whole community that lighting a flaming bag of dog poop does not.
Wait, but that's not what I was saying at all.
I'm saying that if you light the dog poop on fire as a joke you should get the same punishment for lighting the dog poop on fire because the people in the house are of a different race, and you don't like that. Law shouldn't employ favouritism.
Lighting a cross is a completely different crime from lighting dog poop, and I don't see that I insinuated otherwise. Unless Drez insinuated it and you thought I was agreeing with that?
tCat: I guess you're right, it was a bad example, I was more trying to imply that law shouldn't be biased based on the reason for the crime.
Johannen on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Law enforcement agencies reported five bias-motivated murders. Three of those murders resulted from racial bias: two anti-white and one anti-black. One of the five murders resulted from a bias against atheism or agnosticism, and one murder stemmed from a bias against homosexual individuals.
All of the four bias-motivated forcible rapes reported in 2004 stemmed from racial bias. Three were committed because of the offenders’ bias against white individuals; the other was due to bias against black individuals.
The next time someone bleats like a whiny bitch about how hate crimes laws only protect minorities, hit them over the head with a copy of this report.
And what do you mean by "who they are" being accounted for? It's not. A black guy can be convicted of a hate crime against another black guy, if it happened.
I'm fairly certain it has happened. Case of an assault by an African immigrant from Ethiopia against somebody who came from Eritrea. I believe it took place in New York, but at this stage I can barely remember any details.
A reminder to us all that "black" is about as helpful a descriptor as "brown" some times. Seriously though, I don't actually know if hate crimes apply to, say, nationalities as well.
I often think once we're done (optimistically) with race, we'll get around to tackling nationalism too.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
It's of course a different issue but all those who do a crime should be punished for the crime they commit and their motive and who they are should not be accounted for in the actual sentencing.
Fucking... oh God my fucking hemorrhoid.
Listen, if I hit somebody with my car because I didn't see them, do I deserve to get the same punishment as somebody who msliciously chased down a motherfucker because they're trying to hit them? If the evidence in both cases provide that conclusion for the juries, should they punish myself and the other guy equally?
Fucking no, they shouldn't. Motive is absolutely vital in determining the nature of a crime. Yeah, the crime still gets punished, because I need to pay more attention when I'm driving through downtown Atlanta, but that dangerous motherfucker should be put the fuck away.
You still killed someone. You're dangerous driving still killed someone and had exactly the same outcome as the person who chased the person down. You'd get done for manslaughter if it was an accident whereas the person doing the running down would get done for life.
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
The next time someone bleats like a whiny bitch about how hate crimes laws only protect minorities, hit them over the head with a copy of this report.
Funnily enough, the first successful hate-crimes prosecution in Aus was last year some time, and it was concerning a couple of aboriginal girls who'd attacked a white chick while racially taunting her.
As Drez said, the crime is what needs to be punished, and people should have to do the time they are given.
And what everyone else is saying is that they're not the same crime. Setting a cross on fire in someone's lawn has a psychological impact on the whole community that lighting a flaming bag of dog poop does not.
Wait, but that's not what I was saying at all.
I'm saying that if you light the dog poop on fire as a joke you should get the same punishment for lighting the dog poop on fire because the people in the house are of a different race, and you don't like that. Law shouldn't employ favouritism.
Lighting a cross is a completely different crime from lighting dog poop, and I don't see that I insinuated otherwise. Unless Drez insinuated it and you thought I was agreeing with that?
tCat: I guess you're right, it was a bad example, I was more trying to imply that law shouldn't be biased based on the reason for the crime.
You're throwing around terms like "favouritism" and "biased", but they don't mean a damn thing in your context. Considering motive isn't "favouritism". Punishing varying levels of intent isn't "biased." It's how the godamned common law system works.
As Drez said, the crime is what needs to be punished, and people should have to do the time they are given.
And what everyone else is saying is that they're not the same crime. Setting a cross on fire in someone's lawn has a psychological impact on the whole community that lighting a flaming bag of dog poop does not.
Wait, but that's not what I was saying at all.
I'm saying that if you light the dog poop on fire as a joke you should get the same punishment for lighting the dog poop on fire because the people in the house are of a different race, and you don't like that. Law shouldn't employ favouritism.
It's not favoritism. It's one of the most basic concepts of the justice system- an aggravating circumstance. If your motive for the flaming dog poop was one of misguided altruism, then it'd be a mitigating circumstance and the punishment lessened as a result.
The target of a hate crime isn't the individual victim, it's the wider community to which the victim belongs.
I mean, for fuck's sake. This is why we distinguish between First and Second Degree Murder. This is why Manslaughter exists. A person who accidentally kills someone is not deserving of exactly the same response as someone who kills a person in the heat of extraordinary circumstances, and that person is not deserving of the same response as someone who killed deliberately and with pre-meditation.
I think most of the people in this thread calling for equal punishments based on crimes really haven't thought that position through. Or at the very least, have never seriously considered the circumstances under which they might be held for a crime, or which what you were and weren't intending to do is going to play a pretty serious role. At least as far as you're concerned.
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
You're back to this cop-out again. The court system works on the principle of "beyond all reasonable doubt", mm? If it can't be proved that a crime was a hate crime, guess what? It won't be punished as such.
And what do you mean by "who they are" being accounted for? It's not. A black guy can be convicted of a hate crime against another black guy, if it happened.
I'm fairly certain it has happened. Case of an assault by an African immigrant from Ethiopia against somebody who came from Eritrea. I believe it took place in New York, but at this stage I can barely remember any details.
Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime.
* 67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
* 19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.
* 5.3 percent were victims of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
* 4.9 percent were victims of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
* 2.0 percent were victims of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.
I am also pretty sure that hate crime is becoming a problem in lower class neighborhoods with a lot of black and hispanics.
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
You're back to this cop-out again. The court system works on the principle of "beyond all reasonable doubt", mm? If it can't be proved that a crime was a hate crime, guess what? It won't be punished as such.
O.k, but what if it can be proved it was a hate crime but the person really wasn't doing it for any racially orientated or 'hate-crime' reason?
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
You're back to this cop-out again. The court system works on the principle of "beyond all reasonable doubt", mm? If it can't be proved that a crime was a hate crime, guess what? It won't be punished as such.
O.k, but what if it can be proved it was a hate crime but the person really wasn't doing it for any racially orientated or 'hate-crime' reason?
Here's one for Johannen: If a driver gets tanked up on whisky and accidentally runs your mum over at a zebra crossing and speeds off laughing, do you want them to go for jail longer than the driver who looks down at their map for a moment and runs her over, stops and gets out of the car to cry and cradle her dying body before ringing the police ?
This is what it comes down to.
O.k, but what if it can be proved it was a hate crime but the person really wasn't doing it for any racially orientated or 'hate-crime' reason?
This makes no sense. You might as well say "what if it can be proved they did the murder, but they didn't."
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
You're back to this cop-out again. The court system works on the principle of "beyond all reasonable doubt", mm? If it can't be proved that a crime was a hate crime, guess what? It won't be punished as such.
O.k, but what if it can be proved it was a hate crime but the person really wasn't doing it for any racially orientated or 'hate-crime' reason?
It's of course a different issue but all those who do a crime should be punished for the crime they commit and their motive and who they are should not be accounted for in the actual sentencing.
Fucking... oh God my fucking hemorrhoid.
Listen, if I hit somebody with my car because I didn't see them, do I deserve to get the same punishment as somebody who msliciously chased down a motherfucker because they're trying to hit them? If the evidence in both cases provide that conclusion for the juries, should they punish myself and the other guy equally?
Fucking no, they shouldn't. Motive is absolutely vital in determining the nature of a crime. Yeah, the crime still gets punished, because I need to pay more attention when I'm driving through downtown Atlanta, but that dangerous motherfucker should be put the fuck away.
You still killed someone. You're dangerous driving still killed someone and had exactly the same outcome as the person who chased the person down. You'd get done for manslaughter if it was an accident whereas the person doing the running down would get done for life.
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
Based on that logic, we should release every single convicted criminal in the justice system right now, because we don't know 100% that they did what they're accused of doing, do we?
For fuck's sake man, that's what the criminal justice system is for. It's there to go over the evidence and come to an appropriate conclusion based on that evidence. If dangerous motherfucker in my example chased the poor motherfucker down a tight alley, whereas mine was in the middle of the street, what the fuck do you think the appropriate conclusion should be?
Yeah, we can't know for sure, but we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that dangerous mother harmed with intent and should get thrown in prison, whereas me, unobservant mother, should probably pay a settlement to the family and get my liscense revoked.
There's a fucking difference. What you say is disgustingly stupid an poorly considered.
Here's one for Johannen: If a driver gets tanked up on whisky and accidentally runs your mum over at a zebra crossing and speeds off laughing, do you want them to go for jail longer than the driver who looks down at their map for a moment and runs her over, stops and gets out of the car to cry and cradle her dying body before ringing the police.
This is what it comes down to.
O.k, but what if it can be proved it was a hate crime but the person really wasn't doing it for any racially orientated or 'hate-crime' reason?
This makes no sense. You might as well say "what if it can be proved they did the murder, but they didn't."
The one persons a drunk driver and the other isn't. That wasn't hard, next.
It's of course a different issue but all those who do a crime should be punished for the crime they commit and their motive and who they are should not be accounted for in the actual sentencing.
Fucking... oh God my fucking hemorrhoid.
Listen, if I hit somebody with my car because I didn't see them, do I deserve to get the same punishment as somebody who msliciously chased down a motherfucker because they're trying to hit them? If the evidence in both cases provide that conclusion for the juries, should they punish myself and the other guy equally?
Fucking no, they shouldn't. Motive is absolutely vital in determining the nature of a crime. Yeah, the crime still gets punished, because I need to pay more attention when I'm driving through downtown Atlanta, but that dangerous motherfucker should be put the fuck away.
You still killed someone. You're dangerous driving still killed someone and had exactly the same outcome as the person who chased the person down. You'd get done for manslaughter if it was an accident whereas the person doing the running down would get done for life.
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
Based on that logic, we should release every single convicted criminal in the justice system right now, because we don't know 100% that they did what they're accused of doing, do we?
For fuck's sake man, that's what the criminal justice system is for. It's there to go over the evidence and come to an appropriate conclusion based on that evidence. If dangerous motherfucker in my example chased the poor motherfucker down a tight alley, whereas mine was in the middle of the street, what the fuck do you think the appropriate conclusion should be?
Yeah, we can't know for sure, but we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that dangerous mother harmed with intent and should get thrown in prison, whereas me, unobservant mother, should probably pay a settlement to the family and get my liscense revoked.
There's a fucking difference. What you say is disgustingly stupid an poorly considered.
What? Are you a retard? Just because you can't prove why someone did something doesn't mean that you can't prove that they actually did it.
Don't spew idiocy and curses because you feel like a pent up fuckmuppet.
I'm going to throw this one out there, as it's a real example.
My father has killed a man before. He broke into our house one night when I was really young, pulled a gun on my dad when he came to see what the noise was and shot at wildly in a panic. My father, being an ex-SEAL, brought his 9mm with him to check on the noise and shot the mother fucker in the heart.
A man is dead, my father killed him. Should he be tried with murder?
Posts
It's therefore considered a crime with more negative side effects than a simple murder, and it's usually assumed that those negative effects are intended, making the hate crime not just the act on an individual, but an act of intimidation towards a whole community.
There's more to a legal 'crime' than whether or not you physically break the law, though. The consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors; the defendant's attitude to the case - remorse or intransigence - all of this is a much a part of the law as "A did B y/n". And I think a legal system / society that takes into account to what ends a law was broken in a particular case is much healthier and more humane than one that doesn't.
Would you really dole out the same punishment to the two bread-stealers in that case?
*throws up hands higher*
People wanted to misinterpret what I wrote - intolerance was presented as an issue and people thought I was some kind of Confederate flag waving nut. Enough happy calumny for tonight. Good job. Black lesbian Jews with a love of socialism and fine Chinese silks have nothing to fear from the D&D board ... and therefore we shouldn't hate.
This is really a nonissue. The FBI reports that in 2004 there were 9,035 hate crime style offenses, of which exactly five were murders. Thirty percent were racial intimidation, and another thirty percent were property crimes (vandalism, arson, etc.).
As was stated above, burning a cross in someone's lawn is way different from leaving flaming poop on their doorstep. Hate crimes laws exist to make sure that skinheads don't get treated like fun-loving scamps.
We don't have laws to be "fair." We have them to incentivize and disincentivize behavior. Society disapproves of racism, so society is perfectly within its rights to make the punishment for racism harsher.
Dude, your last like, five posts have no apparent logical connection to either each other or anything else that's been written here. Are you even having the same conversation as the rest of us?
Since no one agrees with me, apparently not. :P
Look at their site. This is their definition for Ethnic Cleansing (emphasis added)
That's an opinion though, and not a fact. People don't have the right to do something based plainly on the fact that it is the social norm. Unless i'm misinterpreting what you're saying?
I don't believe that because we all think that people thinking a certain way is wrong that we should punish them differently. As Drez said, the crime is what needs to be punished, and people should have to do the time they are given.
It's like how fucking furious Paris Hilton getting out so early for what she did makes me. It's because she is in the public eye that she gets special treatment.
What also annoys me is the whole Cheryl Tweedy incident with the wash-room lady. The punishment is different for those in the public eye aswell.
It's of course a different issue but all those who do a crime should be punished for the crime they commit and their motive and who they are should not be accounted for in the actual sentencing.
Fucking morons.
It would also be called wet, which is definitely already taken by a porn channel.
And what everyone else is saying is that they're not the same crime. Setting a cross on fire in someone's lawn has a psychological impact on the whole community that lighting a flaming bag of dog poop does not.
I can't remember the particular case off-hand, but some Asian kids got done in the UK a while ago for beating up a white kid because he was white. I'd imagine in the US hate crimes count both ways too.
.. Changed your mind?
And what do you mean by "who they are" being accounted for? It's not. A black guy can be convicted of a hate crime against another black guy, if it happened.
But the crime has already been committed and we thus have 3 goals: to deliver recompense to the victims, to rehabilitate the offender (if possible) and to deter future crimes.
Someone who steals bread because their starving isn't going to dissuaded from stealing more bread by the same means as someone who steals it so they can get crack, and we do ourselves a disservice to say "well the crime is the same" - it isn't.
I'm fairly certain it has happened. Case of an assault by an African immigrant from Ethiopia against somebody who came from Eritrea. I believe it took place in New York, but at this stage I can barely remember any details.
Fucking... oh God my fucking hemorrhoid.
Listen, if I hit somebody with my car because I didn't see them, do I deserve to get the same punishment as somebody who msliciously chased down a motherfucker because they're trying to hit them? If the evidence in both cases provide that conclusion for the juries, should they punish myself and the other guy equally?
Fucking no, they shouldn't. Motive is absolutely vital in determining the nature of a crime. Yeah, the crime still gets punished, because I need to pay more attention when I'm driving through downtown Atlanta, but that dangerous motherfucker should be put the fuck away.
Wait, but that's not what I was saying at all.
I'm saying that if you light the dog poop on fire as a joke you should get the same punishment for lighting the dog poop on fire because the people in the house are of a different race, and you don't like that. Law shouldn't employ favouritism.
Lighting a cross is a completely different crime from lighting dog poop, and I don't see that I insinuated otherwise. Unless Drez insinuated it and you thought I was agreeing with that?
tCat: I guess you're right, it was a bad example, I was more trying to imply that law shouldn't be biased based on the reason for the crime.
The next time someone bleats like a whiny bitch about how hate crimes laws only protect minorities, hit them over the head with a copy of this report.
A reminder to us all that "black" is about as helpful a descriptor as "brown" some times. Seriously though, I don't actually know if hate crimes apply to, say, nationalities as well.
I often think once we're done (optimistically) with race, we'll get around to tackling nationalism too.
How so? Because the cross is bigger? What if it's a really big bag of poop and a really small cross?
You still killed someone. You're dangerous driving still killed someone and had exactly the same outcome as the person who chased the person down. You'd get done for manslaughter if it was an accident whereas the person doing the running down would get done for life.
I can see the extremes in reasoning creating the more reasonable distinctions in how the law should treat it, but you couldn't with 100% certainty say that the one was definately an accident and the other with intent. There isn't a way to prove it unequivocally.
Funnily enough, the first successful hate-crimes prosecution in Aus was last year some time, and it was concerning a couple of aboriginal girls who'd attacked a white chick while racially taunting her.
You're throwing around terms like "favouritism" and "biased", but they don't mean a damn thing in your context. Considering motive isn't "favouritism". Punishing varying levels of intent isn't "biased." It's how the godamned common law system works.
It's not favoritism. It's one of the most basic concepts of the justice system- an aggravating circumstance. If your motive for the flaming dog poop was one of misguided altruism, then it'd be a mitigating circumstance and the punishment lessened as a result.
The target of a hate crime isn't the individual victim, it's the wider community to which the victim belongs.
I mean, for fuck's sake. This is why we distinguish between First and Second Degree Murder. This is why Manslaughter exists. A person who accidentally kills someone is not deserving of exactly the same response as someone who kills a person in the heat of extraordinary circumstances, and that person is not deserving of the same response as someone who killed deliberately and with pre-meditation.
You're back to this cop-out again. The court system works on the principle of "beyond all reasonable doubt", mm? If it can't be proved that a crime was a hate crime, guess what? It won't be punished as such.
Because the cross disturbs the peace of those around the house, as well as creates a higher chance of causing a fire and is a larger fire hazard.
If it were a really large bag of poop and a really small cross yes the same would apply but reversed.
What if it were a dustbin or a derelict building?
How about a plant in a garden or a tree in a garden of trees nearing the house?
O.k, but what if it can be proved it was a hate crime but the person really wasn't doing it for any racially orientated or 'hate-crime' reason?
Then that person is shit outta luck.
This is what it comes down to.
This makes no sense. You might as well say "what if it can be proved they did the murder, but they didn't."
Based on that logic, we should release every single convicted criminal in the justice system right now, because we don't know 100% that they did what they're accused of doing, do we?
For fuck's sake man, that's what the criminal justice system is for. It's there to go over the evidence and come to an appropriate conclusion based on that evidence. If dangerous motherfucker in my example chased the poor motherfucker down a tight alley, whereas mine was in the middle of the street, what the fuck do you think the appropriate conclusion should be?
Yeah, we can't know for sure, but we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that dangerous mother harmed with intent and should get thrown in prison, whereas me, unobservant mother, should probably pay a settlement to the family and get my liscense revoked.
There's a fucking difference. What you say is disgustingly stupid an poorly considered.
The one persons a drunk driver and the other isn't. That wasn't hard, next.
What? Are you a retard? Just because you can't prove why someone did something doesn't mean that you can't prove that they actually did it.
Don't spew idiocy and curses because you feel like a pent up fuckmuppet.
My father has killed a man before. He broke into our house one night when I was really young, pulled a gun on my dad when he came to see what the noise was and shot at wildly in a panic. My father, being an ex-SEAL, brought his 9mm with him to check on the noise and shot the mother fucker in the heart.
A man is dead, my father killed him. Should he be tried with murder?