Hate Crime Laws are Stupid

[WillNever]

Where in that excerpt does it state that the attack is somehow "no big deal" because it isn't a hate crime?

I'm not sure. This seems to be one of those mock outrage threads.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Color me confused. In what way is this event an indictment of hate crime laws? Someone clue me in here.

It isn't. Mad is just using this as an example of a crime that would normally have been considered a 'hate crime' if the perpetrators had been all white or if someone had called him a hispanic pig or something.

Basically the perps of this crime will receive normal sentencing. Hate crimes receive harsher sentences even if the circumstances are exactly the same.

 

[WillNever]

Yeah. But look at it this way;
If a white guy beats the shit outta' a black guy, and they deem it a hate crime (racial hatred or something), the white guy is found guilty and punished with, say, 20 years in prison.
Now ...the same white guy beats the shit outta' another white guy, no one would call that a hate crime. So the guy gets, say, 5 years in prison.

Sorry to piss on your hate parade guys, but you seem to be not cognizant of the fact that those laws apply both ways.

There are no laws that state "if a black person is assaulted, the sentence for the white offender is increased by...." Those laws actually protect whites as much as they do blacks. They're worded to include crimes that are motivated by hatred on the basis of ANY race. So if some black people injure a whole bunch of white people on the basis of their race, the punishment would be equal to as if a whole bunch of whites assaulted some blacks. No one race is protected.

What's that say to us? Well, it says pretty damned plainly that black men are more valuable than white guys in the view of the law! Or at the very least, that one black guy was more valuable than a white guy. Seems wrong, don't it?

Those laws apply equally to both blacks and whites. That question is a fallacy.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The argument isn't that hate crimes only go one way. The question is what difference does it make if someone is motivated by race or religion. If you assault someone, deface a religious building with a swastika, kill someone, rape someone then it should be prosecuted as a crime no matter the motivation. In short crime is crime. If you beat up a guy you beat up a guy whether you call him a fag or not

If we have laws against such crimes then we don't need 'hate crime' laws.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

So the reason behind the crime should be ignored? I think the motivation behind a certain action is quite important though..

 

[Baron Max]

Originally Posted by Baron Max: "Yeah. But look at it this way;
If a white guy beats the shit outta' a black guy, and they deem it a hate crime (racial hatred or something), the white guy is found guilty and punished with, say, 20 years in prison.
Now ...the same white guy beats the shit outta' another white guy, no one would call that a hate crime. So the guy gets, say, 5 years in prison."

Sorry to piss on your hate parade guys, but you seem to be not cognizant of the fact that those laws apply both ways.

Oh, I'm quite aware of the both-sides issue, Will. If you just change the racial make-up around in my statement above, you'll see that it's still the same situation ....in "hate crimes", the law is actually holding one person as more valuable than others. One way it's "black more valuable", and in the other way, it's "white is more valuable". But my statement remains valid.

So see? Your critique of my post is actually support for eliminating the idea of "hate crimes", just as I was also advocating.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

So the reason behind the crime should be ignored? I think the motivation behind a certain action is quite important though..

It's important ONLY to determine "why" someone did the crime for purposes of the trial testimony, etc. But the crime is still the same crime even if they have no reason for it. The motivation should NOT have any effect on guilt or innocence, nor on the punishment meted out.

Baron Max

 

[Repo Man]

We differentiate between motivations for murder. The penalties for killing someone in a fit of rage are generally less severe than for killing someone in a calculated manner according to a plan (premeditated). We don't just say "murder is murder" - certainly in the U.S. we say some murders are worse than others (deserving a more severe punishment) based on motive. Is that wrong?

 

[Baron Max]

We differentiate between motivations for murder. The penalties for killing someone in a fit of rage are generally less severe than for killing someone in a calculated manner according to a plan (premeditated). We don't just say "murder is murder" - certainly in the U.S. we say some murders are worse than others (deserving a more severe punishment) based on motive. Is that wrong?

No, that's not wrong. It's like or similar to differentiating between accident and purposeful crime. So, yes, that part of it is important from many aspects of the crime and trial and punishment.

But a hate crime is a different animal! Hate crimes basically differentiate one group of people as better or more important than others. It's basically saying that if you kill a "regular" person, it's bad, but it's not nearly as bad as if you'd killed a "special" person!! That's a helluva big difference between motivation and hate crime scenarios.

Baron Max

 

[WillNever]

Oh, I'm quite aware of the both-sides issue, Will. If you just change the racial make-up around in my statement above, you'll see that it's still the same situation ....in "hate crimes", the law is actually holding one person as more valuable than others. One way it's "black more valuable", and in the other way, it's "white is more valuable". But my statement remains valid.

So see? Your critique of my post is actually support for eliminating the idea of "hate crimes", just as I was also advocating.

Baron Max

How so? Each race has an equal chance for increased punishment. Sounds pretty fair to me. The argument that it temporarily makes one race more valuable is unfounded; your race doesn't matter, only the relationship between races (same or different) and your reason for injuring someone matters.

Much of racism is born of fear, baron max. Fear that people with a certain characteristic will identify themselves as a group and act on that basis, either against you or in promotion of themselves. Right now, you are projecting your own fearful thoughts and feelings onto other groups of people, and that just doesn't fly.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, it's pretty clear they hated him.

Anyway, I think it's rather that they want to assure the public that there were no additional factors in the assault.

 

[Baron Max]

How so? Each race has an equal chance for increased punishment. Sounds pretty fair to me. ...

You don't seem to be following the line of logic very well, Will. What's up with that?

If victim 1 is assaulted and the perp is arrested; if it's deemed a "hate crime", then that very crime means that victim 1 is more valuable than some other, normal victim. And yet, in our criminal system, one of the very basic principles is that everyone is deemed equal under the law. So ...how can the assault of one person be worse than the assault of any other person? See? The two victims are NOT equal under that law -- one is more important than the other.

Much of racism is born of fear, baron max. ...

That's pure bullshit, Will! It's one of those saying that people use as if it really means something. It doesn't!

Most racists that I know don't fear the people they hate, they hate them and would kill or beat the shit outta' them given even a slight chance to do so. No, Will, it's not "born of fear", it's born of hate.

... Right now, you are projecting your own fearful thoughts and feelings onto other groups of people, and that just doesn't fly.

Huh? What? Explain that statement ...who am I hating? Who am I fearful of? You're not making any sense, but I'm willing to await an explanation.

Baron Max

 

[WillNever]

You don't seem to be following the line of logic very well, Will. What's up with that?

If victim 1 is assaulted and the perp is arrested; if it's deemed a "hate crime", then that very crime means that victim 1 is more valuable than some other, normal victim.

No it doesn't. It just means that the person was injured because their race was at issue. You taking that idea that the crime took place because their race was different and making an illogical leap to "the crime took place because their race was more valuable" doesn't change that.

That's pure bullshit, Will! It's one of those saying that people use as if it really means something. It doesn't!

Most racists that I know don't fear the people they hate, they hate them and would kill or beat the shit outta' them given even a slight chance to do so. No, Will, it's not "born of fear", it's born of hate.

It's true, baron, fear tends to beget hate. When people formally identify as a group and act in self-promoting ways, others tend to react negatively. That is why racial counterculture organizations in the past have been met with outrage. People see such self-recognition as a threat... and then begin acting against them on that basis.

Huh? What? Explain that statement ...who am I hating? Who am I fearful of? You're not making any sense, but I'm willing to await an explanation.

Baron Max

Hm. Your reaction speaks well of my statements.

 

[Asguard]

Where in that excerpt does it state that the attack is somehow "no big deal" because it isn't a hate crime?

i agree, they would still be charged with agravated assult (or equivlant), as i understand most laws all that changes if its declared a "hate crime" is that it automatically becomes agravated assult rather than comon assult.

Does the fact that murder carries the potentual for life without parol (or the DP whatever) and someone is senatanced that way for "simply" putting a gun to a partners head and shooting them in there sleep some how lessen that same sentance if applied to someone who tortures and then kills?

What a ridiculas assumption mad

 

[Baron Max]

No it doesn't. It just means that the person was injured because their race was at issue. You taking that idea that the crime took place because their race was different and making an illogical leap to "the crime took place because their race was more valuable" doesn't change that.

No, Will .....I take the logical step because of the PUNISHMENT is different. I don't give a shit about the race ...if assault is assault, then the punishment should be the same whether the victim is black or red or yellow or blue! In hate crimes, the punishment is different ....thus the victim is seen, according to the law, as being more valuable than normal people. That sucks.

It's true, baron, fear tends to beget hate. When people formally identify as a group and act in self-promoting ways, others tend to react negatively. That is why racial counterculture organizations in the past have been met with outrage. People see such self-recognition as a threat... and then begin acting against them on that basis.

So all those white guys in the southern USA who killed and hung those black guys in the 40s and 50s .....were afraid of those blacks??? They feared them, so they kidnapped them, beat them up and hung them?? ....because they were afraid of them?? ...LOL!!

Use your silly, foolish psychology on someone who belives that hokey-pokey crap!

Baron Max

 

[WillNever]

No, Will .....I take the logical step because of the PUNISHMENT is different. I don't give a shit about the race ...if assault is assault, then the punishment should be the same whether the victim is black or red or yellow or blue! In hate crimes, the punishment is different ....thus the victim is seen, according to the law, as being more valuable than normal people. That sucks.

What if they are? They're the victim. Victims are not equal to offenders.

So all those white guys in the southern USA who killed and hung those black guys in the 40s and 50s .....were afraid of those blacks???

Actually yes. That is also why they didn't let them vote, or have access to equal education, or let them see themselves as equals for a very long time. It's much easier to control people when you make them dependent on you. Look at how terrified southern goobers were when they found out blacks were going to be integrated into the schools with their white kids. You seem irked by this line of thought. Does it make you feel a certain way about yourself, banon?

 

[Baron Max]

What if they are? They're the victim. Victims are not equal to offenders.

So you agree with the hate crimes designation? That if a person commits some crime against another, then in the regular case, it's, say, simple assault. But if suddenly they discover that the victim is, say, gay, then the punishment is more severe. And you agree with that? You agree that a gay individual is more important, and thus the punishment for the crime should be more severe?

Same crime (simple assualt), yet different punishment depending on who the victim is or what they believe or how they act??? Don't seem "equal under the law", does it?

Actually yes. ...

Is this another one of those cases where if you say it enough times, that makes it true? Or if you get a couple of more people to say it, then it's true?

You're a hoot, Will. People have been hating other people for various reasons since the beginning of human history. And now you think it's because they were scared of them? ....LOL! Attila the Hun was scared of Eastern Europeans? ...LOL! Yep, Will, you're a hoot.

Baron Max

 

[WillNever]

You agree that a gay individual is more important, and thus the punishment for the crime should be more severe?

I don't believe gays are more important, but if you say so.

Same crime (simple assualt), yet different punishment depending on who the victim is or what they believe or how they act??? Don't seem "equal under the law", does it?

It's not different punishments depending on who the victim is. It's different punishment if it's an assault on the basis of race. No one race is protected.

You're a hoot, Will. People have been hating other people for various reasons since the beginning of human history. And now you think it's because they were scared of them? ....LOL! Attila the Hun was scared of Eastern Europeans? ...LOL! Yep, Will, you're a hoot.
Baron Max

Yes, he would be afraid of a world where he wasn't powerful.

 

[Baron Max]

It's not different punishments depending on who the victim is. It's different punishment if it's an assault on the basis of race. No one race is protected.

Why should the punishment be different on the basis of race???? That seems to prove that the criminal system acknowledges on race as better than another.

How can you possibly defend hate crime laws? It's so blatantly bigoted, prejudicial and racist in its ideals as anything I've ever heard in my life! Will, even though I don't like you, I thnk you're a much smarter, more intelligent man than to agree with the hate crime laws. If not, if you still agree with them, then my opinion of your intelligence is waaaaaay off.

Yes, he would be afraid of a world where he wasn't powerful.

Attila the Hun was scared of the Eastern Europeans, huh? And that makes Attila the Hun a racist? ...LOL!

You're a hoot, Will.

Baron Max

 

[WillNever]

Why should the punishment be different on the basis of race???? That seems to prove that the criminal system acknowledges on race as better than another.

Which race is acknowledged to be better?

How can you possibly defend hate crime laws? It's so blatantly bigoted, prejudicial and racist in its ideals as anything I've ever heard in my life! Will, even though I don't like you, I thnk you're a much smarter, more intelligent man than to agree with the hate crime laws. If not, if you still agree with them, then my opinion of your intelligence is waaaaaay off.

Racist against who? Please state what specific races are hurt by hate crime laws.

Attila the Hun was scared of the Eastern Europeans, huh? And that makes Attila the Hun a racist? ...LOL!

Please state where either of those statements were made.