PDA

View Full Version : Hate Crime



beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 10:17 AM
What is your thought on Hate Crime?

Most arguements seem to argue that it is a thought crime.
People say, "all crime is hate crime."
But someone snatching a purse is much different than a white supremist tying Byrd to the back of his truck and dragging him to death for 3 miles. They are usually much more violent, and usually meant to send a message.

If you murder someone in a cold, calculating way, you are charged with 1st degree murder, and have the harshest sentence.
If you kill someone in an emotional rage, then you receive 2nd degree murder charges, and more lenient sentences.
If you kill someone in your car, it's called manslaughter, and a lesser crime.
But all are murder.

Terrorism is both a crime for the damage done, but also for the fear that it creates (ie, the name "terror-ism")
It is meant to scare a population.

There was a time when KKK members were blowing up black churches to keep black people in their place. But it was meant to send a message to the black community at large, the same way that terrorist in NYC send terror to people in San Diego.

So, it Hate Crime valid?
Should Hate Crime be termed "terrorism"?
Or should it be done away with altogether?

billwald
April 6th, 2005, 10:32 AM
The concept presumes the ability of the govt to read one's mind. On the other hand, it was Christianity that invented the concept of "thought crimes."

Poly
April 6th, 2005, 10:38 AM
I think it's pretty silly to refer to any crime as a "hate" crime. It's kind of redundant. Is there any crime committed that would be considered a "love" crime?

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 10:43 AM
Is there any crime committed that would be considered a "love" crime?The only ones I can think of are ones that shouldn't be crimes to begin with.

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 10:46 AM
I think it's pretty silly to refer to any crime as a "hate" crime. It's kind of redundant. Is there any crime committed that would be considered a "love" crime?

As I clearly stated, killing someone depends on what the persons intent was.

!st Degree
2nd Degree
Manslaughter.

Are these not also "thought crimes"?

Granite
April 6th, 2005, 10:47 AM
Hate crime's just another bogus idea spawned by political correctness.

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 10:47 AM
I think it's pretty silly to refer to any crime as a "hate" crime. It's kind of redundant. Is there any crime committed that would be considered a "love" crime?

How is flying a plane into the WTC "terrorism" and not simply murder?

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 10:48 AM
Hate crime's just another bogus idea spawned by political correctness.

Again, what's the difference between that, and charging someone with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree in a murder charge?

erinmarie
April 6th, 2005, 10:48 AM
Originally Posted by Poly

Is there any crime committed that would be considered a "love" crime?


Originally Posted by Turbo
The only ones I can think of are ones that shouldn't be crimes to begin with.

You two just came up with the opening to a really cheesy Hall and Oates type song "Love Crime Baby Oh Yeah"....

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 10:50 AM
You two just came up with the opening to a really cheesy Hall and Oates type song "Love Crime Baby Oh Yeah"....

You are sooooo getting bad rep points for putting that in my head :)

Poly
April 6th, 2005, 10:56 AM
You two just came up with the opening to a really cheesy Hall and Oates type song "Love Crime Baby Oh Yeah"....

What is this? "Erin Marie brings up gross songs of the eighties day"? Pretty in Pink was bad enough but now this one? That's just...just... A hate crime!!!

;)

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 10:59 AM
Don't you...
































...get me started. ;)

(What did you think I was going to say, Poly?)

Poly
April 6th, 2005, 11:00 AM
Oh wait a minute, I brought up that first gross one didn't I? Well, I wouldn't have if you weren't pregnant and in pink. :D

But that last one is so bad, it's still should be a hate crime for bringing it up.

Granite
April 6th, 2005, 11:03 AM
Again, what's the difference between that, and charging someone with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree in a murder charge?

For one, someone dies in this case, as opposed to a cross getting burned on a lawn (as an example).

For another, I think the distinction is made between intent and expression.

JoyfulRook
April 6th, 2005, 11:04 AM
Is there any crime committed that would be considered a "love" crime?
Some people would think of Euthanasia as a "love" crime.

Poly
April 6th, 2005, 11:04 AM
Don't you...
































...get me started. ;)

(What did you think I was going to say, Poly?)


Ok, that goes beyond a hate crime. That's just shear....um.....let's see, what's a word worse than hate? Oh yeah, God tends to use the word "abhor" when He wants to really stress hate. So that should be considered an "Abhor crime"!

Lovejoy
April 6th, 2005, 11:18 AM
Ok, that goes beyond a hate crime. That's just shear....um.....let's see, what's a word worse than hate? Oh yeah, God tends to use the word "abhor" when He wants to really stress hate. So that should be considered an "Abhor crime"!
A "cut off from covenant promise" crime! That would really stink!

Lovejoy
April 6th, 2005, 11:28 AM
What is your thought on Hate Crime?

Most arguements seem to argue that it is a thought crime.
People say, "all crime is hate crime."
But someone snatching a purse is much different than a white supremist tying Byrd to the back of his truck and dragging him to death for 3 miles. They are usually much more violent, and usually meant to send a message.

If you murder someone in a cold, calculating way, you are charged with 1st degree murder, and have the harshest sentence.
If you kill someone in an emotional rage, then you receive 2nd degree murder charges, and more lenient sentences.
If you kill someone in your car, it's called manslaughter, and a lesser crime.
But all are murder.

Terrorism is both a crime for the damage done, but also for the fear that it creates (ie, the name "terror-ism")
It is meant to scare a population.

There was a time when KKK members were blowing up black churches to keep black people in their place. But it was meant to send a message to the black community at large, the same way that terrorist in NYC send terror to people in San Diego.

So, it Hate Crime valid?
Should Hate Crime be termed "terrorism"?
Or should it be done away with altogether?
"Hate crime" is a little bit of a misnomer, in that it does not refer to a hate for the victim directly. Hating your victim will not result in the charge of a hate crime (such as the murder of your wife's lover). You have to hate the whole concept of the group that your victim comes from (like "Jews"), and just happen to express it on this one individual. Killing your wife's lover assumes that the situation is now over, you killed the thing that you hated (nonsense, but that is how it works), while killing a single Jew will never satisfy a true bigot. In that, I can see (from a worldly perspective) why they would have more fear of the second situation, as, in theory, that person will never stop killing and will actively attempt to recruit others to his cause. However, I prefer using the same designations as they use for sex crimes, in that you give them a level based on their risk of re-offending. And then use them to clear landmines in SE Asia.

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 11:40 AM
For one, someone dies in this case, as opposed to a cross getting burned on a lawn (as an example).

For another, I think the distinction is made between intent and expression.

But isn't intent a thought, and therefore a thought crime?

Byrd was dragged to death. They did so to become noteworthy to the Arian League.
He was attacked because he was black, and no other reason, but he wanted to express his disdain for African Americans. Unfortunately, it ended in death.

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 11:42 AM
"Hate crime" is a little bit of a misnomer, in that it does not refer to a hate for the victim directly. Hating your victim will not result in the charge of a hate crime (such as the murder of your wife's lover). You have to hate the whole concept of the group that your victim comes from (like "Jews"), and just happen to express it on this one individual. Killing your wife's lover assumes that the situation is now over, you killed the thing that you hated (nonsense, but that is how it works), while killing a single Jew will never satisfy a true bigot. In that, I can see (from a worldly perspective) why they would have more fear of the second situation, as, in theory, that person will never stop killing and will actively attempt to recruit others to his cause. However, I prefer using the same designations as they use for sex crimes, in that you give them a level based on their risk of re-offending. And then use them to clear landmines in SE Asia.

How would you present proof of a hate crime?

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 11:46 AM
Ok, that goes beyond a hate crime. That's just shear....um.....let's see, what's a word worse than hate? Oh yeah, God tends to use the word "abhor" when He wants to really stress hate. So that should be considered an "Abhor crime"!
:chuckle:

Free-Agent Smith
April 6th, 2005, 11:48 AM
The guidelines used by the law are way too broad. They should be kept more narrow so as to make it seem less biased on how sentencing is issued. When the law started allowing people to use so many different types of excuses to justify peoples actions our law became more of a bargaining unit than justice.

Lovejoy
April 6th, 2005, 11:49 AM
How would you present proof of a hate crime?
I don't think you can! Which is why you would base the designation (risk of re-offending) on their history of "hate talk" and violence toward a specific group. It is just a risk analysis, not really proof. The whole term "hate crime" is subjective, and would have to be discarded completely. You have to come up with term implying a general malevolence toward specific groups that increases the risk of violence toward those groups. And then use those guys to do dental care for ill-tempered Great White sharks.

Lovejoy
April 6th, 2005, 11:50 AM
The guidelines used by the law are way too broad. They should be kept more narrow so as to make it seem less biased on how sentencing is issued. When the law started allowing people to use so many different types of excuses to justify peoples actions our law became more of a bargaining unit than justice.
OOOOH, that is exactly what I am trying to say! Perfect. I wish I had not already given you rep points.

PureX
April 6th, 2005, 12:24 PM
When I was a kid, my dad really HATED Casius Clay (he wasn't Mohommed Ali, yet, back then). He'd never met Casius Clay, of course, but he really hated him. I remember that whenever Casius Clay came on the TV, and began his trash talking about how he was so pretty, and how he was the greatest, and how he was going to humiliate his opponents in the ring, my dad would get all red in the face and say things like "somebody's gonna kill that ******, and I don't blame 'em!" ... "Listen to that arrogant son-of-a___!" I was just a kid, and had never even met a black man. I had only met one black girl, who went to my grade school, and I really liked her. I even had a crush on her until my mother humiliated me for saying so. At that age I couldn't understand why my dad hated Casius Clay so much just because he said funny stuff on the TV. Everybody said funny stuff on the TV, that's what TV was for, wasn't it?

But now that I'm an adult, I know why my dad hated Casius Clay so much. Casius Clay represented, to my dad, every "******" my dad ever had a bad encounter with. And my dad grew up in downtown Cleveland, so I imagine that he'd probably had a few bad encounters with black men or boys while he was growing up. And unfortunately, my dad hadn't forgiven whatever bad encounters he might have had, and instead, he was fostering a huge resentment against a whole race of people based on the very irrational assumption that all black people must be like the one or two black people that may have mistreated him once a long time ago. And Mohommed Ali (I mean Casius Clay) was to my dad the perfect icon for this festering resentment-turned-to-hatred. And not only that, Casius Clay KNEW that he was the perfect icon for every white man's festering resentment turned to hatred, and he pranced around all the more arrogantly because of it. And my dad knew that Casius Clay knew this, and that he was rubbing my dad's own racial bigotry in his and every other white bigot's face.

None of this is a crime, though. It becomes a crime when someone lets their irrational resentment and hatred for a whole race, or ethnicity, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation, or political group overwhelm them, and they act out in a criminal way. Just as the words imply, "hate crime" is any crime based on an irrational hatred for a whole group of people.

I'm proud to say, by the way, that my dad no longer holds on to his old resentment against black people, as he once did, and I have not heard him speak against blacks or any particular grouping of people in many years. I don't know when or why he decided to face his own racism, and let go of it, but he must have done so, because I don't see any evidence of it in him anymore.

Lovejoy
April 6th, 2005, 12:36 PM
When I was a kid, my dad really HATED Casius Clay (he wasn't Mohommed Ali, yet, back then). He'd never met Casius Clay, of course, but he really hated him. I remember that whenever Casius Clay came on the TV, and began his trash talking about how he was so pretty, and how he was the greatest, and how he was going to humiliate his opponents in the ring, my dad would get all red in the face and say things like "somebody's gonna kill that ******, and I don't blame 'em!" ... "Listen to that arrogant son-of-a___!" I was just a kid, and had never even met a black man. I had only met one black girl, who went to my grade school, and I really liked her. I even had a crush on her until my mother humiliated me for saying so. At that age I couldn't understand why my dad hated Casius Clay so much just because he said funny stuff on the TV. Everybody said funny stuff on the TV, that's what TV was for, wasn't it?

But now that I'm an adult, I know why my dad hated Casius Clay so much. Casius Clay represented, to my dad, every "******" my dad ever had a bad encounter with. And my dad grew up in downtown Cleveland, so I imagine that he'd probably had a few bad encounters with black men or boys while he was growing up. And unfortunately, my dad hadn't forgiven whatever bad encounters he might have had, and instead, he was fostering a huge resentment against a whole race of people based on the very irrational assumption that all black people must be like the one or two black people that may have mistreated him once a long time ago. And Mohommed Ali (I mean Casius Clay) was to my dad the perfect icon for this festering resentment-turned-to-hatred. And not only that, Casius Clay KNEW that he was the perfect icon for every white man's festering resentment turned to hatred, and he pranced around all the more arrogantly because of it. And my dad knew that Casius Clay knew this, and that he was rubbing my dad's own racial bigotry in his and every other white bigot's face.

None of this is a crime, though. It becomes a crime when someone lets their irrational resentment and hatred for a whole race, or ethnicity, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation, or political group overwhelm them, and they act out in a criminal way. Just as the words imply, "hate crime" is any crime based on an irrational hatred for a whole group of people.

I'm proud to say, by the way, that my dad no longer holds on to his old resentment against black people, as he once did, and I have not heard him speak against blacks or any particular grouping of people in many years. I don't know when or why he decided to face his own racism, and let go of it, but he must have done so, because I don't see any evidence of it in him anymore.
Yeah, my dad too. Honestly, from a spiritual perspective, I don't think that sort of things leads to much violence. I think "hate" inside (a general sort) leads to violence, and bigotry becomes an excuse. Just as research shows that alcohol is often consumed after a crime as an excuse for the crime. Philip Yancy has a pretty good book on Grace that talks about his growing up in a segregated church, and on how he overcame bigotry. He also talks about the ones that never overcame it, and on how they where often the ones that were just filled with unforgiveness and hate in general. Good post.

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 12:40 PM
There are hate crimes in place for religious affiliation, and race. If you were killed by a group because you were Christian, the murderer could be charged with hate crime legislation.

I believe the reason it became an issue was that they wanted to add sexual orientation to the law.

Free-Agent Smith
April 6th, 2005, 12:54 PM
"Hate" shouldnt be an issue of whether or not something is a crime. Stealing is stealing. Assault is assault. Auto theft is auto theft. Murder is murder.

Lovejoy
April 6th, 2005, 12:57 PM
"Hate" shouldnt be an issue of whether or not something is a crime. Stealing is stealing. Assault is assault. Auto theft is auto theft. Murder is murder.

It does establish motive, though, and is therefore relevant to prosecution. Or so Law and Order reruns would have me believe.

philosophizer
April 6th, 2005, 12:58 PM
Ok, that goes beyond a hate crime. That's just shear....um.....let's see, what's a word worse than hate? Oh yeah, God tends to use the word "abhor" when He wants to really stress hate. So that should be considered an "Abhor crime"!

Yes, Turbo certainly has a dangerous mind doesn't he?

Zakath
April 6th, 2005, 01:02 PM
"Hate" shouldnt be an issue of whether or not something is a crime. Stealing is stealing. Assault is assault. Auto theft is auto theft. Murder is murder.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Mt. 5:27-27

Jesus of Nazareth seems to take very different line than you do regarding emotions and crimes (sins). It seems he taught that entertaining emotions like hate or lust were equivalent to committing a sinful action :think:

philosophizer
April 6th, 2005, 01:07 PM
If sins = crimes, that is. :think:

PureX
April 6th, 2005, 01:10 PM
There are reasons that "hate crimes" carry a heavier penalty. One is that a hate-crime is not just a crime against a person, it's a crime against the whole ideal of freedom and justice for all. If I break into a neighbor's house and trash the place looking for stuff to steal, that's a crime of greed and opportunity against my neighbor. But if I break into his house and trash the place because I'm trying to chase him out of my neighborhood, because I'm a racist and he's of some other race, that's a crime against the very ideals by which we all live. That's a crime not only against my neighbor, but against the civil freedoms and civil rights of every citizen in the nation.

Also, there are practical reasons. Sadly, when neighborhoods begin to mix, it often happens that the racists already living there want to intimidate the new race moving in by perpetraiting criminal acts. In the past, these racists knew that if the crimes were misdemeanors, they would suffer little punishment and so could repeat offend until they drove the people they wanted out, out. To put a stop to this, some misdemeanors were designated "hate-crimes" and carried a much higher penalty than usual.

PureX
April 6th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Sins are not crimes, and crimes are not sins. MANY Christians do not understand why this is so, and why it's very important that it remain so.

philosophizer
April 6th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Sins are not crimes, and crimes are not sins. MANY Christians do not understand why this is so, and why it's very important that it remain so.

That's really the main issue here, isn't it? That "crime" is a term that refers to a sort of action or deed while "sins" have more to do with what is in a persons heart.

Lovejoy
April 6th, 2005, 01:31 PM
That's really the main issue here, isn't it? That "crime" is a term that refers to a sort of action or deed while "sins" have more to do with what is in a persons heart.
...and while the Blood of Christ releases us from the penalty (Judgement) for what is in our heart, it does not release us from the penalty for our actions on earth, as determined by earthly judges. Exactly.

PureX
April 6th, 2005, 01:41 PM
Actually, the difference is that crimes are not the result of religious or moral judgemnt, but are instead the result of the need for intra-social protections. "Crimes" are what we call it when one citizen infringes unfairly on the EQUAL rights and freedoms of another citizen. Sins are entirely different. They are subjective religious taboos based on a whole collection of circumstances, myths, traditions, scripture, and wishful thinking. We hace civil laws to protect us both from the ideologies of others, and so that we will have the freedom to follow our own ideologies as far as that is allowable while still protecting us from each other. Civil law has nothing to do with religious moral codes, except to protect them, and to protect us from them.

Zakath
April 6th, 2005, 02:36 PM
If sins = crimes, that is. :think:You're implying that they're not considered crimes, at least by you religionists? :think:

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 02:36 PM
"Hate" shouldnt be an issue of whether or not something is a crime. Stealing is stealing. Assault is assault. Auto theft is auto theft. Murder is murder.

Stealing a can of soup to feed your starving children is the same as stealing a car, and should have equal sentence?
Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?

philosophizer
April 6th, 2005, 02:39 PM
Actually, the difference is that crimes are not the result of religious or moral judgemnt, but are instead the result of the need for intra-social protections. "Crimes" are what we call it when one citizen infringes unfairly on the EQUAL rights and freedoms of another citizen.
Yup. Crime means that someone is treading on the "rights" that society establishes to manage our freedoms. And we should note that freedoms do not strictly equal rights.


Sins are entirely different. They are subjective religious taboos based on a whole collection of circumstances, myths, traditions, scripture, and wishful thinking.
Um... okay, sure. Or we could just say that it's what's in your heart, ya know, like I said.


We hace civil laws to protect us both from the ideologies of others, and so that we will have the freedom to follow our own ideologies as far as that is allowable while still protecting us from each other.
Fine.


Civil law has nothing to do with religious moral codes, except to protect them, and to protect us from them.
We all have freedoms. I have the freedom to steal all your stuff. You have the freedom to try to stop me. But when we get to "societies," those conflicted freedoms get kinda messy. So societies invent "rights" to govern our natural freedoms. And "crimes" are infractions upon those rights.

philosophizer
April 6th, 2005, 02:48 PM
You're implying that they're not considered crimes, at least by you religionists? :think:
That's what I'm implying. :idea:

philosophizer
April 6th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Stealing a can of soup to feed your starving children is the same as stealing a car, and should have equal sentence?
Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?


Come on, there are degrees in value there.

Zakath
April 6th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Stealing a can of soup to feed your starving children is the same as stealing a car, and should have equal sentence?
Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?
Not in most human courts... :nono:

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 02:53 PM
I was answering to "murder is murder", and that all should be the same.
I disagree.

There is a difference in lying.
Telling your wife that she doesn't look fat when she's pregrnant may be a lie, but said to help rather than harm.

PureX
April 6th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Yup. Crime means that someone is treading on the "rights" that society establishes to manage our freedoms. And we should note that freedoms do not strictly equal rights.Yes, our "rights" are what we decide they are. Our freedom is innate, though many would choose to deny us our freedom, by force, if the opportunity arose.

Um... okay, sure. Or we could just say that it's what's in your heart, ya know, like I said.Yes, I kinda went the long way round.

We all have freedoms. I have the freedom to steal all your stuff. You have the freedom to try to stop me. But when we get to "societies," those conflicted freedoms get kinda messy. So societies invent "rights" to govern our natural freedoms. And "crimes" are infractions upon those rights.Yup, I agree. And in America, civil laws are based on these rights. In fact, the whole nation itself was established because people felt that their rights were not being respected. We didn't create America so we could all be Christians. We created America because we wanted the right to be free, and because we wanted that right to be respected. We based our whole method of government (a system of checks and balances) on that goal. The idea was to insure our right to be free by denying any one person or group too much power or control. Equality is essential to this American ideal of protecting our right to be free. And we've had to struggle with our own greed and bigotry since the inception of this nation to try and establish and maintain real equality and the freedom and justice for all that results.

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Not in most human courts... :nono:You don't think human courts recognize that a car are more valuable than a can of soup?

beanieboy
April 6th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Would a woman who sold a can of soup because she was poor and desparate be charged differently than one who stole it and got in her BMW?

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 03:28 PM
Stealing a can of soup to feed your starving children is the same as stealing a car, and should have equal sentence?
...
Would a woman who sold a can of soup because she was poor and desparate be charged differently than one who stole it and got in her BMW?
Restitution should be paid in proportion to the value of what was stolen, regardless of the motive.


People do not despise a thief
If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold;
He may have to give up all the substance of his house. Proverbs 6:30-31


Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?No. Biblically, murder is a capital crime. Killing someone through gross negligence is a capital crime. But no harm should be done to someone who accidentally kills someone through no fault of their own.

Turbo
April 6th, 2005, 03:49 PM
Yes, Turbo certainly has a dangerous mind doesn't he?I think you made a simple mistake. :eek:

Delmar
April 6th, 2005, 03:58 PM
"Hate" shouldnt be an issue of whether or not something is a crime. Stealing is stealing. Assault is assault. Auto theft is auto theft. Murder is murder.



Stealing a can of soup to feed your starving children is the same as stealing a car, and should have equal sentence?
Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?
He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder.

PureX
April 6th, 2005, 05:20 PM
He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder.Saying "murder is murder" is meaningless until you define what is "murder". Obviously, not all killing is "murder", and just as obviously, a big factor in the definition of "murder" is going to be the killer's intent. And that's when it all gets murky. First of all, how do we establish a killer's intent? How do we deal with the fact that there is NO WAY to establish a killer's intent with absolute certainty? What are we going to do when we establish with 80% certainty that someone entended to kill in such a way as to constitute murder? Do we assign them 80% of a death sentance? Do we give him 80% of a life in prisonment sentance? But how long will he live? Does 80% certainty leave a reasonable doubt? Should it be an acquittal?

These stupid over-simplifications are just that ... stupid. They try to deny the reality of assessing motives and assigning responsibility to other human beings when only God can do that righteously. The rest of us cannot, and pretending that we can is dishonest and stupid. I'm not suggesting that we scrap our judicial system, but I am suggesting that we grow up, and stop pretending that our judicial system can reflect God's perfect insight or God's perfect justice. It can't and it never will, and we have to take responsibility for our inability to do so.

beefalobilly
April 6th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Would a woman who sold a can of soup because she was poor and desparate be charged differently than one who stole it and got in her BMW?

Most likely yes, I've actually studied this some in my sociology class, poor people tend to be handed harsher punishments. For example, upper class deliinquents tend to be slapped on the wrist, whereas poorer delinquents tend to receive harsher punishments.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 02:09 AM
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Mt. 5:27-27

Jesus of Nazareth seems to take very different line than you do regarding emotions and crimes (sins). It seems he taught that entertaining emotions like hate or lust were equivalent to committing a sinful action :think:
Well unfortunately Jesus isn't acting judge in every town's city hall. Go ahead and :think: aboutit some more. Are you suggesting that we convict people when they even think about a crime?

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 02:22 AM
Stealing a can of soup to feed your starving children is the same as stealing a car, and should have equal sentence?
Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?
Penalty would be similar/same but severity would vary according to restitutional value.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 02:25 AM
Would a woman who sold a can of soup because she was poor and desparate be charged differently than one who stole it and got in her BMW?
Maybe you should starting asking the judges.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 02:25 AM
He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder.
Thank you.

philosophizer
April 7th, 2005, 07:59 AM
I think you made a simple mistake. :eek:
:shocked: :o :chuckle:

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 08:16 AM
Saying "murder is murder" is meaningless until you define what is "murder"...
If you don't know the definition, you could try looking up the word in a dictionary. You will not find any dictionary with a definition of murder that would include the accidental killing of someone through no fault of the killer.

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 08:29 AM
Anyway... back to hate crime. In my opinion it's unenforceable, because there's no way to really prove hate. And even if there was, it seems to me to be a violation of an individuals rights to prosecute hate. If a man hates a particular group and commits a crime based on that hate, he's committed a crime, and the punishment should be appropriate to the crime. Conversly, there's no crime in hating someone, or a group of people, as long as you don't infringe on said person's or group's life, liberty and property. Hating someone isn't very nice, but it isn't hurtful in and of itself.

Poly
April 7th, 2005, 08:30 AM
Yes, Turbo certainly has a dangerous mind doesn't he?

More like a simple mind, don't you think? ;)

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 08:31 AM
As my friend Granite said a few posts back, hate crime is thought crime, plain and simple.

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 08:38 AM
If you don't know the definition, you could try looking up the word in a dictionary. You will not find any dictionary with a definition of murder that would include the accidental killing of someone through no fault of the killer."Murder" is a legal term, and it's meaning depends upon the legal system under which the term is being applied. By our legal system, for example, abortion is not "murder". Yet I'm sure you would disagree, which only illuminates the point that there is no single, one-size-fits-all definition of "murder".

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 08:40 AM
He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder..

The child is dead in both cases.

But sometimes killing is not murder?

In other words, if you did not intend to kill someone (thought and intent), then it is killing, and not murder, right?
But if you did it on purpose (thought and intent), then it is murder.

Isn't that "Thought Crime"?

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 08:49 AM
Anyway... back to hate crime. In my opinion it's unenforceable, because there's no way to really prove hate.There's no way you can "really prove" any other person's intent. Yet we manage to make such determinations, anyway, and to prosecute all our other intent-based laws.

And even if there was, it seems to me to be a violation of an individuals rights to prosecute hate.This is a good point. Should it somehow be more illegal for me to hate someone while committing a crime against them?

If a man hates a particular group and commits a crime based on that hate, he's committed a crime, and the punishment should be appropriate to the crime. Conversly, there's no crime in hating someone, or a group of people, as long as you don't infringe on said person's or group's life, liberty and property. Hating someone isn't very nice, but it isn't hurtful in and of itself.But it could be argued that his crime was not in irrationally hating a group of people, but in exercising that hatred against them. For example, it's not a crime for me to dream about raping my neighbor's wife, but it certainly is a crime for me to do so. And the law does take into account whether I wanted to inflict great phychological harm on her while I commit this rape (regardless of whether I hate her or not). So it's not really the "hate" that designates a "hate crime", but the intention to inflict a specific kind of harm on the victim.

Poly
April 7th, 2005, 09:02 AM
Some people would think of Euthanasia as a "love" crime.

Maybe I should have made it clear in my post that I was talking about people who were actually reasonable when it came to what crime actually is. I lost my head there for a minute and forgot that there's people around here who refuse to use common sense.

Granite
April 7th, 2005, 09:06 AM
There's no way you can "really prove" any other person's intent. Yet we manage to make such determinations, anyway, and to prosecute all our other intent-based laws.
This is a good point. Should it somehow be more illegal for me to hate someone while committing a crime against them?
But it could be argued that his crime was not in irrationally hating a group of people, but in exercising that hatred against them. For example, it's not a crime for me to dream about raping my neighbor's wife, but it certainly is a crime for me to do so. And the law does take into account whether I wanted to inflict great phychological harm on her while I commit this rape (regardless of whether I hate her or not). So it's not really the "hate" that designates a "hate crime", but the intention to inflict a specific kind of harm on the victim.

My beef with "hate" crimes, so called, is that they place a premium on a given group, for no reason other than some wacko minority bigots happen to really loathe them. Why, exactly, do we think it's a good idea to put some victims on a pedestal and dismiss others as just "typical" victims of "average" crime?

Bombing a synagogue or school is a heinous act regardless of who gets maimed or killed. Elevating one group of victims over another is irrational, inappropriate, and muddies the waters.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 09:58 AM
The child is dead in both cases.

But sometimes killing is not murder?

In other words, if you did not intend to kill someone (thought and intent), then it is killing, and not murder, right?
But if you did it on purpose (thought and intent), then it is murder.

Isn't that "Thought Crime"?
Since when does kill always equate to murder?
Can you tell the difference between the two?

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:02 AM
There's no way you can "really prove" any other person's intent. Yet we manage to make such determinations, anyway, and to prosecute all our other intent-based laws.

Forensic science. You can claim to remain in ignornace but don't put that off onto the rest of the world.

Holly
April 7th, 2005, 10:11 AM
My beef with "hate" crimes, so called, is that they place a premium on a given group, for no reason other than some wacko minority bigots happen to really loathe them. Why, exactly, do we think it's a good idea to put some victims on a pedestal and dismiss others as just "typical" victims of "average" crime?

Bombing a synagogue or school is a heinous act regardless of who gets maimed or killed. Elevating one group of victims over another is irrational, inappropriate, and muddies the waters.

I agree with you to some extent, but I think that the concept goes beyond the act itself and speaks to the implied intimidation of everyone else in the targeted group. As someone already noted, burning a cross on a black family's lawn isn't just an act of minor vandalism, but carries a threat that everyone understands to mean that serious violence may be ahead for them and for any other black families who move to the neighborhood. Maybe part of the problem is the label "hate crime", or the designation of specific victim groups, but this type of threat and intimidation is a very bad thing.

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 10:12 AM
Forensic science. You can claim to remain in ignornace but don't put that off onto the rest of the world.
Putting that aside... does it make it ok to prosecute hate. Hate is a feeling or a thought. Is it justice to throw a few more years on a murderer's sentence because he's a racist? Also, is it ok to send someone to jail, simply because of his racism, whether or not he as acted violently?

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:14 AM
Since when does kill always equate to murder?
Can you tell the difference between the two?

Yes.

My point is, both have the same result - the person is dead.
I could, for example, run over a kid on purpose, them claim it was an accident to not be charged with murder.

The result (intentional vs. not intentional) is based on motive, and therefore, the thought.

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 10:17 AM
Yes.

My point is, both have the same result - the person is dead.
I could, for example, run over a kid on purpose, them claim it was an accident to not be charged with murder.

The result (intentional vs. not intentional) is based on motive, and therefore, the thought.
But premeditated murder isn't hate crime. Or am I just lost?

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:17 AM
Putting that aside... does it make it ok to prosecute hate. Hate is a feeling or a thought. Is it justice to throw a few more years on a murderer's sentence because he's a racist? Also, is it ok to send someone to jail, simply because of his racism, whether or not he as acted violently?
If murder took place I don't see why "hate" needs to be an issue. Argue that point with someone else.

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 10:18 AM
If murder took place I don't see why "hate" needs to be an issue. Argue that point with someone else.
I thought this was a thread about hate crime... :chicken:

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Yes.

My point is, both have the same result - the person is dead.
I could, for example, run over a kid on purpose, them claim it was an accident to not be charged with murder.

The result (intentional vs. not intentional) is based on motive, and therefore, the thought.
Oh come on, don't act like you're retarded or something like that.
Maybe you should personally test out that theory out sometime.

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:21 AM
Putting that aside... does it make it ok to prosecute hate. Hate is a feeling or a thought. Is it justice to throw a few more years on a murderer's sentence because he's a racist? Also, is it ok to send someone to jail, simply because of his racism, whether or not he as acted violently?

"Hate crime" is added to violence, not charged without the act, in the same way that you can wish me dead without going to jail.

If you wish me dead, set out a plan, and then kill me, you get 1st degree.
If you wish me dead, and get in an arguement and kill me out of anger without a prior plan, that's 2nd degree.

It depends on the thought behind the action.

If a group of us starting bombing random Baptist churches, one every Sunday someone different in the US, the intent would probably be to make Baptists afraid of going to church, and that is where Hate Crime would come in.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:22 AM
But premeditated murder isn't hate crime. Or am I just lost?
Would you murder your significant other out of love?

Personally, I think labeling some crimes as hate crimes is just plain stupid.

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:23 AM
Oh come on, don't act like you're retarded or something like that.
Maybe you should personally test out that theory out sometime.

Joe runs over his wife because he hates her.
He says, "I didn't see her."

From a court perspective, are they going to try to prove that it was an accident or murder based on the act (running her over with a car) or the intention (what he was thinking when he committed the act)?

The act (running her over) is identical for both accident and murder.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:24 AM
I thought this was a thread about hate crime... :chicken:
It does have something to do with hate crimes. I just can't see why we don't consider all crimes to be "hateful". Why would you want to commit crimes against your loved ones?

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 10:25 AM
"Hate crime" is added to violence, not charged without the act, in the same way that you can wish me dead without going to jail.

If you wish me dead, set out a plan, and then kill me, you get 1st degree.
If you wish me dead, and get in an arguement and kill me out of anger without a prior plan, that's 2nd degree.

It depends on the thought behind the action.

If a group of us starting bombing random Baptist churches, one every Sunday someone different in the US, the intent would probably be to make Baptists afraid of going to church, and that is where Hate Crime would come in.
I see where you're coming from. But still. Systematic genocide against Baptists is a crime even if they were picked by a coin toss instead of a desire to stop the general practice of their faith.

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:25 AM
But premeditated murder isn't hate crime. Or am I just lost?

But premeditated murder, vs. nonpremeditated murder, is based on thought.

Hate crime is based on targeting one person from a group in order to create terror within that community.

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 10:26 AM
It does have something to do with hate crimes. I just can't see why we don't consider all crimes to be "hateful". Why would you want to commit crimes against your loved ones?
If all crimes were considered "hateful" I suppose there would be no need for this discussion at all.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:29 AM
Joe runs over his wife because he hates her.
He says, "I didn't see her."

From a court perspective, are they going to try to prove that it was an accident or murder based on the act (running her over with a car) or the intention (what he was thinking when he committed the act)?

The act (running her over) is identical for both accident and murder.
Don't forget, they will look for motive too. Uing various forensic methods they can also test the circumstances of the "accident" to see if his story stands on solid ground.

Was there a motive? Would he have any moentary gain? If so how much? Did he have a girlfriend that he was trying to move in? Was she cheating on him?
See you have more circumstances and evidence to look at than you mention.

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:30 AM
Why don't we call all acts of violence "terrorism"?
A guy who shoots his wife is "terrorism" because it causes fear in the community and the victim, right?
Most people would be terrorized if a gun was put to their head.

But we don't. Because terrorism is an act of violence meant to create fear among people, such as a car bomb set off by rebels.

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:30 AM
Don't forget, they will look for motive too. Uing various forensic methods they can also test the circumstances of the "accident" to see if his story stands on solid ground.

Was there a motive? Would he have any moentary gain? If so how much? Did he have a girlfriend that he was trying to move in? Was she cheating on him?
See you have more circumstances and evidence to look at than you mention.

But motive is a thought.
It is not an action.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:31 AM
But premeditated murder, vs. nonpremeditated murder, is based on thought.

Hate crime is based on targeting one person from a group in order to create terror within that community.
In some cases they are the same thing.

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 10:33 AM
Personally, I think a murder off the cuff, so to speak, should carry the same penalty as that of a premeditated murder. When it's all over, someone is still dead. An ACCIDENT on the other hand, is totally different.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:34 AM
But motive is a thought.
It is not an action.
You are trying to twist things beyond reality, quit it.

Test your theory in a court of law. Let us know what you find out from your observation or study.

Whether you believe it or not, motive isn't always equated to "thought".

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:36 AM
Personally, I think a murder off the cuff, so to speak, should carry the same penalty as that of a premeditated murder. When it's all over, someone is still dead. An ACCIDENT on the other hand, is totally different.
Yes, murder is different from an "accident".

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:40 AM
Yeah, but then, if I wanted to murder you, I would just wait outside for you, then run you down, and say, "it was an accident." Is there a difference between an accident and murder? Yes. The thought of the person doing the action.

If you prove the motivation, it is my thoughts, not my actions, that damn me.

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 10:42 AM
btw - I don't mean to be "retarded." I'm unclear where I stand.

I'm just trying to argue both sides, and see what I learn.
How one can prove "hate crime" is unclear to me, but I also think there is something wrong about committing a crime to be symbolic and create fear in others.

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 10:44 AM
btw - I don't mean to be "retarded." I'm unclear where I stand.

I'm just trying to argue both sides, and see what I learn.
How one can prove "hate crime" is unclear to me, but I also think there is something wrong about committing a crime to be symbolic and create fear in others.
Tis a vague concept. Which is why I prefer to stay on the side of someones rights to think and feel whatever the heck they want, and only be punished for the crime committed.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:54 AM
Yeah, but then, if I wanted to murder you, I would just wait outside for you, then run you down, and say, "it was an accident." Is there a difference between an accident and murder? Yes. The thought of the person doing the action.

If you prove the motivation, it is my thoughts, not my actions, that damn me.
Maybe you should go and sit in a few murder trials because you are wrong. I've been there, done that.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 10:57 AM
btw - I don't mean to be "retarded." I'm unclear where I stand.

I'm just trying to argue both sides, and see what I learn.
How one can prove "hate crime" is unclear to me, but I also think there is something wrong about committing a crime to be symbolic and create fear in others.
Crime creates a fear of the community around us. Using the death sentence as a form of punishment is meant to deter those commiting crimes where the death sentence can be used as a form of punishment.

Servo
April 7th, 2005, 11:30 AM
Hate crimes. I thought that we couldn’t regulate morality....

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 11:37 AM
Hate crimes. I thought that we couldn’t regulate morality....We can't. We can only regulate behavior, and even then only if most folks agree to cooperate.

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 11:42 AM
My beef with "hate" crimes, so called, is that they place a premium on a given group, for no reason other than some wacko minority bigots happen to really loathe them. Why, exactly, do we think it's a good idea to put some victims on a pedestal and dismiss others as just "typical" victims of "average" crime?

Bombing a synagogue or school is a heinous act regardless of who gets maimed or killed. Elevating one group of victims over another is irrational, inappropriate, and muddies the waters.I think it's because violence based on irrational bigotry is violence against everyone. It's an attack on the very ideal of equality, freedom, and fairness. It's not that the victim group is "special", it's that we know they could have been any one of us.

Servo
April 7th, 2005, 11:44 AM
We can't. We can only regulate behavior, and even then only if most folks agree to cooperate.

So you are for forcing people to behave a certain way?

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 11:58 AM
Tis a vague concept. Which is why I prefer to stay on the side of someones rights to think and feel whatever the heck they want, and only be punished for the crime committed.But the function of the law isn't primarily to "punish" anyone, it's to protect us from each other. That's why motives matter ... there is a different degree of danger to society from a habitually violent criminal and a first time violent offender. They are both dangerous, but the first time offender might still change his behavior, while the habitual offender is far less likely to change, and is therefor for more likely to be a future threat. The same is true of a "hate" criminal. And our system needs to take this into account, as the primary function of our laws is to protect us from each other.

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 12:00 PM
So you are for forcing people to behave a certain way?I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, at the moment. Why are you trying so hard to be antagonistic?

Caledvwlch
April 7th, 2005, 12:11 PM
But the function of the law isn't primarily to "punish" anyone, it's to protect us from each other. That's why motives matter ... there is a different degree of danger to society from a habitually violent criminal and a first time violent offender. They are both dangerous, but the first time offender might still change his behavior, while the habitual offender is far less likely to change, and is therefor for more likely to be a future threat. The same is true of a "hate" criminal. And our system needs to take this into account, as the primary function of our laws is to protect us from each other.
I've always been of the opinion that the primary purpose of our laws is to protect us from our government, law-abiding citizen and criminal alike. And in a close second, yes we need to be protected from each other.

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 12:23 PM
I've always been of the opinion that the primary purpose of our laws is to protect us from our government, law-abiding citizen and criminal alike. And in a close second, yes we need to be protected from each other.Actually, you are right. Our current government was established first and formost because we felt we were not being treated fairly by our preceeding government. And so the primary goal of the structure of this government was to protect the individual from the group, and the minority from the majority and thus, the citizen from the government (as the "government is presumably the representative of the group, or the majority). But ultimately, the government is us. And so in protecting us from government, we are protecting ourselves from each other.

Servo
April 7th, 2005, 01:27 PM
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, at the moment. Why are you trying so hard to be antagonistic?


Just making a point. Liberals say that you can't regulate morality, which liberals all agree with until that very statement defeats their own argument.

beanieboy
April 7th, 2005, 01:31 PM
Maybe you should go and sit in a few murder trials because you are wrong. I've been there, done that.

So, if I run you over intentionally, and say that it was an accident, what my intent was, what I was thinking, doesn't matter? Only the action?

That's what you are saying?

The action is seen on what the intent was.

Servo
April 7th, 2005, 01:44 PM
So, if I run you over intentionally, and say that it was an accident, what my intent was, what I was thinking, doesn't matter? Only the action?

That's what you are saying?

The action is seen on what the intent was.

Your intent was to kill someone so it would be considered murder. If you lied about your intent, then you are a liar too.

PureX
April 7th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Just making a point. Liberals say that you can't regulate morality, which liberals all agree with until that very statement defeats their own argument.Regulating behavior is not regulating morality. Also, when people refer to the inability of regulating morality they are referring to the government writing laws against immoral behavior with the assumption that this will create a moral society. But it won't. All it will create is either a very resentful society, a revolution, or a society of criminals.

For example, the government once outlawed drinking alcohol, because a very vocal group of moralists decide that drinking alcohol lead us to all sorts of immoral behavior. But of course all the laws did was make all those people who drank alcohol before, criminals, when they continued to drink. And they continued to drink because they DIDN'T BELIEVE in the morality of the law. That's what's meant by the phrase "You can't legislate morality". Laws don't change people's minds or hearts. So when we pass laws that people don't believe in, people tend to ignore them. Then what's the government going to do when it's entire population has been defined as "criminals"? If they try to lock everyone up, the government will be overthrown.

Christians really need to stop trying to save the world by force. It's NEVER going to work.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Personally, I think a murder off the cuff, so to speak, should carry the same penalty as that of a premeditated murder. When it's all over, someone is still dead. An ACCIDENT on the other hand, is totally different.
That's exactly what the Bible teaches: that every convicted murderer should be put to death, no matter how much or how little planning took place. And that accidental killing is not murder.

Turbo
April 7th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Hey beanieboy, some people mentioned it earlier, but "hate crime" devalues some groups over others, which is unjust.

Yes, someone can murder and try to make it look like an accident, so to that extent the thoughts of the perpetrator must be investigated to determine whether or not a crime was even committed. But if a black man murders a white man because he's a racist and another black man murders a black man because he wanted to steal his sneakers, it makes no difference in the punishment they deserve. Both men deserve death. We don't devalue the life of the black victim by going light on his killer.

Likewise, if one man steals because his children are hungry and another man steals because he is greedy, both men should pay restitution that is proportionate to the value what they stole to whomever they stole from. We don't consider how "good" a person's reason was to commit a crime when determining what sentence is just.

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 09:34 PM
Your intent was to kill someone so it would be considered murder. If you lied about your intent, then you are a liar too.
And to get caught in a lie in court could be construed as contempt. :)

Free-Agent Smith
April 7th, 2005, 09:37 PM
Hey beanieboy, some people mentioned it earlier, but "hate crime" devalues some groups over others, which is unjust.

Yes, someone can murder and try to make it look like an accident, so to that extent the thoughts of the perpetrator must be investigated to determine whether or not a crime was even committed. But if a black man murders a white man because he's a racist and another black man murders a black man because he wanted to steal his sneakers, it makes no difference in the punishment they deserve. Both men deserve death. We don't devalue the life of the black victim by going light on his killer.

Likewise, if one man steals because his children are hungry and another man steals because he is greedy, both men should pay restitution that is proportionate to the value what they stole to whomever they stole from. We don't consider how "good" a person's reason was to commit a crime when determining what sentence is just.
I tried saying that earlier but apparently he still doesn't understand it.

BillyBob
April 7th, 2005, 10:02 PM
I hate 'Hate Crimes'.

I'll take a good old fashioned crime any day!

PureX
April 8th, 2005, 06:43 AM
..."hate crime" devalues some groups over others, which is unjust.What groups do you think are getting special treatment, here?

...if one man steals because his children are hungry and another man steals because he is greedy, both men should pay restitution that is proportionate to the value what they stole to whomever they stole from. We don't consider how "good" a person's reason was to commit a crime when determining what sentence is just.If the poor man could pay restitution, he wouldn't have been stealing food in the first place. So how is he going to pay restitution when he has no money? If you make him "work it off", who's going to pay for his room and board while he's giving his paycheck to his victim? And if he has to pay his own room and board, too, who's going to pay the guard who has to make sure he's going to work every day?

And anyway, we tried this idea of having criminals pay for their own incarceration in the past, and the result was massive and systemic abuse. People were being convicted by "kangaroo courts" and sent to work camps indefinately so they could be exploited as slave labor. Horrible abuses and even murder resulted, which is why the government had to take over our penal system and run it as it's being run now, in the first place. These over-simplified solutions are never so simple when you actually begin to look more closely at them. Which is why a lot of people don't like to look more closely at them, Instead, they want to imagine that they have the simple solutions to all the world's problems, if only everyone else would just do what they say! *smile*

beanieboy
April 8th, 2005, 11:28 AM
Hey beanieboy, some people mentioned it earlier, but "hate crime" devalues some groups over others, which is unjust.

Hate crime is currently law.
What brought this up again was the Matthew Shephard thing.

What people wanted to add to Religion, Race and Origin was Sexual Orientation.

Explain to me how Religion, Race, Origin and Sexual Orientation shows preference over one group than another.

billwald
April 8th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Black guy goes into a white bar and gets beat up it is a hate crime. White guy goes into a black bar and gets beat up it is the worst case of attempted suicide we have seen.

Caledvwlch
April 8th, 2005, 02:18 PM
Black guy goes into a white bar and gets beat up it is a hate crime. White guy goes into a black bar and gets beat up it is the worst case of attempted suicide we have seen.
:chuckle:

Turbo
April 8th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Hate crime is currently law.
What brought this up again was the Matthew Shephard thing.

What people wanted to add to Religion, Race and Origin was Sexual Orientation.

Explain to me how Religion, Race, Origin and Sexual Orientation shows preference over one group than another.
I went on to explain it in the remainder of my post that you quoted, but I'll take another crack at it.


A black man rapes and murders a white woman and is sentenced to 25 years because it is deemed a "hate crime."

Another black man rapes and murders a black woman and is sentenced to only 10 years in prison because it is not deemed a "hate crime".

The black victim is therefore considered less valuable than the white victim.

In a just society, every convicted murderer and rapist is put to death, regardless of the motive.

Free-Agent Smith
April 8th, 2005, 03:05 PM
Hate crime is currently law.
What brought this up again was the Matthew Shephard thing.

What people wanted to add to Religion, Race and Origin was Sexual Orientation.

Explain to me how Religion, Race, Origin and Sexual Orientation shows preference over one group than another.
Yes, Mattew Shepard. If I remember correctly he was the gay teen that was severely beaten and left for dead in Wyoming. Because of his circumstances he couldn't get help and died tied to a wooden fence.

He was murdered. The murderers deserve the death penalty. End of story. We didn't need any hate crime legislation for that.

Free-Agent Smith
April 8th, 2005, 03:09 PM
This also thew a monkey wrench into that case....
Voigt's court order specifically barred testimony from lay witnesses about McKinney's boyhood homosexual experiences, which his lawyer unveiled during his opening statement last Monday. It said that such evidence may be relevant in the sentencing phase, when the jury must decide on the death penalty, if it convicts McKinney of either first degree murder or felony murder. That loophole may be crucial, as an appeal to the jury during the sentencing phase now appears his best hope for escaping a death sentence.

Aaron McKinney (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/01/gay_panic/)

*Edit* Claiming that he at least had gay tendencies got him a lighter sentence. If DNA is ever shown to have a gay gene then would this be considered genocide?

Turbo
April 8th, 2005, 03:18 PM
What groups do you think are getting special treatment, here?


If the poor man could pay restitution, he wouldn't have been stealing food in the first place. So how is he going to pay restitution when he has no money? Even most poor people have some property they could sell. If not, indentured servitude (or garnished wages) could do the trick.


If you make him "work it off", who's going to pay for his room and board while he's giving his paycheck to his victim?He will.


And if he has to pay his own room and board, too, who's going to pay the guard who has to make sure he's going to work every day? Hunger will likely motivate him to work. If he tries to steal again rather than work, he could be flogged. Who will pay the flogger? The government. Their role is to enforce justice and to deter criminals. Do you think it would be more expensive to pay some officers' wages than it would to feed the hungry man? If so, you're wrong. Because if they do, soon there will be a thousands of hungry men who will feel entitled to be fed with tax money.


And anyway, we tried this idea of having criminals pay for their own incarceration in the past, and the result was massive and systemic abuse...Incarcerating criminals as punishment is fundamentally corrupt, and I do not support it.


These over-simplified solutions are never so simple when you actually begin to look more closely at them.Do you know that others haven't thought through these issues?


Which is why a lot of people don't like to look more closely at them, Instead, they want to imagine that they have the simple solutions to all the world's problems, if only everyone else would just do what they say! *smile*And you like to pretend that there are no solutions.

PureX
April 8th, 2005, 04:56 PM
I went on to explain it in the remainder of my post that you quoted, but I'll take another crack at it.

A black man rapes and murders a white woman and is sentenced to 25 years because it is deemed a "hate crime."

Another black man rapes and murders a black woman and is sentenced to only 10 years in prison because it is not deemed a "hate crime".

The black victim is therefore considered less valuable than the white victim.

In a just society, every convicted murderer and rapist is put to death, regardless of the motive.The verdict will have had nothing to do with anyone's "value" except in your own mind. The court will have said nothing about anyone being more valuable than anyone else.

First, a black man raping a white woman would not in itself be a hate crime. For it to become a hate crime, it would have to be proven that he raped her because she represented, to him, a group of people that he irrationally hates, and it would also have to be proven the the rape was (in his mind) an act against all such hated people. The reason the crime is then considered even more heneous than it already is, is because it was (in the criminal's mind) perpetrated against all women (or all white women, or all Canadian women, or all brown eyed women, or all of whomever it is that he so hates). A "hate rape" would be a different crime than a rape because it's a crime done with a different intent, just like a violent sexual rape would be a different crime than a consentual statuatory rape, even though they are all the crime of rape.

Not all rape crimes are the same. Not all murders are the same. Not all robberies are the same. Not all kidnapings are the same. Part of the responsibility of a just justice system is to recognize that not all crimes, nor all victims, nor all criminals are the same, and to do the difficult work of condsidering mitigating conditions and circumstances. Over-simplistic "one-size-fits-all" platitudes about the law may play well to fools who don't want to be bothered to consider the complexity of the real world, but justice requires that honest men and women take that responsibility and do the work it asks of us.

billwald
April 8th, 2005, 07:03 PM
>First, a black man raping a white woman would not in itself be a hate crime.

True, but a white man raping a black woman is.

PureX
April 8th, 2005, 07:12 PM
Oh, baloney.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 01:21 AM
Over-simplistic "one-size-fits-all" platitudes about the law may play well to fools who don't want to be bothered to consider the complexity of the real world, but justice requires that honest men and women take that responsibility and do the work it asks of us.

Well put.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 02:06 AM
After reading through this thread (which is really interesting, btw) there's at least one thing I didn't see addressed (though I may have missed it) ...

A hate crime (crime based on hatred towards race, religion, color, origin) does more than simply instill fear/emotional damage to the target group. Hate crime also insites cultural dischord. The social unrest that is/can be caused by a hate crime murder makes it "more" than murder, because in addition to the crime it is also a threat to society.

This potential for dischord BTW, is why many racial hate groups can be pleased with with any type of race-related crimes, including those againt their own race ... They understand that it has the potential to lead to far bigger things. Hate fuels hate.

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 02:12 AM
New term! Like Crimes! Get extra punishment for enjoying the money you stole!

Frank Ernest
May 4th, 2005, 04:56 AM
The problem with "hate" crimes is that they divert the attention of justice away from the rational and toward the emotional. If the law diverts from the objective (right vs wrong) and becomes an emotional playground (love vs hate), anything goes.

It's also a one-way street where the supposedly offended (hated) can inject political correctness into the system, status crimes (convicted by who you are, not what you did), etc. which should be abhored in any true legal system.

One Eyed Jack
May 4th, 2005, 05:48 AM
What is your thought on Hate Crime?

I think it's stupid. Crime is crime. I couldn't care less what the criminal's motivation is.

BillyBob
May 4th, 2005, 05:53 AM
Yep!

Lighthouse
May 4th, 2005, 05:54 AM
Stealing a can of soup to feed your starving children is the same as stealing a car, and should have equal sentence?
Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?
A kid getting hit when he runs out into the street is an accident, not murder.:doh: There should be no penalty for that.

And why steal soup to feed your children when there are plenty of places where they give out food?

PureX
May 4th, 2005, 05:56 AM
I think it would be very helpful for you two (BB and EOJ) to seriously try and argue for the opposing opinion once in a while. It would force you to consider the other point of view, and to try and articulate it.

Lighthouse
May 4th, 2005, 06:01 AM
There is a difference in lying.
Telling your wife that she doesn't look fat when she's pregrnant may be a lie, but said to help rather than harm.
That's not a lie. A pregnant woman does not look fat, she looks pregnant. And pregnant women are not the only ones who ask their husbands if they look fat:nono:

BillyBob
May 4th, 2005, 06:11 AM
I think it would be very helpful for you two (BB and EOJ) to seriously try and argue for the opposing opinion once in a while.

Why would I want to argue for the wrong side?


It would force you to consider the other point of view, and to try and articulate it.

What other point of view, that blacks are whiney racists and stupid laws have been made which promote racism? What other point of view is there?????

One Eyed Jack
May 4th, 2005, 06:24 AM
I think it would be very helpful for you two (BB and EOJ) to seriously try and argue for the opposing opinion once in a while.

I'd rather argue for my own opinion, thanks.


It would force you to consider the other point of view, and to try and articulate it.

Who said I've never considered the other point of view?

beanieboy
May 4th, 2005, 08:30 AM
But premeditated murder isn't hate crime. Or am I just lost?

As I said, "hate crime" should be relabeled "crime of terrorism.

In the documentary "Four little girls," KKK members in the 50s and 60s were bombing black churches.

They were destroying property, but the intent was to keep black people afraid and in their place.

I'm sure that bombing a random church is a "hate" crime, but it doesn't cause terror to a group of people. That is the point of such crimes of terror - to send a message.
And these kind of crimes tend to be much more heinous.

Take the case of Matthew Shephard.

They could have just beat him up if that was the true motive.
But they tied him up, beat him up, put cigarettes out on him, pistol whipped him, and then left hm there so badly bruised and beaten, that the boy who found him wasn't sure if he was human, and the police, who saw his picture, said that they could never have identified him.

beanieboy
May 4th, 2005, 08:36 AM
After reading through this thread (which is really interesting, btw) there's at least one thing I didn't see addressed (though I may have missed it) ...

A hate crime (crime based on hatred towards race, religion, color, origin) does more than simply instill fear/emotional damage to the target group. Hate crime also insites cultural dischord. The social unrest that is/can be caused by a hate crime murder makes it "more" than murder, because in addition to the crime it is also a threat to society.

This potential for dischord BTW, is why many racial hate groups can be pleased with with any type of race-related crimes, including those againt their own race ... They understand that it has the potential to lead to far bigger things. Hate fuels hate.

This is my point.

Why is flying a plane into the WTC "terrorism"?
Isn't everyone who is killed feeling terror?
Why not just call it murder?

The thing is, I live in Minneapolis, but people were worried that there would be an attack on one of our towers, or were afraid of shopping in the Mall of America (because bombing it would be symbolic), etc.

Terrorism causes fear in society, where as, if BillyBob killed his next door neighbor, I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction, and so, it is therefore, not "terrorism."

PureX
May 4th, 2005, 08:57 AM
This is my point.

Why is flying a plane into the WTC "terrorism"?
Isn't everyone who is killed feeling terror?
Why not just call it murder?

The thing is, I live in Minneapolis, but people were worried that there would be an attack on one of our towers, or were afraid of shopping in the Mall of America (because bombing it would be symbolic), etc.

Terrorism causes fear in society, where as, if BillyBob killed his next door neighbor, I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction, and so, it is therefore, not "terrorism."Yes, but this all adds a level of complexity to the conversation that the willfully stupid among us don't want to deal with. They don't want to consider the motives, or the intentions behind the crime, because they resent complexity, and because it will cause them to face the reality that it's difficult to ever be certain of guilt once we begin to consider motives and mitigation. They'd rather just pass judgment and execute people quickly than face their own inability to be absolutely right all the time about everything. This is sad but true.

Free-Agent Smith
May 4th, 2005, 10:37 AM
After reading through this thread (which is really interesting, btw) there's at least one thing I didn't see addressed (though I may have missed it) ...

A hate crime (crime based on hatred towards race, religion, color, origin) does more than simply instill fear/emotional damage to the target group. Hate crime also insites cultural dischord. The social unrest that is/can be caused by a hate crime murder makes it "more" than murder, because in addition to the crime it is also a threat to society.

This potential for dischord BTW, is why many racial hate groups can be pleased with with any type of race-related crimes, including those againt their own race ... They understand that it has the potential to lead to far bigger things. Hate fuels hate.
Since most "hate crimes" involve murder, I'll just stick with the crime of murder in any example.
What communities do you know of where murder wouldn't cause some form of dischord?

beanieboy
May 4th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Since most "hate crimes" involve murder, I'll just stick with the crime of murder in any example.
What communities do you know of where murder wouldn't cause some form of dischord?

So, why do we accept "terrorism" as a term?
All they are doing is vandalizing (car bombs), or murder (flying planes into buildings).

Why call someone a terrorist, instead of a vandal, or a murderer?

Why not simply have a War on Murder?

Free-Agent Smith
May 4th, 2005, 10:50 AM
Yes, but this all adds a level of complexity to the conversation that the willfully stupid among us don't want to deal with. They don't want to consider the motives, or the intentions behind the crime, because they resent complexity, and because it will cause them to face the reality that it's difficult to ever be certain of guilt once we begin to consider motives and mitigation. They'd rather just pass judgment and execute people quickly than face their own inability to be absolutely right all the time about everything. This is sad but true.
Motive, to end someone's life. Intentions behind the crime? To make sure they don't breathe any longer than needed.
As far as reality... there are people out there that are by far smarter than you give them credit for and some of them base their convictions on the facts that can be presented.

Free-Agent Smith
May 4th, 2005, 10:58 AM
So, why do we accept "terrorism" as a term?
All they are doing is vandalizing (car bombs), or murder (flying planes into buildings).

Why call someone a terrorist, instead of a vandal, or a murderer?

Why not simply have a War on Murder?
Terrorism doesn't just contain murder as it's only crime.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Yeah, the line is etremely blurry... I don't think anyone could say the differences between terrorism and hate crime is well-defined. Terrorism, in America at least, is considered aimed at a society as a whole (not just a particular group of that society). You mentioned that people in Minneapolis were afraid of going to the mall for fear of it being bombed... That fear wasn't limited to white people, or black people, it was across the board.

When the Oklahoma bombing happened, before they discovered that it was done by a white man, there was a big anti-Muslim backlash. While the bombing itself was targeted at our society, thus considered a terrorist act, the attacks on Muslims as a result were considered hate crimes. A black person didn't need to be worried about being beaten up for walking down the street, while a Middle-Eastern person did need to worry.

Also, people keep bringing up "thought crime." Intent and motive are both a part of determining punishment for crimes. Adding lesser/stiffer penalties and having more complicated definitions of crime based on intent and motive is across the board. If someone spray paints "BB was here" on a wall, it's simply not the same thing as spray painting "Christians will die - Be very afraid" on a church. (Especially if it turn out that when the vandal is apprehended, they have a history of anti-Christian crimes, and are affiliated with anti-Christian groups). It is BTW, very difficult to prosecute a hate crime.

Someone cannot be convicted of hate. People have the right to both free thought and free speech. They can express their hatred through their right to free speech, and through their freedom to assemble. A Nazi murder of a Jew that is commited based on hatred towards Jews with the motive being not only to kill that particular Jew, but also to instill fear of death in all other Jews, is more than simply a murder. And yes, I do believe it is an act of terrorism. A more specific act of terrorism than WTC, which targeted America as a whole, but terrorism.

For some people, it may be simply an unfortunate issue of names/words. *Most* people don't have a problem with the terms "1st degree, 2nd degree", but if there's a word rather than a number assocated with degree, people read their own meaning into that word. "It's not a crime to hate ... hate is a thought ... to think should not be a crime." ... But if a "Hate" crime was defined as "X degree" people probably wouldn't take it to issue so much.

Another difference between hate crime and terrrorism to think about is that the government has proclaimed a war on terrorism, but not on hate crime. Why?

The Homeland Security Act is FAR more "thought crime" oriented than any definition of "hate" crime laws.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 05:13 PM
Terrorism doesn't just contain murder as it's only crime.

Niether does hate crime.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 05:29 PM
Since most "hate crimes" involve murder, I'll just stick with the crime of murder in any example.
What communities do you know of where murder wouldn't cause some form of dischord?

Degree. If a black man, associated with an ant-white group killed a white woman because she was white, proclaiming "Death to Whitey," the resulting level of cultural dischord between blacks and whites based on hatred and fear has far greater implications than Scott Peterson murdering his wife. As horrific as it was, Lacy Peterson's murder did not have the potential (or the purpose), of inciting a war between men and women. Similarly, if a sole agent had flown a plane into the WTC, acting as an messenger for saving the whales, the level of cultural and political discord resulting would not be the same as it was given that it was a planned attack by a right-wing Muslim group based on hatred against America.

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Degree. If a black man, associated with an ant-white group killed a white woman because she was white, proclaiming "Death to Whitey," the resulting level of cultural dischord between blacks and whites based on hatred and fear has far greater implications than Scott Peterson murdering his wife. As horrific as it was, Lacy Peterson's murder did not have the potential (or the purpose), of inciting a war between men and women. Similarly, if a sole agent had flown a plane into the WTC, acting as an messenger for saving the whales, the level of cultural and political discord resulting would not be the same as it was given that it was a planned attack by a right-wing Muslim group based on hatred against America.

So is the destruction of media that propegates hate okay? Who defines hate?

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 07:42 PM
So is the destruction of media that propegates hate okay?

Depends. In most cases, that would be an infringement on freedom of speech. But if that media is actually promoting or inciting illegal action that could breach the public's safety or peace it would be considered illegal.


Who defines hate?

Not a simple answer (and I am NOT professing to be able to answer it fully, btw). In America, hate (as regarded by the law) is defined by many different levels of elected government thrugh voting. Community, State, Federal. Thus one of the issues with defining the difference between hate crimes and terrorism: Different states have different inclusions, and different target groups specified as illegal to taget against as a whole. Usually based on specific circumstances that have arisen in that particular community or state. Some states include mentally challenged people. I'm sure that if a given community had an ongoing serious problem of specifically people with red hair being systematically threatened, assaulted, killed, that community would eventually have to define their laws somehow to address it. Likewise, penalties differ state to state. But this all applies to action and motive, not on actual hate. We're all free to hate.

Obviously hate throughout the world is interpreted and accepted on different levels in many different forms, by many different cultures and governments.

In some extreme cases, hate is defined by the world. Crime against humanity is hate crime at the highest level. Worldwide. Genocide. Hitler set that one up for us. We realized that it's possible for hatred (or supremacy) based on color, religion, etc. to start at a community level, but spread until it's a threat to the entire world's peace. But we have a harder time understanding how dangerous hate crime is when it takes place on a lesser level.

But that's all based on action in regard to hate.

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 08:01 PM
Depends. In most cases, that would be an infringement on freedom of speech.

What's worse infringing freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Ever see "Minority Report"?

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 08:02 PM
Not a simple answer (and I am NOT professing to be able to answer it fully, btw). In America, hate (as regarded by the law) is defined by many different levels of elected government thrugh voting. Community, State, Federal. Thus one of the issues with defining the difference between hate crimes and terrorism: Different states have different inclusions, and different target groups specified as illegal to taget against as a whole. Usually based on specific circumstances that have arisen in that particular community or state. Some states include mentally challenged people. I'm sure that if a given community had an ongoing serious problem of specifically people with red hair being systematically threatened, assaulted, killed, that community would eventually have to define their laws somehow to address it. Likewise, penalties differ state to state. But this all applies to action and motive, not on actual hate. We're all free to hate.

Obviously hate throughout the world is interpreted and accepted on different levels in many different forms, by many different cultures and governments.

In some extreme cases, hate is defined by the world. Crime against humanity is hate crime at the highest level. Worldwide. Genocide. Hitler set that one up for us. We realized that it's possible for hatred (or supremacy) based on color, religion, etc. to start at a community level, but spread until it's a threat to the entire world's peace. But we have a harder time understanding how dangerous hate crime is when it takes place on a lesser level.

But that's all based on action in regard to hate.

Respectable reply. Should one be punished more for enjoyment in criminal behaviour?

BillyBob
May 4th, 2005, 08:05 PM
Terrorism causes fear in society, where as, if BillyBob killed his next door neighbor, I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction, and so, it is therefore, not "terrorism."


:noid:

BillyBob
May 4th, 2005, 08:21 PM
So, why do we accept "terrorism" as a term?
All they are doing is vandalizing (car bombs), or murder (flying planes into buildings).

Why call someone a terrorist, instead of a vandal, or a murderer?

Why not simply have a War on Murder?


Terrorists murder with the expectation of changing something, such as political rule or whatever else they aren't happy with. Look at what Al Queda did in Spain, they blew up a train and Spain pulled out of Iraq. The Palestinians terrorize Israeli's because they are sore losers and want Israel to pull out of....well, Israel.

It's not just murder.

Besides that, murder isn't the only thing they do. They kidnap and torture, they use propaganda, they take over governments......

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Respectable reply. Should one be punished more for enjoyment in criminal behaviour?

Wow ... Never thought about that. Hmm.

I think on some level, that's built into the judicial/jury system... On a certain level, in some but not all circumstances, I think a jury and/or Judge takes that into account when imposing a sentence. Similar to a criminal showing no remorse. I definitely have to give it some more thought, but initially, I think that if there were a way to undoubtedly prove it, and based on the type of crime, yes. But I think it's too blurry to really ever come very directly into play.

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 08:28 PM
I think that if there were a way to undoubtedly prove it, and based on the type of crime, yes. But I think it's too blurry to really ever come very directly into play.

The fact that there is no "proof" of hate or pleasure is why I tend to disagree with "hate" crimes.

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Besides that, murder isn't the only thing they do. They kidnap and torture, they use propaganda, they take over governments......


BillyBob's on one here. Terrorism is different. Hate is in both but there's more to it.

BillyBob
May 4th, 2005, 09:17 PM
Yep, murder is simply a means to an end for terrorists, it's not the goal.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 09:24 PM
What's worse infringing freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Ever see "Minority Report"?

Yep, saw it, read it, love it, agree with it.

I think infingement on both (thought and speech) are extremely dangerous.And I think they go hand in hand. One right is virtually useless without the other. I don't know whether I think one is worse than the other.

But I don't consider laws against either terrorism or hate crimes (whether they're the same or not I'll ignore right now) an infringement on either. These laws are based on action in relation to intent and motive. Someone can daydream about murdering their husband for the $. No crime there. Someone may think about it even if it is the last thing they would ever do, or if it is the most terrible thing they could ever imagine. If they go about planning it, that becomes conspiricy to commit murder. If they go through with it, that's murder, with intent, as well as conspiricy to commit. And the motive is taken into account. A woman who murders her husband after the 100th time he beats her and their children up has a different motive/intent, which is also taken into account (once this would not have been the case). So punishment/restitution comes into play in relation to the intent, motive and severity of a crime. Not just the crime itself.

As I'd said in an earlier post, I really think that ONE of the issues is the word "hate" in "hate-crime." Hate is thought/feeling, so it's natural for people associate it with thought. Most everyone has feelings of hatred. That is not and should not be a crime.

Hate-crime is simply a specific crime (murder, vandalism, etc) with stipulation related to intent, motive and damage (the damage being to the entire group in question and to society as whole). Most crimes have added stipulations based on these things and it's no problem.

But the phrase "hate-crime" instinctually raises a sense of limitation on thought, which is not the case. We are free to hate. We are not free to act however we want based on that hate. And sometimes the crime, based on the intent and motive differentiates itself from a similar crime without those same intents and motives.

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 09:31 PM
Yep, saw it, read it, love it, agree with it.

I think infingement on both (thought and speech) are extremely dangerous.And I think they go hand in hand. One right is virtually useless without the other. I don't know whether I think one is worse than the other.
These laws are based on action in relation to intent and motive. Someone can daydream about murdering their husband for the $. No crime there. Someone may think about it even if it is the last thing they would ever do, or if it is the most terrible thing they could ever imagine. If they go about planning it, that becomes conspiricy to commit murder. If they go through with it, that's murder, with intent, as well as conspiricy to commit. And the motive is taken into account. A woman who murders her husband after the 100th time he beats her and their children up has a different motive/intent, which is also taken into account (once this would not have been the case). So punishment/restitution comes into play in relation to the intent, motive and severity of a crime. Not just the crime itself.


In law we do not judge specific motive. Just it's existance. And only at certain times.

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 09:33 PM
Yep, saw it, read it, love it, agree with it.
But I don't consider laws against either terrorism or hate crimes (whether they're the same or not I'll ignore right now) an infringement on either.

Terrorism is inherently different. Terrorism encompases overthrow of a complete society.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 09:37 PM
In law we do not judge specific motive. Just it's existance. And only at certain times.

That's true. But motive IS taken into account in regards to severity of punishment. It is also virtually inseparable from intent.

BillyBob
May 4th, 2005, 09:44 PM
:cow:

Mustard Seed
May 4th, 2005, 09:45 PM
That's true. But motive IS taken into account in regards to severity of punishment. It is also virtually inseparable from intent.

"Hate" crime designation devalues "like" crimes where equally egregious motives are involved.

zoo22
May 4th, 2005, 09:59 PM
Terrorism is inherently different. Terrorism encompases overthrow of a complete society.

Not necessarily. There is religious terrorism within societies, political terrorism *within* societies. Plus, there are many definitions of the word terrorism. But I understand what you mean. I also understand what BB means.

Either way, I think we're all very clear through this that the line between "hate-crime" and terrorism" are very blurred.

I think the term "domestic terrorism" is a far better term than hate crime. But not perfect. I also think that more people need to begin to understand that crimes based on religion, color, origin, etc, DO in fact threaten our entire society.

Didn't the Nazi's overthrow a complete society? Today, the Nazi's method of overthrow would be far closer aligned with "hate-crime" than terrorism.

zoo22
May 5th, 2005, 12:59 AM
Not necessarily. There is religious terrorism within societies, political terrorism *within* societies.

Looking over that I realized it could be mis-read. It's incomplete. ...

There is religious terrorism within societies that is not meant to bring down a society as a whole as well as political terrorism *within* a society that is not meant to overthrow the society as a whole.

There is terrorism that does not encompass overthrow of a complete society.

Frank Ernest
May 5th, 2005, 05:57 AM
Looking over that I realized it could be mis-read. It's incomplete. ...

There is religious terrorism within societies that is not meant to bring down a society as a whole as well as political terrorism *within* a society that is not meant to overthrow the society as a whole.

There is terrorism that does not encompass overthrow of a complete society.
Then why do terrorists continually state that the overthrow of a social order (society) is their goal? Attempting to elevate "hate" crime to terrorism points out that you are ready to move on your political and religious enemies by uping the ante.

Nice try.

zoo22
May 5th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Then why do terrorists continually state that the overthrow of a social order (society) is their goal? Attempting to elevate "hate" crime to terrorism points out that you are ready to move on your political and religious enemies by uping the ante.

Nice try.


It's a fact that there are terrorists who's goal is not to overthrow a complete society. Yes, *many* terrorists state that the overthrow of a social order is their goal. Not necessarily a "complete overthrow" of that society. But no problem, I'm fine separating hate crime from terrorism, and to define terrorism, as our government has, as having specifically political motives. Redefinitions and reinterpretations of words is necessary sometimes when dealing with law (or the modern world for tha matter), and we have to accept that a words take on new, specific meaning.

The State Dept. defines terrorism as "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." The FBI defines it this way: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Neither is as as simple as some people would like to make it (note that the State department uses the word "generally").

It is generally social issues that are the issue in what we define as hate crime. Would you prefer a different label? Or is it that you see the entire issue as something that does not need to be addressed (crimes against people specifically because of religion, color, origin, etc.).

Frank Ernest
May 6th, 2005, 04:26 AM
It's a fact that there are terrorists who's goal is not to overthrow a complete society. Yes, *many* terrorists state that the overthrow of a social order is their goal. Not necessarily a "complete overthrow" of that society. But no problem, I'm fine separating hate crime from terrorism, and to define terrorism, as our government has, as having specifically political motives. Redefinitions and reinterpretations of words is necessary sometimes when dealing with law (or the modern world for tha matter), and we have to accept that a words take on new, specific meaning.
Linguistic cop-out. If the law is so fluid as to be reinvented with "new meanings", then there is no law, only what some tyrant or group of tyrants say it is.


The State Dept. defines terrorism as "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." The FBI defines it this way: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Neither is as as simple as some people would like to make it (note that the State department uses the word "generally").
Then you would agree that lie-berals are both terrorists and "hate" criminals.


It is generally social issues that are the issue in what we define as hate crime. Would you prefer a different label? Or is it that you see the entire issue as something that does not need to be addressed (crimes against people specifically because of religion, color, origin, etc.).
I would prefer no label at all. We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. No need to pile on the perp with a lot of emotional claptrap and subsequent show trials. What makes a crime more significant if the victim happens to be of some favored ethnic or social group? Nothing other than emotional favoritism which has no basis in any rational justice system.

zoo22
May 6th, 2005, 03:17 PM
Linguistic cop-out. If the law is so fluid as to be reinvented with "new meanings", then there is no law, only what some tyrant or group of tyrants say it is.

What I said is not a linguistic cop-out, it is a solid fact. Law does, and must assign definition to words.

Words constantly take on new meaning (not to mention that most words have multiple meanings). Language evolves. Definitions, perceptions, associations of words constantly change. This is a given part of language. The dictionary is updated regulary to redefine words, as they take on new or different meanings. Terrorism once did not mean what it currently is accepted to mean, partially through the definition as defined by the law.

I gave you the definitions that our government has given to the word "terrorism" Do you not think that it was necessary for our government to do so!?!


The State Dept. defines terrorism as "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." The FBI defines it this way: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Neither is as as simple as some people would like to make it (note that the State department uses the word "generally").


Then you would agree that lie-berals are both terrorists and "hate" criminals.

This has turned ugly. No, I would not agree. And I want to make certain that you are not implying in any way that liberals are terrorists, or that they are not anti-terrorist. Because that is what your post seems to be saying. I don't take that lightly. There are both right-wing and left-wing terrorists. In my eyes they are equally despicable.

Besides which, I have absolutely no idea as to what your response was based on.


I would prefer no label at all. We have laws against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. No need to pile on the perp with a lot of emotional claptrap and subsequent show trials. What makes a crime more significant if the victim happens to be of some favored ethnic or social group? Nothing other than emotional favoritism which has no basis in any rational justice system.

These laws are not about "favored" groups. "Religious" is not a favored group. "Race" is not a favored group. "Origin" is not a favored group...

Frank Ernest
May 7th, 2005, 05:09 AM
What I said is not a linguistic cop-out, it is a solid fact. Law does, and must assign definition to words.
The meanings of those words must be taken from the time they were written, not some current shift in meaning.


Words constantly take on new meaning (not to mention that most words have multiple meanings). Language evolves. Definitions, perceptions, associations of words constantly change. This is a given part of language. The dictionary is updated regulary to redefine words, as they take on new or different meanings. Terrorism once did not mean what it currently is accepted to mean, partially through the definition as defined by the law.
See above.


I gave you the definitions that our government has given to the word "terrorism" Do you not think that it was necessary for our government to do so!?!
Government does what government does. Necessity has nothing to do with it.


This has turned ugly. No, I would not agree. And I want to make certain that you are not implying in any way that liberals are terrorists, or that they are not anti-terrorist. Because that is what your post seems to be saying. I don't take that lightly. There are both right-wing and left-wing terrorists. In my eyes they are equally despicable.
There's no "seem" about it. Lie-berals are terrorists.


Besides which, I have absolutely no idea as to what your response was based on.
Figures.


These laws are not about "favored" groups. "Religious" is not a favored group. "Race" is not a favored group. "Origin" is not a favored group...
:cow: The law gives privilege to the mentioned groups and legislates against the not-mentioned groups. Try suing a black employer for not hiring enough whites and you'll get the picture.

zoo22
May 7th, 2005, 10:19 PM
Law does, and must assign definition to words


The meanings of those words must be taken from the time they were written, not some current shift in meaning.

Well, the word Terrorism actually was first used in regards to a ruling government against their own civilians: "System or rule of terror." Obviously it's changed. I don't know when. I have no problem with the government giving a specific definition of the word and of the way we understand it related to our world. As I've said, I think it's an extremely blurry word, and given current events, I think it warrants a clear definition as it pertains to the US.


Government does what government does. Necessity has nothing to do with it.

I agree, sometimes Government does sometime find ways to do what it wants to do. When that occurs without the consent of the people, it's wrong. Necessity DOES have everything to do with it. If you don't believe that it was necessary that the government define what the US considers terrorism in the wake of 911, I disagree.

Before cars, there was likely litle need for jaywalking laws. I don't know if they existed, or when they first came into being. I don't really care. (though now I'm kind anterested). I don't think that most people think too much about them, and in a lot of instances, they seem kind of stupid and self-evident. But I'm sure that most people would agree that they're there for a reason. And I have no doubt that the legislation didn't exist until the reason arose, through a specific incident. At that point (maybe when a guy named Jay walked out into a street and caused an accident ;-) ), it became necessary that a definition be put into place in law.


This has turned ugly. No, I would not agree. And I want to make certain that you are not implying in any way that liberals are terrorists, or that they are not anti-terrorist. Because that is what your post seems to be saying. I don't take that lightly. There are both right-wing and left-wing terrorists. In my eyes they are equally despicable.


There's no "seem" about it. Lie-berals are terrorists.

Well, glad you were clear about it. Like I said, I don't take that lightly. You essentially just called me a terrorist, which is not true. Yours is a frightening, extremely dangerous train, without respect towards freedom of speech or thought. It's an insult to me and to much of what America is founded upon. I am not a terrorist, liberals are not terrorists, and I resent the statement. I won't go any further with this part of the discussion, except to say that it is the blind intolerance and hatred your statement expresses that leads to both separatism, and totalitarianism. Perhaps this is what you want. I don't know.


:cow: The law gives privilege to the mentioned groups and legislates against the not-mentioned groups.

The US Constitution gives clarification to specific groups to form our basis of rights, freedom and equality. It does not, however, favor one group over another through that clarification. Legislation aimed at intimidation targeting an entire, specific group via crime does not legislate against any specific group and does not favor any specific group (even if the intimidating crime was committed in the name of another specific group).

A man of Irish origin kills a man of German origin solely based on the fact that he is of German origin with the intent to instill fear and/or intimidate other people of German origin. The legislation does not favor German origin over Irish origin in any way. Hate crime legislation does not give privilege to one group over another. As our Consitution does not, even though there is clarification of specific groups in our Consitution.


Try suing a black employer for not hiring enough whites and you'll get the picture.

"Hate crime" legislation has nothing to do with hiring issues. That's a different issue, which is better suited for a different thread. At least bother to understand what we're talking about.

zoo22
May 7th, 2005, 11:10 PM
For anyone following this thread, I just want to say that I was actually beginning to SLIGHTLY change my view. Some of you raised some interesting points. Ideas of thought as it relates to legislation. After those last 2 interactions, I'll stay where I am. I know why hate-crime laws exist. And if someone can somehow label a broad and vast group like "liberals" all as terrorists, I can deal with a perhaps mis-named law that is set in place to protect groups that are being targeted and intimidated. ALL LIBERALS ARE TERRORISTS? Please. What that statement succeeded in doing was make it more difficult for me to listen to or try to understand another side, which is what I came here to do.

Frank Ernest
May 8th, 2005, 05:44 AM
The "other side", as you put it, has been DEFINED by the politically-correct as "hate."
Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark, by the "other side" is DEFINED ipso facto as "hate."

Yes, I know why so-called "hate" crime laws exist too. They are there to punish the very politically-incorrect thoughts, or ASSUMED thoughts, a person might have. "Hate" crimes are social engineering and have nothing to do with justice.

Let us consider some simple examples. An assault. One man assaults another. If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - "hate" crime" which carries a more severe penalty than a normal assault would. However, if the the man assaulted is white and the man who did the assault is black, we must consider how the black man was provoked. Four hundred years of slavery and all that. Presumptive innocence.

Clear it up a little for ya?

BillyBob
May 8th, 2005, 05:49 AM
Yep!

zoo22
May 8th, 2005, 06:48 AM
The "other side", as you put it, has been DEFINED by the politically-correct as "hate."
Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark, by the "other side" is DEFINED ipso facto as "hate."

Yes, I know why so-called "hate" crime laws exist too. They are there to punish the very politically-incorrect thoughts, or ASSUMED thoughts, a person might have. "Hate" crimes are social engineering and have nothing to do with justice.

Let us consider some simple examples. An assault. One man assaults another. If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - "hate" crime" which carries a more severe penalty than a normal assault would. However, if the the man assaulted is white and the man who did the assault is black, we must consider how the black man was provoked. Four hundred years of slavery and all that. Presumptive innocence.

Clear it up a little for ya?

After the terrorist-calling idiocy, I'll stay away from dealing with Frank. Anyone else feels like discussing it rationally no problem. The post above is bordering nonsenical, btw, let alone having any grasp of the actual laws.

Mr. 5020
May 8th, 2005, 06:58 AM
After the terrorist-calling idiocy, I'll stay away from dealing with Frank. Anyone else feels like discussing it rationally no problem. The post above is bordering nonsenical, btw, let alone having any grasp of the actual laws.
What part of it is nonsensical? For sure the third paragraph is factual.

zoo22
May 8th, 2005, 07:23 AM
What part of it is nonsensical? For sure the third paragraph is factual.

1) What "other side" is he referring to that he quotes me on? I didn't say that. If he means my saying "What [his all liberals are terrorists] statement succeeded in doing was make it more difficult for me to listen to or try to understand another side," it's misread, misquoted, and taken out of context in his response.

Not to mention that even if he were on point, he's making a ridiculous assertion that the "politically-correct" (by which I am assuming he means liberals, or rather, terrorists) have defined "the other side" (by which I am assuming he means the right-wing) as "hate" !? ... That's nonsense. Just because HE is somehow able to label groups without regard or respect to truth (liberals are terrorists!) doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. Thankfully.

2) Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark is "defined ispo facto as hate" ... Wha?!?

3) The laws we're talking about have to do with actions. People are free to hate.

The 3rd paragraph is simply a sidestep, by bringing presumptive innocence into it. Where does it say that if it's a black man assaulting a white man that "four hundred years of slavery and all that" is to be taken into account? Don't bother looking ... It doesn't say it anywhere. Where does it say that "If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - 'hate' crime" ? Again, don't bother looking for it. It's not there.

But while those things might not be found, he might want to bother taking a look at the laws, so he can understand what he's against. Or maybe he needs to look inside himself to understand. Or maybe he already knows and is misusing the issue of hate crime as a vehicle to express it.

Frank Ernest
May 9th, 2005, 06:10 AM
1) What "other side" is he referring to that he quotes me on? I didn't say that. If he means my saying "What [his all liberals are terrorists] statement succeeded in doing was make it more difficult for me to listen to or try to understand another side," it's misread, misquoted, and taken out of context in his response.
Typical lie-beral cop-out. "Listen" to both sides and declare one's preconceived notions to be correct.


Not to mention that even if he were on point, he's making a ridiculous assertion that the "politically-correct" (by which I am assuming he means liberals, or rather, terrorists) have defined "the other side" (by which I am assuming he means the right-wing) as "hate" !? ... That's nonsense. Just because HE is somehow able to label groups without regard or respect to truth (liberals are terrorists!) doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. Thankfully.
The entrenchment against reason continues ...


2) Any disagreement, any suspect reference, any off-handed remark is "defined ispo facto as hate" ... Wha?!?
Don't get out much, do you?


3) The laws we're talking about have to do with actions. People are free to hate.
Read them again.


The 3rd paragraph is simply a sidestep, by bringing presumptive innocence into it. Where does it say that if it's a black man assaulting a white man that "four hundred years of slavery and all that" is to be taken into account? Don't bother looking ... It doesn't say it anywhere. Where does it say that "If the man who did the assault is white and the man assaulted is black - 'hate' crime" ? Again, don't bother looking for it. It's not there.
Ever seen legal arguments presented in a criminal case? Didn't think so.


But while those things might not be found, he might want to bother taking a look at the laws, so he can understand what he's against. Or maybe he needs to look inside himself to understand. Or maybe he already knows and is misusing the issue of hate crime as a vehicle to express it.
More typical lie-beral argument. Doesn't understand, therefore, must "look inside himself." Either that or he is deliberately misstating the case. That's good. Two lie-beral :cow: arguments in one breath.