Hate Crime

[Caledvwlch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I hate 'Hate Crimes'.

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

 

[PureX]

..."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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

*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]

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]

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.