Hate Crime

Zakath said:

You're implying that they're not considered crimes, at least by you religionists? :think:

Click to expand...

That's what I'm implying. :idea:

beanieboy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Come on, there are degrees in value there.

beanieboy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Not in most human courts... :nono:

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.

philosophizer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

philosophizer said:

Um... okay, sure. Or we could just say that it's what's in your heart, ya know, like I said.

Click to expand...

Yes, I kinda went the long way round.

philosophizer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Zakath said:

Not in most human courts... :nono:

Click to expand...

You don't think human courts recognize that a car are more valuable than a can of soup?

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?

beanieboy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Restitution should be paid in proportion to the value of what was stolen, regardless of the motive.

Torturing a child to death should have the same penalty as hitting a kid that ran out into the street and died?

Click to expand...

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.

philosophizer said:

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

Click to expand...

I think you made a simple mistake.

Free-Agent Smith said:

"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.

Click to expand...

beanieboy said:

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?

Click to expand...

He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder.

deardelmar said:

He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder.

Click to expand...

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.

beanieboy said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Zakath said:

"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:

Click to expand...

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?

beanieboy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Penalty would be similar/same but severity would vary according to restitutional value.

beanieboy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Maybe you should starting asking the judges.

deardelmar said:

He said murder is murder. He did not say an accident is murder.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Turbo said:

I think you made a simple mistake.

Click to expand...

:shocked: :chuckle:

PureX said:

Saying "murder is murder" is meaningless until you define what is "murder"...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

philosophizer said:

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

Click to expand...

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