Who's in the what now? Where the hell is this?
Hate Crime Laws are Stupid
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Who's in the what now? Where the hell is this?
So you hated discrimination in the past, but you now approve of discrimination to ...ahhh, what.... right a wrong that was done in the past becasue of the discrimination that you don't like???
Is there good discrimination and bad discrimination? If so, who decides?
So now you're advocating using racial (and whatever) discrimination so as to punish people who use discrimination to do their crime? Is this more of your "good" discrimination at work to foil the horrors of the "bad" discrimination?
Hmm? What are you saying here, Bells? That all laws are good laws and no one should ever complain about them? If that's the case, Bells, then blacks would never have been allowed to vote or buy a house or anything. Do you like that law, Bells? Are you suggesting that the black in the early days of the USA should have just sucked it up and accepted the law?
The hate crimes laws are bad laws that are blatantly discriminatory. And if there's one thing that our Constitution stands for, it's that all men are equal under the law. The crime laws negate that very high principle ...and glorifies racial (and whatever) discrimination.
Baron Max
The acid-in-the-face attacks? In Pakistan and Afghanistan. The victims were mostly young girl who did a "bad thing" by going to school. The Taliban and/or al Queda were the perpetrators.
Baron Max
Reading Bells post got me to thinking a little bit about this "hate crime" issue. And most of you know me well enough to know that I like to twist things up, turn them around, mash them into mush, then pull it all apart and look at it from different perspectives. So ....let's do that now.
For those of you who believe in using the "hate crime" designation for some crimes, let me ask you a question. Let's say that a black man is brutally killed by some racist white guys. The state designates it as a hate crime and they're ultimately convicted and sentenced to live in prison without parole. Okay so far?
Now ...let's say that instead of that victim being black, he's white ...same as the killers. They killed the white guy in the same brutal manner as the black guy above. The state does NOT designate it a hate crime, and it goes to trial. Okay?
Now y'all tell me .....should the same racist white guys get a lesser sentence for killing that white guy? Is the killing of the white guy somehow a lesser offense than killing the black guy, thus deserving of a lesser sentence?
And for those who will try to be dishonest in their responses, you can turn this around into a killing because of religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation or gender or whatever else is left. It's all the same ....does the exact same crime deserve a lesser sentence if the perpetrator and the victim are the same "thing"?
Baron Max
For those of you who believe in using the "hate crime" designation for some crimes, let me ask you a question. Let's say that a black man is brutally killed by some racist white guys. The state designates it as a hate crime and they're ultimately convicted and sentenced to live in prison without parole. Okay so far?
Now ...let's say that instead of that victim being black, he's white ...same as the killers. They killed the white guy in the same brutal manner as the black guy above. The state does NOT designate it a hate crime, and it goes to trial. Okay?
Now y'all tell me .....should the same racist white guys get a lesser sentence for killing that white guy? Is the killing of the white guy somehow a lesser offense than killing the black guy, thus deserving of a lesser sentence?
And for those who will try to be dishonest in their responses, you can turn this around into a killing because of religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation or gender or whatever else is left. It's all the same ....does the exact same crime deserve a lesser sentence if the perpetrator and the victim are the same "thing"?
Baron Max
The kind of hatred necessary to attack people and/or property isn't inborn. It's a learned value/social view. And, as a social view, I believe that it sets a dangerous precedent to use it to justify more punishment than a crime normally warrants.
Motive can be crucial in finding perpetrators and distinguishing between premeditated crimes and "crimes of passion". To the best of my knowledge, though, it's not common practice to use peoples' social views and values to determine the severity of crimes (aside from with hate-crimes, of course).
I don't buy it.
It seems more likely to me that this an attempt by politicians and political activists to use the power of the government to discourage social views that they find obnoxious. I also wouldn't be surprised if hate-crime laws eventually lead to hate-speech laws (slippery slope and all).
Well, it's not like it never happened in the UK...Katie Piper, hint hint.
So, in order to compensate for something that generally doesn't happen any longer, you want to subject people to Orwellian thought-crime laws?
Seems you folks are too hung up on the actual act. In the UK, we see 'hate crime' as more the inciting of racial hatred, and inciting people to act violently for no other reason than race. It's the cause of the crime we are trying to outlaw, as the crime clearly already is. Please try to not put your cart your before your horse here.
Well, sure, but that's a different law altogether! In fact, the USA had such laws against "incitement" years before the "hate crimes laws" were enacted.
But remember, it's two separate issues. The "hate crime" designation is ONLY used in the USA in order to punish the perpetrators more harshly than they otherwise would be sentenced. ...for the same exact crime!
That's easy ...just outlaw thinking! Or more to the point, outlaw thinking in any way except the way that Phlogistician thinks. Then the world will be a better place, right?
Baron Max
Yeah, it's quite likely, indeed.
And in the USA, our fed gov is grabbing more and more power from the local and state all the time - taking big, big chunks as they go!
Hate-speech laws? Yeah, they'll get to that very soon ...if they're not already workin' on it. But when they do, it'll be against the law to speak of hatred towards anyone .....OTHER THAN... white, anglo-saxon, christian people!
Baron Max
I told you to stop stuffing straw men Max, and you ignored me. Any more dishonesty and you'll be back on my ignore list.
It's interesting (and perhaps telling?) that you didn't answer anything else in my response to your post. Why?
It's funny, Phlog, that you can't ignore me without something or someone to tell you to! What else can't you do without someone or some thing telling you to do it? ...LOL!
Baron Max
No it is not the same crime. The intent is different. Standing at the window and aiming a gun at someone on the otherside and then firing and killing them is 1st degree murder. Doing the exact same thing with your eyes closed is 2nd degree murder and a lighter sentence. Killing them because they threatened your own or your child's life, even if premeditated can still be considered self defense. Intent is very important when it comes to sentencing and distinguishing one crime from another even though the end result was the same.
Think ....
Can you prove that no reporter asked the question? Or that hate crimes aren't a concern in this particular community? Are you so cynical that it is impossible that the police spokesman was responding to a community concern, and instead just throwing some random tidbit out there for ... well, why?
Haven't you ever paid attention to what spokespeople actually do? Every organization is subject to inquiries of concern. If you're a corporate flak, you appease stockholders. If you're a political flak, you duck issues that get your boss in trouble. If you're a police spokesman, one of the groups on your list is the people who frequently communicate their concerns to the department: e.g., civic groups.
That something is or isn't a hate crime changes the needs a community must address in response to the event. As it is, these assailants must learn conflict resolution and common decency; this is a cross between an Archie comic and Animal House. For the community, the good news is that this incident isn't part of a wider ethnic rivalry issue; for the parents and students, the good news is that you don't have to add curbing racism to the list of responses. There may still be a race issue in the community, but this isn't about to inflame it.
And to you, such things may be ridiculous. But to those involved, they are important.
Madanthonywayne said:
Can you prove that no reporter asked the question? Or that hate crimes aren't a concern in this particular community? Are you so cynical that it is impossible that the police spokesman was responding to a community concern, and instead just throwing some random tidbit out there for ... well, why?
Haven't you ever paid attention to what spokespeople actually do? Every organization is subject to inquiries of concern. If you're a corporate flak, you appease stockholders. If you're a political flak, you duck issues that get your boss in trouble. If you're a police spokesman, one of the groups on your list is the people who frequently communicate their concerns to the department: e.g., civic groups.
That something is or isn't a hate crime changes the needs a community must address in response to the event. As it is, these assailants must learn conflict resolution and common decency; this is a cross between an Archie comic and Animal House. For the community, the good news is that this incident isn't part of a wider ethnic rivalry issue; for the parents and students, the good news is that you don't have to add curbing racism to the list of responses. There may still be a race issue in the community, but this isn't about to inflame it.
And to you, such things may be ridiculous. But to those involved, they are important.
Bells
Staff member
How is it discriminatory to provide protection from bigotry for all citizens?
Do you think it is discriminatory that a hate group cannot commit an act of violence or incite violence against another group or person?
You still just don't get it, do you?
You can protest. I don't see you protesting. I only see you trolling.
Do you think it is discrimination to provide legal protection for all citizens against bigotry? If so, please explain yourself?
Laws that prevented Blacks from voting was discriminatory. Those laws did not provide any form of protection for a whole group of society. The laws now ensure that everyone is protected equally. What part of that don't you quite understand?
So you think laws that provide protection for all races, abled or disabled and that cover all sexual orientations is somehow "blatantly discriminatory"? Explain how.
Indeed. And this law applies to all men and women equally. What part of that don't you quite understand?
No pet. The crime laws dictate that you cannot incite hatred or bigotry or violence based on your bigotry against anybody. Now please explain to me, how is that discrimination?
No they do not, nor would they be charged with a lesser sentence. Their sentence, if in your country, would be the death penalty. Now let me ask you a question, what if they killed the white guy because the white guy was married to a black, Muslim, Asian, Jewish or disabled woman or what if they killed him because he was homeless or disabled? And that was the only reason why they killed him... Do you know what the hate crime laws do then? It forces the authorities to investigate it, to find the motive. Their prison sentence would not change. They would be charged under a hate crime. Seriously now, what part of that don't you quite understand?
Hate crime laws are in place to force the authorities to investigate it, when they might not want to or refuse to. I would suggest you read up on the trial for the killers of Shepard. They were not tried under hate crime laws (had they been sentenced under hate crime laws, their penalty would have been the same). It was his murder that prompted the majority of your citizens to demand that homosexuals be included and be protected under your existing hate crime legislation, along with everyone else. Hate crime laws force the bigoted motive to be investigated and tried under. The sentence would not have been greater or lesser either way. Maybe one day that will sink into your skull.
Where did you get this from?
How can they know it's discriminatory unless they, themselves, are being discriminatory? Isn't "justice" and "law enforcement" supposed to be non-discriminatory? Isn't justice supposed to be blind?
I think inciting acts of violence against anyone, whoever they are, should be illegal. And since justice is supposed to be blind, it shouldn't matter what either party's genetic makeup is or what their religion is, etc. See? No hate crime involved at all ...just plain ol' illegal incitement to violence.
No. And you obviously can't explain it or you wouldn't have resorted to such a dishonest response. Discrimination is wrong, Bells, whether it's used by rednecks in Texas or by the FBI in investigating crimes. Discrimination is discrimination. Got it now?
"...protected equally."??? You say that?? ...and yet you're here advocating that the justice department, as well as the courts and juries, use discrimination in order to prove that "hate crimes" have been committed, as well as to use discrimination to provide for a harsher sentence.
Is that what you're actually suggesting, Bells, ...more discrimination, just turned around the other way?
No, Bells. And if you'd read my post you'd see that I made the distinction that "hate crime laws" are discriminatory, not regular ol' laws. But then you knew that, and wanted to use this as another bit of dishonesty, huh?
But "hate crimes" designations are NOT applied equally. In fact, they're so blatantly discriminatory that everyone on Earth should stand up in protest against them.
Bells, if the sentence wouldn't change, then why bother with the motive?
If the "hate crime" designation is used to influence the jury to find the man guilty, then that's the prosecution using discrimination as a tool to sway the jury to find him guilty when he might have gotten off. So see, it's discriminatory for the prosecutor to use such info. The justice system claims that discrimination is wrong, yet they use it to help convict the suspect??
If the sentence wouldn't have changed, then why bother with the hate crimes designation? In the Shepard case, what would have changed, Bells, if the hate crimes designation had been used?
As for federal authorities stomping all over the local authorities, that bothers me a lot!
Oh, it's sunk into my skull, Bells. Hate crimes designations are blatantly discriminatory and attempt to divide people into non-equal entities under the law ....which is against the principles of the Constitution.
But, Bells, you keep saying that the sentence wouldn't have been greater, but how can you know that? See? You're only fooling yourself, and in doing so, you're proving yourself a bigot and a racist in the worse way!
Baron Max