Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: HATE CRIMES?: A crime is a crime..

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    169

    HATE CRIMES?: A crime is a crime..

    We don't need no stinkin hate crimes laws.

    If anyone wishes to debate me on any subject having to do with Religion ,or Religion vs. Atheism ,let me know. If anyone wants to debate a particular political point of view , don't hesitate to make your wishes know.I would be more than happy to debate anything proposed, provided we agree on a few rules .

    The point to be debated.
    Answers or responses must be given in no more than 2-3 minutes max.
    Answers or responses must be no longer than one or two small paragraphs at most and must be the debaters own thoughts.

    Breaks can be had at any time for any reason and debate can be called off and continued at a later date.

    No third party opinions or intrusions allowed during debate but can be allowed during break periods.

    All responses must be relevant with no grandstanding . deflections are not allowed. Any variance must be used for purpose of analogy and must be short and to the point.

    And please ,no threats or verbal abuse;serious applicants only need apply.

    any break in the rules brings an immediate end to debate.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    322
    It doesn't necessarily mean more laws, it's just a defined area of existing crime.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by manolete View Post

    If anyone wishes to debate me on any subject having to do with Religion ,or Religion vs. Atheism ,let me know.
    I accept your challenge.
    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...962#post478962
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Apostle View Post
    It doesn't necessarily mean more laws, it's just a defined area of existing crime.
    Exactly.

    Hate crime legislation is a sentencing guideline. It typically does not create a new crime.
    It provides a sentencing guideline for an already existing crime, based on motive.

    Quote Originally Posted by manolete
    We don't need no stinkin hate crimes laws.
    That's your opinion.
    It's not really a "need" type issue. It's a reflection of society's values and their assessment of different crimes and their recommendations (via legislation) for those crimes.
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Sticking a knife in a man because he is a homosexual is no worse than sticking a knife in a man because he looked at you in a way that you didnt like .
    Asserting that homosexuals should be killed because they are an abomination is no worse than asserting that people who look at you in way you dont like are abominations.
    The difference is that the first group of victims has a powerful political lobby to label their attackers ( therefore the crime) as somehow more heinous than others whereas the second one doesnt.

    Would an assault against a homosexual that left him bleeding on the floor be a lesser one if the homosexual was attacked because he looked the wrong way at his attacker and a greater one if it was because he was gay?

    He has a point.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Sticking a knife in a man because he is a homosexual is no worse than sticking a knife in a man because he looked at you in a way that you didnt like .
    Asserting that homosexuals should be killed because they are an abomination is no worse than asserting that people who look at you in way you dont like are abominations.
    The difference is that the first group of victims has a powerful political lobby to label their attackers ( therefore the crime) as somehow more heinous than others whereas the second one doesnt.

    Would an assault against a homosexual that left him bleeding on the floor be a lesser one if the homosexual was attacked because he looked the wrong way at his attacker and a greater one if it was because he was gay?

    He has a point.
    Indeed.

    Singling out specific groups for special consideration is little more than acknowledging there to be no equality under the law. It is admitting that these groups can never be held as equals to other groups.

    Perhaps for further protection from hatred-motivated crimes all groups subject to special consideration need to be moved to special protective areas to shelter them from society at large and the people that wish to kill them.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    Indeed.

    Singling out specific groups for special consideration is little more than acknowledging there to be no equality under the law. It is admitting that these groups can never be held as equals to other groups.

    Perhaps for further protection from hatred-motivated crimes all groups subject to special consideration need to be moved to special protective areas to shelter them from society at large and the people that wish to kill them.
    I don't know that I can go along with this. Killing someone because (s)he is a member of a group means any member of the group is at risk. This in turn implies that the killer is a more dangerous than someone who commits a crime of passion. It makes sense, therefore, to segregate these more dangerous killers from society for a longer period.

    IMO it's not about sheltering specific groups so much as evaluating threats to society as a whole and dealing with them accordingly.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Imnotreallyhere View Post
    I don't know that I can go along with this. Killing someone because (s)he is a member of a group means any member of the group is at risk. This in turn implies that the killer is a more dangerous than someone who commits a crime of passion. It makes sense, therefore, to segregate these more dangerous killers from society for a longer period.

    IMO it's not about sheltering specific groups so much as evaluating threats to society as a whole and dealing with them accordingly.
    If the killer has the potential to kill at random , to kill anyone who he deems to have insulted him or anyone he robs then the 'group' that has the potential to be his victim may be larger than the killer who targets homosexuals only but it is no less vulnerable and the crime itself is not a lesser one.
    Asserting that a crime is more heinous when it is perpetrated on a particular group implies that it is a lesser one when perpetrated on society as a whole.
    I will remind you that just about everyone can be defined as being in a particular ( and even minority) group
    It doesnt protect the group but it does imply that that group is more entitled to protection than anyone else. This is simply discrimination.
    Last edited by gansao; 06-24-2014 at 11:45 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Sticking a knife in a man because he is a homosexual is no worse than sticking a knife in a man because he looked at you in a way that you didnt like .
    That is your opinion.
    A majority do not share that opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Asserting that homosexuals should be killed because they are an abomination is no worse than asserting that people who look at you in way you dont like are abominations.
    Again, your opinion.
    And I would argue that considering the history of violence and anomosity against gays, your contention is like saying a mountain is no worse than a mole-hill.

    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    The difference is that the first group of victims has a powerful political lobby to label their attackers ( therefore the crime) as somehow more heinous than others whereas the second one doesnt.
    Trying to blame this on a "political lobby" is ridiculous.
    Take ANY national poll on the issue of hate crimes and including sexual orientation on the list, and you'll find majority support.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/27613/Pub...ientation.aspx
    Well over a factor of 2 to 1 support sexual orientation being covered by hate crimes legislation.
    The reason these legislations are enacted is by popular support.

    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Would an assault against a homosexual that left him bleeding on the floor be a lesser one if the homosexual was attacked because he looked the wrong way at his attacker and a greater one if it was because he was gay?
    It would deserve more punishment because of the impact upon the society.
    Just think in our own society. There are 6,700+ deaths each day.
    But if one of those deaths were to be from a terrorist attack (hate crime against Americans), it would have a much more severe impact upon our society than a mugging death on the street...

    As the Supreme Court put it...
    Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476, 488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioner 24-27; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-15; Brief for Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as Amicus Curiae 18-22; Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae 17-19; Brief for the Anti-Defamation League et al. as Amici Curiae 910; Brief for Congressman Charles E. Schumer et al. as Amici Curiae 8-9. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=508&invol=476


    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    Indeed.
    Singling out specific groups for special consideration is little more than acknowledging there to be no equality under the law. It is admitting that these groups can never be held as equals to other groups.
    This is a false assessment of how hate crimes work.
    Whites are victims of hate crimes. Men are victim of hate crimes. Straight people are victims of hate crimes.
    The hate crime legislation talks about crimes based on the victim's race. Since all people have a race, all are protected by the legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    If the killer has the potential to kill at random , to kill anyone who he deems to have insulted him or anyone he robs then the 'group' that has the potential to be his victim may be larger than the killer who targets homosexuals only but it is no less vulnerable and the crime itself is not a lesser one.
    Asserting that a crime is more heinous when it is perpetrated on a particular group implies that it is a lesser one when perpetrated on society as a whole.
    You realize that without any hate crime legislation, judges currently take motivation into account when they decide sentencing.

    Two identical scenarios, separated only by motive.
    A man is dying in the hospital from incurable cancer. He is killed by his wife...
    a) The wife wants the insurance money and she thinks the husband is dying too slowly, so she kills him.
    b) The wife can't stand to see the husband in pain any longer and wishes to end his suffering, so she kills him.

    Our society already takes motive into account. Crimes typically include a RANGE of potential sentences possible, because not all crimes are created equal. Even when it's the same category.

    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    I will remind you that just about everyone can be defined as being in a particular ( and even minority) group
    Exactly. And as such, everybody is protected by hate crime legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    It doesnt protect the group but it does imply that that group is more entitled to protection than anyone else. This is simply discrimination.

    Whites are victims of hate crimes. Men are victims of hate crimes. Straights and Christians are victims of hate crimes.
    The case I cited earlier -> Wisconsin v Mitchell. It involved BLACK assailants and WHITE victims.
    There is no "discrimination" here.
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    If the killer has the potential to kill at random , to kill anyone who he deems to have insulted him or anyone he robs then the 'group' that has the potential to be his victim may be larger than the killer who targets homosexuals only but it is no less vulnerable and the crime itself is not a lesser one.
    Asserting that a crime is more heinous when it is perpetrated on a particular group implies that it is a lesser one when perpetrated on society as a whole.
    I will remind you that just about everyone can be defined as being in a particular ( and even minority) group
    It doesnt protect the group but it does imply that that group is more entitled to protection than anyone else. This is simply discrimination.
    Serial killers and hit men are people who kill at random. The penalties for those crimes are among the harshest in our justice system. I bet your killer over insults would receive a harsher penalty if his motive could be proved. I am not asserting a crime is more heinous when committed against certain groups, I am asserting that a person who targets certain groups for his crimes because he dislikes members of that group is a more dangerous individual. It has nothing to do with the crime; it has everything to do with remorse, protection of society and potential for rehabilitation.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Imnotreallyhere View Post
    Serial killers and hit men are people who kill at random. The penalties for those crimes are among the harshest in our justice system. I bet your killer over insults would receive a harsher penalty if his motive could be proved. I am not asserting a crime is more heinous when committed against certain groups, I am asserting that a person who targets certain groups for his crimes because he dislikes members of that group is a more dangerous individual. It has nothing to do with the crime; it has everything to do with remorse, protection of society and potential for rehabilitation.
    As I said everyone is a member of a group. If a man tends to be violent towards women then he more of a danger to that group. If a man tends to be more violent towards the weak then the same applies. If tends to be more violent towards perceived slights then the same applies again.
    The conclusion is that a man who has a tendency towards violence has to be threat to ' groups' of one sort or another.Elevating a crime against one group as more heinous than one toward another or against the general public amounts to discrimination
    Also YOU are the one who specified killers I did not in my first post and referred to actual killers in response to your post. The same applies to any violent act.
    Another point is that the crimes are called ' hate CRIMES' thus they address the crime .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    That is your opinion.
    A majority do not share that opinion.
    It is not my opinion , it is the conclusion of anyone does not have an agenda and believes we are ALL equal ( oh the irony)
    A majority of who, homosexuals? Also arent you one of those homosexuals who rail against the tyranny of the majority every time you failed to gain Gay weddings?

    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    Again, your opinion.
    And I would argue that considering the history of violence and animosity against gays, your contention is like saying a mountain is no worse than a mole-hill.
    Using that argument we should consider making any violent crime against women a far more pressing case than violence against homosexuals.What about native Americans too? More hypocrisy
    Anyway ' history' should not be considered when deciding how heinous a crime is.


    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    Trying to blame this on a "political lobby" is ridiculous.
    Take ANY national poll on the issue of hate crimes and including sexual orientation on the list, and you'll find majority support.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/27613/Pub...ientation.aspx
    Well over a factor of 2 to 1 support sexual orientation being covered by hate crimes legislation.
    The reason these legislations are enacted is by popular support.
    As I stated , a very powerful ( and successful) political ( and propaganda orientated) lobby
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    It would deserve more punishment because of the impact upon the society.
    Just think in our own society. There are 6,700+ deaths each day.
    But if one of those deaths were to be from a terrorist attack (hate crime against Americans), it would have a much more severe impact upon our society than a mugging death on the street...

    As the Supreme Court put it...
    Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476, 488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioner 24-27; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-15; Brief for Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as Amicus Curiae 18-22; Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae 17-19; Brief for the Anti-Defamation League et al. as Amici Curiae 910; Brief for Congressman Charles E. Schumer et al. as Amici Curiae 8-9. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=508&invol=476
    Interesting .. .because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person.
    If you are saying that violent crimes against homosexuals are no more valid than ones against religion, colour, disabilty, national origin or ancestry of that person I agree. In fact I would expand that to every group..including innocent people of any kind.

    As an aside here. Are you claiming that all of the decisions, claims and utterances of the US supreme court should taken as the default moral and legal truth or just the ones that suit you?
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    This is a false assessment of how hate crimes work.
    Whites are victims of hate crimes. Men are victim of hate crimes. Straight people are victims of hate crimes.
    The hate crime legislation talks about crimes based on the victim's race. Since all people have a race, all are protected by the legislation.
    In fact ALL crimes that involving the assailant hating their victims should be called hate crimes , right?


    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    You realize that without any hate crime legislation, judges currently take motivation into account when they decide sentencing.

    Two identical scenarios, separated only by motive.
    A man is dying in the hospital from incurable cancer. He is killed by his wife...
    a) The wife wants the insurance money and she thinks the husband is dying too slowly, so she kills him.
    b) The wife can't stand to see the husband in pain any longer and wishes to end his suffering, so she kills him.

    Our society already takes motive into account. Crimes typically include a RANGE of potential sentences possible, because not all crimes are created equal. Even when it's the same category.
    Indeed and crimes can be assessed and the criminal sentenced without the arbitary loading of a ' hate crime' tariff but you dont want that do you?
    You want homosexuals to be special victims, worthy of a heavier sentence than ' unhate' crimes( presumably where the the victim still has been attacked because of hate but is of less consequence because it was not a special kind of hate)..sheesh

    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    Exactly. And as such, everybody is protected by hate crime legislation.
    No they are not, just the special ones ( that include homosexuals)


    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

    Whites are victims of hate crimes. Men are victims of hate crimes. Straights and Christians are victims of hate crimes.
    The case I cited earlier -> Wisconsin v Mitchell. It involved BLACK assailants and WHITE victims.
    There is no "discrimination" here.
    Only when the hatred was directed toward their special status. A white victim would not be considered a victim of a hate crime if the , lets say, black assailant
    hated them for any other reason than a small specifically defined sort of hate
    Last edited by gansao; 06-24-2014 at 05:50 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    8
    According to a prominent Criminal Justice reform advocate in Texas:
    the hate crime laws add "unnecessary costs and conditions" to the prosecution process
    but don't add anything that serves any purpose.

    You can accomplish the same with the GIVEN laws, MINUS the added bureaucracy to prove it qualifies as a hate crime.
    So IN PRACTICE it adds more burden and more costs without adding to the results.

    My understanding is that it is "feel good" legislation that makes people feel a statement is being made in the public media.
    So why can't that statement be made without adding costs to the process of legislative, legal, prosecutions etc.

    Very similar to how executions make a statement, and have a slight deterrent effect right afterwards,
    but overall do not address the cause of the crime itself, nor correction and prevention of the cause.

    If people want to make a statement in the media to deter crime,
    why not televise more programs showing criminal behavior being treated and cured, and restitution to victims made.

    When people see how much work that takes, on a real person level, why not intervene and stop criminal abuses sooner?
    If people are going to go through all that rehab and restitution, why not do it to benefit oneself by getting your act straight now;
    and not wait until after committing crimes to have to go through all that, and work for restitution the rest of your life, to pay damages to someone else?

    THAT would make a deterrent statement!

    Quote Originally Posted by manolete View Post
    We don't need no stinkin hate crimes laws.

    If anyone wishes to debate me on any subject having to do with Religion ,or Religion vs. Atheism ,let me know. If anyone wants to debate a particular political point of view , don't hesitate to make your wishes know.I would be more than happy to debate anything proposed, provided we agree on a few rules .

    The point to be debated.
    Answers or responses must be given in no more than 2-3 minutes max.
    Answers or responses must be no longer than one or two small paragraphs at most and must be the debaters own thoughts.

    Breaks can be had at any time for any reason and debate can be called off and continued at a later date.

    No third party opinions or intrusions allowed during debate but can be allowed during break periods.

    All responses must be relevant with no grandstanding . deflections are not allowed. Any variance must be used for purpose of analogy and must be short and to the point.

    And please ,no threats or verbal abuse;serious applicants only need apply.

    any break in the rules brings an immediate end to debate.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    As I said everyone is a member of a group. If a man tends to be violent towards women then he more of a danger to that group. If a man tends to be more violent towards the weak then the same applies. If tends to be more violent towards perceived slights then the same applies again.
    The conclusion is that a man who has a tendency towards violence has to be threat to ' groups' of one sort or another.Elevating a crime against one group as more heinous than one toward another or against the general public amounts to discrimination
    So if everyone is a member of some group, possibly more than one, how does discrimination enter into the question? Again, the crime is not more heinous, the motives are more reprehensible and the criminal less likely to be rehabilitated.

    Also YOU are the one who specified killers I did not in my first post and referred to actual killers in response to your post. The same applies to any violent act.
    What does this mean? I was reading your post with interest when you constructed this monstrosity.

    Are you Manolete? That's what you appear to imply here, from what little sense this sentence makes.

    Another point is that the crimes are called ' hate CRIMES' thus they address the crime .
    All punishments address the criminal. Hate crimes describe certain motives for crime. Having been convicted of a hate crime, the hate criminal faces stiffer penalties due to his motivations.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by emilynghiem View Post
    According to a prominent Criminal Justice reform advocate in Texas:
    the hate crime laws add "unnecessary costs and conditions" to the prosecution process
    but don't add anything that serves any purpose.

    You can accomplish the same with the GIVEN laws, MINUS the added bureaucracy to prove it qualifies as a hate crime.
    So IN PRACTICE it adds more burden and more costs without adding to the results.
    The FBI reported 7,700+ incidents of hate crime in 2006. If we gotta take baby steps first so we can run later I'm willing.

    My understanding is that it is "feel good" legislation that makes people feel a statement is being made in the public media.
    So why can't that statement be made without adding costs to the process of legislative, legal, prosecutions etc.
    In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make the statement by adding cost to the system. On the other hand, in a perfect world there would be no hate crimes either.

    Very similar to how executions make a statement, and have a slight deterrent effect right afterwards,
    but overall do not address the cause of the crime itself, nor correction and prevention of the cause.

    If people want to make a statement in the media to deter crime,
    why not televise more programs showing criminal behavior being treated and cured, and restitution to victims made.

    When people see how much work that takes, on a real person level, why not intervene and stop criminal abuses sooner?
    If people are going to go through all that rehab and restitution, why not do it to benefit oneself by getting your act straight now;
    and not wait until after committing crimes to have to go through all that, and work for restitution the rest of your life, to pay damages to someone else?

    THAT would make a deterrent statement!
    I don't believe in the deterrent value of punishment in our legal system. I don't believe any criminal commits a crime thinking he will be caught. Further, it is in my mind most criminals would make restitution in the manner of O. J. Simpson: grudgingly and escaping the spirit of the law at every opportunity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •