Now you're simply being dishonest in your discussion. And worse, you're being dishonest in not even adhering to the principle of the OP.
Sorry, Will, you're just not worth talking to about this issue of hate crimes.
Baron Max
Hate Crime Laws are Stupid
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Now you're simply being dishonest in your discussion. And worse, you're being dishonest in not even adhering to the principle of the OP.
Sorry, Will, you're just not worth talking to about this issue of hate crimes.
Baron Max
Because they have nothing to do with the OP. And you know that, which is why I call you dishonest in your discussion.
Hate crime convictions levy punishment UNEQUALLY for the same crime.
Baron Max
Yes, you're right, Will. In fact, you're right in everything you say. In fact, you're right in everything that you'll ever say as long as you live. I hope you enjoy your long reign of correctness in everything.
Baron Max
I suppose it makes moral questions seem easier
I find the underlying racism of the complaint against hate crime legislation rather quite naked and pathetic. This isn't hard to figure out:
To borrow a phrase: "Just prosecute the crime." But what is the crime? People making these protests often have a much narrower focus than the actual implications of their suggestions.
Where do we draw the boundaries of determining the nature of any one crime? Certainly, the three examples above are all assaults. But they are all addressed differently by the justice system. The underlying complaint, if applied generally, would make all three crimes the same. Certainly one can propose that an assault is an assault is an assault, but we can also propose that a murder is a murder is a murder. Yet we have differing degrees of both assault and murder. We have differing degrees of rape. What makes the idea of hate crimes so exceptional in this context?
Note the focus on race. Hate crime legislation covers certain things that people fundamentally are: ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, &c; and also some things that people choose, like religion.
It seems rather strange to propose that bigotry be excepted from considering culpability in a crime:
Why should bigotry be excepted from determining culpability? Your boss is banging your wife, so in the heat of rage, you kill him. Why should there be a special consideration for this in the laws? Juan Raul Garza? Put to death in 2001 for killing people in the course of an illegal drug-smuggling operation. Why should trafficking-related murders get special consideration compared to other federal murder charges? Why is killing a cop or a child so much worse than killing a cheating housewife? Murder is murder, right? Just prosecute the crime.
And, to consider the complaint against hate crimes, the reasons why people commit crimes, and how crimes occur, are completely irrelevant to prosecuting the crime, right?
It just seems rather quite ... suspicious? or maybe convenient? ... that bigotry should somehow be excepted from considering culpability.
I find the underlying racism of the complaint against hate crime legislation rather quite naked and pathetic. This isn't hard to figure out:
• Two guys argue over the attitude problem of their favorite team's star player. The argument gets out of hand and one attacks the other.
• A husband and wife disagree about discretionary spending in the family budget. The argument gets out of hand and one attacks the other.
• A guy walking down the street gets beaten up by a passing stranger because he apparently looks too Jewish or gay or whatever the hell.
• A husband and wife disagree about discretionary spending in the family budget. The argument gets out of hand and one attacks the other.
• A guy walking down the street gets beaten up by a passing stranger because he apparently looks too Jewish or gay or whatever the hell.
To borrow a phrase: "Just prosecute the crime." But what is the crime? People making these protests often have a much narrower focus than the actual implications of their suggestions.
Where do we draw the boundaries of determining the nature of any one crime? Certainly, the three examples above are all assaults. But they are all addressed differently by the justice system. The underlying complaint, if applied generally, would make all three crimes the same. Certainly one can propose that an assault is an assault is an assault, but we can also propose that a murder is a murder is a murder. Yet we have differing degrees of both assault and murder. We have differing degrees of rape. What makes the idea of hate crimes so exceptional in this context?
Note the focus on race. Hate crime legislation covers certain things that people fundamentally are: ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, &c; and also some things that people choose, like religion.
It seems rather strange to propose that bigotry be excepted from considering culpability in a crime:
• "Yes, your honor, I got out of hand. Sure, I have no idea how he can argue that a shite quarterback like Tim Tebow is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but yeah, I feel kind of stupid for breaking his jaw. That wasn't necessary."
• "I'm sorry, your honor, but what am I supposed to do? If she wants to be a mouthy bitch and spend us into a hole, I have to take charge, right? For the sake of my family. Yeah, I broke her jaw, but the cunt deserved it."
•"Damn faggot needed to have his jaw broken. Maybe now he'll think twice before talking all swishy and shit."
• "I'm sorry, your honor, but what am I supposed to do? If she wants to be a mouthy bitch and spend us into a hole, I have to take charge, right? For the sake of my family. Yeah, I broke her jaw, but the cunt deserved it."
•
Why should bigotry be excepted from determining culpability? Your boss is banging your wife, so in the heat of rage, you kill him. Why should there be a special consideration for this in the laws? Juan Raul Garza? Put to death in 2001 for killing people in the course of an illegal drug-smuggling operation. Why should trafficking-related murders get special consideration compared to other federal murder charges? Why is killing a cop or a child so much worse than killing a cheating housewife? Murder is murder, right? Just prosecute the crime.
And, to consider the complaint against hate crimes, the reasons why people commit crimes, and how crimes occur, are completely irrelevant to prosecuting the crime, right?
It just seems rather quite ... suspicious? or maybe convenient? ... that bigotry should somehow be excepted from considering culpability.
Labeling something a hate crime explains the motivation, which is significant in court. Not that it deserves a heavier sentence above and beyond the crime that took place. But people are usually curious as to why others are motivated to commit heinous crimes. Being nosy is the human condition, why else have news?
Oh, geez, where the fuck have you been, Tiassa?? It has nothing to do with racism!!! The complaint against the "hate crimes legislation" is that it provides a harsher punishment for the same/similar crime .....JUST BECAUSE OF THE VICTIM'S RELIGION, RACE, CREED OR COLOR.. See? It deems one person more important than a "normal" person.
Try to follow the scenario below:
** If Joe beats the shit outta' Mike and is arrested for it. His sentence for simple assualt is, say, 5 years in prison.
** If Joe beats the shit outta' Mike and is arrested for it. During the investigation, they discover that Mike is a Muslim. They also discover that Joe has never liked Muslims. The prosecution deems it a hate crime, and the sentence is then increased to 10 years in prison.
See? Under the hate crime laws, the Muslim is deemed more important than the "normal" guy ....even though the "normal" guy is the same freakin' guy!! There's no other reason for the sentence to be increased other than his religion. Joe obviously "hated" Mike or he wouldn't have beaten the shit outta' him in the first place!
Go back to think about that, Tiassa. And next time, think a little before posting your drivel with all of the footnotes and bullshit ...intended to make people think you know what the fuck you're talking about!
Baron Max
Yes, Marie, but the very reason for the label of "hate crime" is so the judge and/or jury can give the convicted person a harsher sentence! In a court of law, what other reason could there be for the label?
Baron Max
Who is treated unequally..? The offender? Criminals being punished for their actions, imagine that.
Actually, we already have laws to punish people for their actions. Hate-crime laws take peoples' social/political views into consideration, which is Orwellian to say the least.
I don't see why spray-painting "ASSHOLE" on someone's garage door should warrant more punishment than spraying "HONKEY", some other racial slur or a Swastika.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
No one's social or political views are taken into consideration in the event of a hate crime, as racism is not a social or political view at all. All hate crimes do is to take someone;s inborn biases and hatreds are taken into account, the kind of primitive views that people hold on to because their brains never fully developed. Nothing new there. Motive has always been a crucial part of any legal proceeding, and it helps to determine sentencing. So... why stop with racism?
what?? Seems like a perfect excuse then.
The label is wrong. An assault can only be a hate crime, unless someone attacks someone because they really like them but i dont think that happens. The correct term is "bias" crime.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Nay, an assault does not need a hatred component to be an assault. Sometimes, and especially in cases of domestic assault which make up most assaults in the USA, people just lose their temper.
Notes on idiotic simplicity
Obviously, somewhere other than under your rock.
Just like the housewife getting beaten by her husband is more important than the "normal" person who gets popped in a bar fight?
It has everything to do with bigotry, Max. Your focus on the victim completely ignores the determination of a perpetrator's culpability. As such, the result is that bigotry—prejudice, racism, supremacism, hatred, &c.—should be, by the complaint against hate crimes, exempt from considerations of culpability.
So why should this be? Why would you empower racism to be exempt from consideration? Maybe self-interest?
See Apprendi v. New Jersey. Learn something about how hate crime prosecutions work. In other words, have a clue what you're talking about instead of just ranting emotionally in defense of your own pathetic hatred.
Take your second scenario: How is the sentence increased?
It isn't such an idiot-simple process in our justice system. Indeed, you should be happy about the Apprendi decision, since it carved out a special place for hate crimes in jurisprudence. In order for the hate crime to be applied and the sentence increased, a jury must accept the hate-crime argument. This was supposed to apply to all similar sentence enhancement, but it doesn't. Hate crimes are protected in ways that other, similar "enhanced" crimes aren't.
Furthermore, under the hate crime laws, the increased sentence does not reflect the primacy of any race, creed, or otherwise. Rather, it looks at the danger an offender presents to a community. If Joe beats the shit out of Mike for a disagreement about the Milwaukee Bucks while they're grilling brats out back, there is a reasonable argument to be made that Joe isn't really that much a danger to the community.
To the other, if Joe goes out and beats the holy living shit out of an Ethiopian immigrant just because he's Ethiopian, it's a much harder argument to make that he isn't so dangerous.
Your argument is so individually centered that it ignores society at large, and that's what the justice system is part of and what it is supposed to uphold.
How 'bout this, instead, Max? You need to go somewhere and buy a clue so that you're capable of actually arguing a real point instead of making an unholy fool of yourself.
____________________
Notes:
Suter, William. "Syllabus". Apprendi v. New Jersey. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2000. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University. December 27, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-478.ZS.html
Baron Max said:
Obviously, somewhere other than under your rock.
Just like the housewife getting beaten by her husband is more important than the "normal" person who gets popped in a bar fight?
It has everything to do with bigotry, Max. Your focus on the victim completely ignores the determination of a perpetrator's culpability. As such, the result is that bigotry—prejudice, racism, supremacism, hatred, &c.—should be, by the complaint against hate crimes, exempt from considerations of culpability.
So why should this be? Why would you empower racism to be exempt from consideration? Maybe self-interest?
See Apprendi v. New Jersey. Learn something about how hate crime prosecutions work. In other words, have a clue what you're talking about instead of just ranting emotionally in defense of your own pathetic hatred.
Take your second scenario: How is the sentence increased?
"The prosecution deems it a hate crime, and the sentence is then increased to 10 years in prison."
It isn't such an idiot-simple process in our justice system. Indeed, you should be happy about the Apprendi decision, since it carved out a special place for hate crimes in jurisprudence. In order for the hate crime to be applied and the sentence increased, a jury must accept the hate-crime argument. This was supposed to apply to all similar sentence enhancement, but it doesn't. Hate crimes are protected in ways that other, similar "enhanced" crimes aren't.
Furthermore, under the hate crime laws, the increased sentence does not reflect the primacy of any race, creed, or otherwise. Rather, it looks at the danger an offender presents to a community. If Joe beats the shit out of Mike for a disagreement about the Milwaukee Bucks while they're grilling brats out back, there is a reasonable argument to be made that Joe isn't really that much a danger to the community.
To the other, if Joe goes out and beats the holy living shit out of an Ethiopian immigrant just because he's Ethiopian, it's a much harder argument to make that he isn't so dangerous.
Your argument is so individually centered that it ignores society at large, and that's what the justice system is part of and what it is supposed to uphold.
How 'bout this, instead, Max? You need to go somewhere and buy a clue so that you're capable of actually arguing a real point instead of making an unholy fool of yourself.
____________________
Notes:
Suter, William. "Syllabus". Apprendi v. New Jersey. Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2000. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University. December 27, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-478.ZS.html
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
That's true Tiassa. Certain people in the thread have been operating under the idiotic assumption that if a crime takes place between two people of a different race/religion/creed/sexual orientation, then it is automatically a hate crime in the eyes of the law -- and then arguing against it on that basis.
Wallowing in sickness
It's actually a calculated position. They're afraid of the exposure their own bigotry opens them up to. It's a neurotic conflict between reality and desire reflecting in its shape the form of their own hatred.
It is a sickness they would rather wallow in.
WillNever said:
It's actually a calculated position. They're afraid of the exposure their own bigotry opens them up to. It's a neurotic conflict between reality and desire reflecting in its shape the form of their own hatred.
It is a sickness they would rather wallow in.
Well I guess it's only fair. Other labels can give you a lighter sentence or no sentence. All based on your thought process and intent, hate is no different than fear, love, or anger. It's obviously the thought thar counts. I guess I have to recant my previous statement. Boo hoo those poor criminals :bawl: I could cry all night. Since when do you care so much about criminals' just treatment, rights or feelings?
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
As well, in another thread Baron Max created he is advocating the usage of the death penalty -- which is the ULTIMATE punishment for a crime -- because criminals "are no longer good for society anyway" and "killing a criminal isn't worse than killing a steer for steak."
Apparently, his deceptively callous views disappear when someone commits a crime in the name of racism. It's very revealing in regard to who he identifies with and what ideals he supports, in many ways. If only it didnt' paint such an ugly picture...
Apparently, his deceptively callous views disappear when someone commits a crime in the name of racism. It's very revealing in regard to who he identifies with and what ideals he supports, in many ways. If only it didnt' paint such an ugly picture...