If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Make fun of an goth, punk, or emo? That's a hate crime   (mobile.bbc.co.uk) divider line 82
    More: Stupid, social cohesion, table reservation, Greater Manchester, Greater Manchester Police  
•       •       •

1926 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Apr 2013 at 8:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-04 08:03:46 AM
What about if I make fun of headline submitters who don't understand how to use "a" and "an" correctly? Is that a crime, too?
 
2013-04-04 08:05:19 AM

Pocket Ninja: What about if I make fun of headline submitters who don't understand how to use "a" and "an" correctly? Is that a crime, too?


Hey, Subby's just ready to an hero. It's a Fruedian slip.
 
2013-04-04 08:08:28 AM
Damn. Done in one.
 
2013-04-04 08:13:00 AM
How do you go from a story about a beating to "make fun of"?  Idiot.
 
2013-04-04 08:15:32 AM
Hate crimes in general are stupid. If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, why should the motivation of it make for different punishment?
 
2013-04-04 08:18:56 AM

Pocket Ninja: What about if I make fun of headline submitters who don't understand how to use "a" and "an" correctly? Is that a crime, too?


What are you?  An pedant?
 
2013-04-04 08:24:54 AM

machoprogrammer: Hate crimes in general are stupid. If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, why should the motivation of it make for different punishment?


It's a good measure of the malice held by the offender.
 
2013-04-04 08:25:24 AM

machoprogrammer: If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, why should the motivation of it make for different punishment?


The intention is the difference between a crime and an accident.

If someone's driving a car and spins out on black ice and takes out a kid, that's a tragedy.

If someone's doing donuts and spins out and hits a kid, that's manslaughter.

If someone sees a kid and runs his ass down like he was a Stephen King villain, that's Murder 1.

It's the mens rea or some shiat like that in lawyerese. But I do agree hate crimes are just thought crime. If you decide to beat someone up because they're alone and look weak, that's a crime and you will go to jail. But if you decide to do the same thing to someone and they belong to a different social group, you're going to jail for even longer.

Basically they just make the system more money by letting them tack on many multiple charges to the same solitary act, thus keeping you in prison longer and reducing the chance of successful rehabilitation and increasing the prison system's profits by keeping more people busy thus requiring more taxpayer money.
 
2013-04-04 08:27:05 AM
Came to make 'an hero' comment, leaving satisfied./geek tab?
 
2013-04-04 08:28:05 AM
An done in one.
 
2013-04-04 08:30:23 AM

doglover: It's the mens rea or some shiat like that in lawyerese. But I do agree hate crimes are just thought crime. If you decide to beat someone up because they're alone and look weak, that's a crime and you will go to jail. But if you decide to do the same thing to someone and they belong to a different social group, you're going to jail for even longer.


The point of hate crimes isn't to punish you more for attacking someone different than you, it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime. Basically, the record/testimony shows that the offender is a racist/homophobe/sexist/whatever and this contributed to the crime happening in the first place, so they deserve to be put away for longer as an example.
 
2013-04-04 08:31:18 AM
www.filehurricane.com
oblig.
 
2013-04-04 08:31:33 AM
Their is a mistake in the headline. I don't no if anyone caught it, butt it really pisses me of.
 
2013-04-04 08:33:20 AM
So "hate crime" is another one of those words that have lost all meaning.

racist
sexist
misogynist
hate crime


/sigh
 
2013-04-04 08:34:37 AM
would this video and service help them? it helped Richmond.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNhjHtMXLkA
 
2013-04-04 08:41:56 AM
It's political correctness gone mad, You can't even kick and stomp goths in an Bacup park without the politically correct police jumping down your throat
 
2013-04-04 08:42:25 AM
In before the Gothapotomous.
 
2013-04-04 08:42:33 AM

INeedAName: Their is a mistake in the headline. I don't no if anyone caught it, butt it really pisses me on  off.


Sorry, pet peeve.
 
2013-04-04 08:42:43 AM

JasonOfOrillia: Pocket Ninja: What about if I make fun of headline submitters who don't understand how to use "a" and "an" correctly? Is that a crime, too?

What are you?  An pedantpendant?


FTFY
/pet peeve
 
2013-04-04 08:45:24 AM

Zeno-25: it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime


Exactly, a thought crime.

If it's illegal to hate blacks, go break up the KKK and toss Rush Limbaugh in jail.

If it's illegal to hate whites, go break up the Black Panthers and toss Spike Lee in jail.

It it's illegal to hate latins, go break up the AZ militia and toss Adam Carolla in jail.

If it's illegal to hate (group here), go break up (their enemies's group) and toss (outspoken bigot) in jail.

But you can't because it's constitutionally protected to have the right to an opinion and express that opinion. Even, and this is important, if that opinion is horrifically amoral. It's not a crime to be a hater.

But with hate crime legislation, it is. If you are a hater and you commit a crime, hate crime laws basically say "Your opinions are illegal, too." Assault is assault. I don't care about the reasons, the law's job should be to stop it from happening again, not to make some assaults less assaulty because the assaulter wasn't racist enough. Being murdered by and equal opportunity killer doesn't make you any less dead than if they hated your social group. A crushed orbital socket doesn't magically heal faster if the guy who crushed it is the same color as you.

Hate crime is thought crime.
 
2013-04-04 08:50:56 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.filehurricane.com image 494x395]
oblig.


I thought emo was the new closet gay?
 
2013-04-04 08:51:10 AM

doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.


Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.
 
2013-04-04 08:52:34 AM

doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.


That post is A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste crime.

narwhaler.com
 
2013-04-04 08:53:53 AM
This is one of the best examples I can think of when it comes to how idiotic hate crimes are.
 
2013-04-04 08:58:15 AM

Pocket Ninja: doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.

Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.


Not quite. Hate crime makes it a double crime. Not only can you get murder 1 for your intent to kill a man in cold blood, you can get extra penalties on top of that.

It's gilding the lily, or shiatting on the turd, or any other metaphor that means it's a useless addition.

We didn't need to make anything extra illegal. It's already illegal enough to assault, injure, and kill people. Plus what if the guy who attacks you is the same color? Same sexuality? Same music tastes and fashion? He's getting a slap on the wrist while if he'd been a different color he'd be getting more punishment? Wouldn't that make YOU feel cheated?
 
2013-04-04 09:00:22 AM
Make fun of an juggalo? That's okay, carry on.
 
2013-04-04 09:13:35 AM
ts1.mm.bing.net

oblig
 
2013-04-04 09:32:07 AM

Pocket Ninja: doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.

Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.


Murder 1:  Murder with premeditation
Murder 2:  "Heat of passion" murder

...although both crimes are motivated out of some form of hate or anger, so there's that.

/also thinks additional laws for "hate crime" is stupid and redundant
 
2013-04-04 09:34:02 AM

doglover: Zeno-25: it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime

Exactly, a thought crime.

If it's illegal to hate blacks, go break up the KKK and toss Rush Limbaugh in jail.

If it's illegal to hate whites, go break up the Black Panthers and toss Spike Lee in jail.

It it's illegal to hate latins, go break up the AZ militia and toss Adam Carolla in jail.

If it's illegal to hate (group here), go break up (their enemies's group) and toss (outspoken bigot) in jail.

But you can't because it's constitutionally protected to have the right to an opinion and express that opinion. Even, and this is important, if that opinion is horrifically amoral. It's not a crime to be a hater.

But with hate crime legislation, it is. If you are a hater and you commit a crime, hate crime laws basically say "Your opinions are illegal, too." Assault is assault. I don't care about the reasons, the law's job should be to stop it from happening again, not to make some assaults less assaulty because the assaulter wasn't racist enough. Being murdered by and equal opportunity killer doesn't make you any less dead than if they hated your social group. A crushed orbital socket doesn't magically heal faster if the guy who crushed it is the same color as you.

Hate crime is thought crime.


The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault.  It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait.  Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it.  When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message".  So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime.
 
2013-04-04 09:34:43 AM

doglover: Pocket Ninja: doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.

Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.

Not quite. Hate crime makes it a double crime. Not only can you get murder 1 for your intent to kill a man in cold blood, you can get extra penalties on top of that.

It's gilding the lily, or shiatting on the turd, or any other metaphor that means it's a useless addition.

We didn't need to make anything extra illegal. It's already illegal enough to assault, injure, and kill people. Plus what if the guy who attacks you is the same color? Same sexuality? Same music tastes and fashion? He's getting a slap on the wrist while if he'd been a different color he'd be getting more punishment? Wouldn't that make YOU feel cheated?


The "hate crime = thought crime" is a slogan but not terribly thoughtful.

Criminal punishment often takes into account a concern for keeping more dangerous people out of society for longer periods. Or other sanction for those we deem more likely to re-offend.

If violent offenders driven by racist motives are like pedophiles who cannot resist the urges that drive them, then the measures could make sense as society's protection vs those who have a history of not resisting their desire to take illegal actions.
 
2013-04-04 09:36:06 AM
doglover: .....If it's illegal to hate (group here), go break up (their enemies's group) and toss (outspoken bigot) in jail.....

If it is illegal to hate Christians, go break up atheist gatherings and toss Richard Dawkins in jail.
If it is illegal to hate Muslims, go break up evangelical Christian churches and toss Rick Warren in jail.

Hey!  This is fun!
 
2013-04-04 09:44:16 AM

wejash: Criminal punishment often takes into account a concern for keeping more dangerous people out of society for longer periods.


Because locking people up even longer is a good idea and doesn't just breed career criminals and make jail even more dangerous than it already is for guards and inmates alike.

God forbid we try to reform people or educate them. Nope let's just pile on more years to every conviction because reasons and then just spend all our time and money feeding people who could be productive members if they were just de-programed and given half a chance.
 
2013-04-04 09:45:18 AM

AngryDragon: doglover: .....If it's illegal to hate (group here), go break up (their enemies's group) and toss (outspoken bigot) in jail.....

If it is illegal to hate Christians, go break up atheist gatherings and toss Richard Dawkins in jail.
If it is illegal to hate Muslims, go break up evangelical Christian churches and toss Rick Warren in jail.

Hey!  This is fun!


I know.

It's great. You can go for hours, too, because everyone hates someone.
 
2013-04-04 09:45:50 AM

HeartBurnKid: doglover: Zeno-25: ...

Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it.  When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message".  So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime.


Oh  that graffiti was done by a gay existentialist German,  it actually means "The Homo The",  I just forgot to put up the placard explaining it.
 
2013-04-04 09:52:00 AM

doglover: Pocket Ninja: doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.

Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.

Not quite. Hate crime makes it a double crime. Not only can you get murder 1 for your intent to kill a man in cold blood, you can get extra penalties on top of that.

It's gilding the lily, or shiatting on the turd, or any other metaphor that means it's a useless addition.

We didn't need to make anything extra illegal. It's already illegal enough to assault, injure, and kill people. Plus what if the guy who attacks you is the same color? Same sexuality? Same music tastes and fashion? He's getting a slap on the wrist while if he'd been a different color he'd be getting more punishment? Wouldn't that make YOU feel cheated?


By this logic we should throw out all mitigating and aggravating factors of any crime.  While some jurisdictions such as England sometimes have mandatory additional penalties for crime motivated by religion or ethnicity, other places just use it as an aggravating factor.  There are many aggravating factors such as abusing a position of trust or authority, using specific tools to commit the crime, a high level or cruelty, previous criminal convictions, etc.

These things give us the ability to make a reasonable assessment of the mind of the accused at the time of the crime and allow us to distinguish in sentencing between someone punching a guy in the face because he threw a bottle at you, and blindsiding a guy in the back of the head because he's black.  The rationale is that a crime motivated by passion or anger in the heat of the moment is somewhat less likely to be repeated by that offender than one motivated by ethnicity and that one is objectively worse than the other.
 
2013-04-04 09:55:05 AM

doglover: wejash: Criminal punishment often takes into account a concern for keeping more dangerous people out of society for longer periods.

Because locking people up even longer is a good idea and doesn't just breed career criminals and make jail even more dangerous than it already is for guards and inmates alike.

God forbid we try to reform people or educate them. Nope let's just pile on more years to every conviction because reasons and then just spend all our time and money feeding people who could be productive members if they were just de-programed and given half a chance.


That's a different argument and says more about the penal system than the process of criminal conviction and sentencing.  Generally I do agree though, which is why I was a member of the Howard League while in England. http://www.howardleague.org/
 
2013-04-04 09:55:33 AM

Zeno-25: doglover: It's the mens rea or some shiat like that in lawyerese. But I do agree hate crimes are just thought crime. If you decide to beat someone up because they're alone and look weak, that's a crime and you will go to jail. But if you decide to do the same thing to someone and they belong to a different social group, you're going to jail for even longer.

The point of hate crimes isn't to punish you more for attacking someone different than you, it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime. Basically, the record/testimony shows that the offender is a racist/homophobe/sexist/whatever and this contributed to the crime happening in the first place, so they deserve to be put away for longer as an example.


This is where I don't quite understand the idea of hate crimes.   If I rob a store for money to buy drugs vs. money to buy an xbox vs. money to buy food for my children, should the sentence/punishment be different in all of those cases?  The punishment to rob a store should be harsh enough to deter the act no matter the motivation.  If the punishments given for robbery are not a good enough deterrent for every reason to commit the robbery, then the punishments need to be re-examined.

I understand you are trying to assess the threat of the individual.  Did he kill the black man because he was black (then he was a threat to every black man) or did he kill the black man because he slept with his wife (then he was only a threat to the 1988 denver broncos offensive line...she was a bit of a whore).  In each case he only killed one person, but with the idea of hate crime punishments, he is being punished for the potential to murder all black men.

If the motivation behind a crime is important in how punishment is decided, then mandatory sentencing should be a glaring contradiction, since it takes into account NO motivation on the crime.  Was he selling crack in the black neighborhoods because he hates blacks or because he needed money for his kids.  Doesn't matter, he was selling crack - mandatory sentence.

I understand the difference with crimes vs. accidents (murder vs. manslaughter), but we are talking about crime vs. crime

Could we not make "human being" a protected class, then every crime becomes a hate crime and the issue goes away?
 
2013-04-04 09:56:04 AM
So if I beat the crap out of them because they are arseholes that is one thing but if I beat the crap out of them because they are arsehole emo's that is worse?

Hate crime laws are stupid.
 
2013-04-04 09:58:51 AM

HeartBurnKid: The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault. It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait. Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it. When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message". So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime


We already have laws about intimidation.  It should be a seperate crime and you should have to prove they were sending a message to said group.

And for that matter crimes like assault, murder, etc have varying sentences.  Judges already have discretion on the sentence.  Any law about "hate crimes" should recommend that peopel commiting "hate crinmes" gets the higher end of the sentence.  It isn't a whole new crime.
 
2013-04-04 09:59:28 AM
Hyjamon: .....I understand you are trying to assess the threat of the individual.  Did he kill the black man because he was black (then he was a threat to every black man) or did he kill the black man because he slept with his wife (then he was only a threat to the 1988 denver broncos offensive line...she was a bit of a whore).  In each case he only killed one person, but with the idea of hate crime punishments, he is being punished for the potential to murder all black men.

If the motivation behind a crime is important in how punishment is decided, then mandatory sentencing should be a glaring contradiction, since it takes into account NO motivation on the crime.  Was he selling ...


Well said.

Hey if we can put an 18-year old on the sex offender registry for sleeping with his 17-year old girlfriend, what's wrong with prosecuting thought crime?  "Feel good" legislation is retarded, even if it is "for the children".
 
2013-04-04 10:06:49 AM

wejash: doglover: Pocket Ninja: doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.

Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.

Not quite. Hate crime makes it a double crime. Not only can you get murder 1 for your intent to kill a man in cold blood, you can get extra penalties on top of that.

It's gilding the lily, or shiatting on the turd, or any other metaphor that means it's a useless addition.

We didn't need to make anything extra illegal. It's already illegal enough to assault, injure, and kill people. Plus what if the guy who attacks you is the same color? Same sexuality? Same music tastes and fashion? He's getting a slap on the wrist while if he'd been a different color he'd be getting more punishment? Wouldn't that make YOU feel cheated?

The "hate crime = thought crime" is a slogan but not terribly thoughtful.

Criminal punishment often takes into account a concern for keeping more dangerous people out of society for longer periods. Or other sanction for those we deem more likely to re-offend.

If violent offenders driven by racist motives are like pedophiles who cannot resist the urges that drive them, then the measures could make sense as society's protection vs those who have a history of not resisting their desire to take illegal actions.


two killers: one is a racist who kills randomly anyone who is a certain color; the other is an equal opportunity killer and just kills anyone randomly.  Both have committed murder, both have the potential to kill again.  One will be charged with a hate crime; the other will not.  Why is their even a difference?  Can't the judge give them a sentence to keep them both removed from society long enough without one needing to be called a hate crime?
 
2013-04-04 10:19:57 AM

Hyjamon: wejash: doglover: Pocket Ninja: doglover: Hate crime is thought crime.

Exactly. That's why the law makes no distinction whatsoever between the man who plans to murder someone and then carries out that murder and the man who murders someone in a fit of rage or as the result of an accident. The motivation and thought behind the crime never matters at all, only the final act.

Not quite. Hate crime makes it a double crime. Not only can you get murder 1 for your intent to kill a man in cold blood, you can get extra penalties on top of that.

It's gilding the lily, or shiatting on the turd, or any other metaphor that means it's a useless addition.

We didn't need to make anything extra illegal. It's already illegal enough to assault, injure, and kill people. Plus what if the guy who attacks you is the same color? Same sexuality? Same music tastes and fashion? He's getting a slap on the wrist while if he'd been a different color he'd be getting more punishment? Wouldn't that make YOU feel cheated?

The "hate crime = thought crime" is a slogan but not terribly thoughtful.

Criminal punishment often takes into account a concern for keeping more dangerous people out of society for longer periods. Or other sanction for those we deem more likely to re-offend.

If violent offenders driven by racist motives are like pedophiles who cannot resist the urges that drive them, then the measures could make sense as society's protection vs those who have a history of not resisting their desire to take illegal actions.

two killers: one is a racist who kills randomly anyone who is a certain color; the other is an equal opportunity killer and just kills anyone randomly.  Both have committed murder, both have the potential to kill again.  One will be charged with a hate crime; the other will not.  Why is their even a difference?  Can't the judge give them a sentence to keep them both removed from society long enough without one needing to be called a hate crime?


You're trying to take this to the very extreme.  In both cases, depending on the jurisdiction the punishment is at the maximum anyways.  In many countries murder is already going to have the mandatory life sentence attached to it.  Motive still exists as an aggravating factor.  You're far too hung up on the term 'hate crime'.

How about this: Two murders (both victims killed with intent).  One murder sees the victim shot in the head over a gambling debt.  The other is tortured for several days until they die.  Is one not objectively worse than the other?

Throw in a third murder: two men beat another to death because he's Muslim.

How about a fourth: A man kills another man with intent after extreme provocation (ie, being shown pictures of a loved one who has been raped and killed).

There's a scale, some of these are worse than others.  "Hate crime" is simply a factor used in determining the motive of the accused.  Some motives are considered worse or more dangerous than others.  The reason for aggravating and mitigating factors is that legislation does not seek to include every single possible criminal scenario (since this is impossible).  These factors help to determine if one crime is worse than another.
 
2013-04-04 10:33:48 AM

AngryDragon: Hyjamon: .....I understand you are trying to assess the threat of the individual.  Did he kill the black man because he was black (then he was a threat to every black man) or did he kill the black man because he slept with his wife (then he was only a threat to the 1988 denver broncos offensive line...she was a bit of a whore).  In each case he only killed one person, but with the idea of hate crime punishments, he is being punished for the potential to murder all black men.

If the motivation behind a crime is important in how punishment is decided, then mandatory sentencing should be a glaring contradiction, since it takes into account NO motivation on the crime.  Was he selling ...

Well said.

Hey if we can put an 18-year old on the sex offender registry for sleeping with his 17-year old girlfriend, what's wrong with prosecuting thought crime?  "Feel good" legislation is retarded, even if it is "for the children".


Except the part you quoted absolutely contradicts what you just said.  We CLEARLY do base judgement on motivation in most cases, and as the person you quoted pointed out, really should be doing so in almost all cases.  The hell, man.  The hell.
 
2013-04-04 10:41:50 AM

Dissociater: Hyjamon: wejash: doglover: Pocket Ninja: doglover:


You're far too hung up on the term 'hate crime'.

Maybe, but that is the issue I am discussing, the existence (or necessity) of the term.  We are talking about the motivation before the crime and we already have terms that address those (manslaughter, murder 1, murder 2, ...) and the sentences already allow judges to keep an individual in jail long enough in proportion to their likelihood to commit the crime again.

we also have ways to tact on to those: example we have assault and aggravated assault.  And as someone mentioned upthread, if someone kills a white person because they are white, then charge them with murder 1 (for the murder) and terrorist threats (for the 'sending a message' part)

You mention legislation does not seek to include every single possibility, but that is what hate crime legislation is doing.  They are targeting a certain possibility that can be addressed by other laws on the books.  Now, I imagine we agree that the judges do not want/need/care for hate crime legislation and they are largely a tool of politicians to win votes, that is why they should be removed.  They are "feel good" legislation, politically motivated only.

We all can come up with different combinations on WHY someone was murdered and their potential threat to do it again, but for certain combinations that are equally unwanted in society, we give it a special name "hate crime" for it.  quick example: I could hate everyone from an SEC college/lives in Minnesota/shops at Piggly-Wiggly/CEO's for banks. I can  murder someone from one of those subsets and have the potential to do it again.  Yet, they will not be labeled hate crime.

Better (real) examples:  SF 49'er fan gets stabbed at the Falcon's playoff game in Atlanta.  That should be a hate crime for the same reasons as racially motivated ones.  Or SF fan gets beaten up at a Dodger's game.  Yet it isn't.  I am just arguing that hate crimes need to be abolished or greatly expanded.
 
2013-04-04 10:48:29 AM
Is it a hate crime if I make fun of hate crime offenders?

/I hope not, because...
 
2013-04-04 10:56:40 AM

machoprogrammer: Hate crimes in general are stupid. If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, why should the motivation of it make for different punishment?


Do you think there should be different punishments for manslaughter vs murder? A person is dead in both cases.
 
2013-04-04 11:34:24 AM
Oh boy, another autobiography of an imbecile thread.
 
2013-04-04 11:36:18 AM

Hyjamon: two killers: one is a racist who kills randomly anyone who is a certain color; the other is an equal opportunity killer and just kills anyone randomly.  Both have committed murder, both have the potential to kill again.  One will be charged with a hate crime; the other will not.  Why is their even a difference?  Can't the judge give them a sentence to keep them both removed from society long enough without one needing to be called a hate crime?


Actually, I'd give the racist one a lesser sentence, since he'll kill less people than the equal opportunity killer.

100 people. 10 blacks. Racist kills only the 10. Equal kills all 100.
 
2013-04-04 11:55:02 AM

liam76: HeartBurnKid: The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault. It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait. Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it. When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message". So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime

We already have laws about intimidation.


We do.  Hate crime laws are part of that.

It should be a seperate crime

You never heard of a "special circumstance"?  They're fairly common in law.

and you should have to prove they were sending a message to said group.

You do have to prove it.  I know the "not-Republican" brigade likes to claim that any crime on a black/woman/gay/etc. is sentenced as a hate crime, but that's not true.
 
2013-04-04 12:26:07 PM

HeartBurnKid: liam76: HeartBurnKid: The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault. It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait. Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it. When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message". So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime

We already have laws about intimidation.

We do. Hate crime laws are part of that.

It should be a seperate crime

You never heard of a "special circumstance"? They're fairly common in law.


So why blur the lines?  Why is it an additional crime and a "special circumstance".

HeartBurnKid: You do have to prove it. I know the "not-Republican" brigade likes to claim that any crime on a black/woman/gay/etc. is sentenced as a hate crime, but that's not true


No.  There is no requirement in hate crime legislation that you have to prove they are "sending a message".

I am not arguing that any crime against a minority is a hate crime, but when the rate of hate crimes when the victim is black and the perpetrator is white is 1/45 and the rate when the colors are reversed is 1/1245 we have a problem.
 
2013-04-04 12:33:06 PM
Zeno-25:  doglover: It's the mens rea or some shiat like that in lawyerese. But I do agree hate crimes are just thought crime. If you decide to beat someone up because they're alone and look weak, that's a crime and you will go to jail. But if you decide to do the same thing to someone and they belong to a different social group, you're going to jail for even longer.
The point of hate crimes isn't to punish you more for attacking someone different than you, it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime. Basically, the record/testimony shows that the offender is a racist/homophobe/sexist/whatever and this contributed to the crime happening in the first place, so they deserve to be put away for longer as an example.


But Libertarians hate those laws because they believe that most of the persons who will be arrested under those laws are white males.
 
2013-04-04 01:01:34 PM

machoprogrammer: Hate crimes in general are stupid. If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, why should the motivation of it make for different punishment?


So people rob 7-11 because they hate 7-11?  They hate convenience stores?
 
2013-04-04 01:02:14 PM

liam76: HeartBurnKid: liam76: HeartBurnKid: The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault. It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait. Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it. When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message". So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime

We already have laws about intimidation.

We do. Hate crime laws are part of that.

It should be a seperate crime

You never heard of a "special circumstance"? They're fairly common in law.

So why blur the lines?  Why is it an additional crime and a "special circumstance".


I'm confused.  First you complain that it's not a separate crime, then you complain that it is.  Make up your mind.

HeartBurnKid: You do have to prove it. I know the "not-Republican" brigade likes to claim that any crime on a black/woman/gay/etc. is sentenced as a hate crime, but that's not true

No.  There is no requirement in hate crime legislation that you have to prove they are "sending a message".


Ummm... yes, you do.  You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime.  It's just a crime.

I am not arguing that any crime against a minority is a hate crime, but when the rate of hate crimes when the victim is black and the perpetrator is white is 1/45 and the rate when the colors are reversed is 1/1245 we have a problem.

Maybe the problem is that there are more racist white shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point than racist black shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point?  Just a thought.
 
2013-04-04 01:14:43 PM

liam76: HeartBurnKid: liam76: HeartBurnKid: The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault. It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait. Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it. When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message". So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime

We already have laws about intimidation.

We do. Hate crime laws are part of that.

It should be a seperate crime

You never heard of a "special circumstance"? They're fairly common in law.

So why blur the lines?  Why is it an additional crime and a "special circumstance".

HeartBurnKid: You do have to prove it. I know the "not-Republican" brigade likes to claim that any crime on a black/woman/gay/etc. is sentenced as a hate crime, but that's not true

No.  There is no requirement in hate crime legislation that you have to prove they are "sending a message".


You don't have to prove they're 'sending a message' but you do have to prove that the crime was racially motivated in order for the hate crime legislation to come into effect in the specific instance.  There is no crime called 'hate crime'.  A hate crime is a crime that, irrespective of whether it is racially or religiously motivated, is still a crime.  You're not found innocent of all charges if the crime in question wasn't racially or religiously motivated.  The 'hate' aspect of the crime only affects the seriousness of the crime, which in turn affects sentencing.

This is the same with every other aggravating factor in crime.  I don't know why it's an issue at all.  Crimes are more serious when aggravating factors are present.  Some of these factors are apparent, such as violent crimes against the vulnerable.  If the victim is a child, you don't need to prove he's vulnerable.  He's a child.
 
2013-04-04 02:09:32 PM

HeartBurnKid: I'm confused. First you complain that it's not a separate crime, then you complain that it is. Make up your mind.


I said if ti was intimidation, then prosecute it as a seperate crime, you said ti was a seperate crime.  Then you said it was a special circumstance.  You are the one who is confused.

HeartBurnKid: No. There is no requirement in hate crime legislation that you have to prove they are "sending a message".

Ummm... yes, you do. You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime. It's just a crime.


So you fail to see the difference between the underlined? Or are you being dishonest?

HeartBurnKid: Maybe the problem is that there are more racist white shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point than racist black shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point? Just a thought


Mayeb.  but I highly doubt there are 27X as many, which makes me question how evenly the law is being applied.

Dissociater: You don't have to prove they're 'sending a message' but you do have to prove that the crime was racially motivated in order for the hate crime legislation to come into effect in the specific instance. There is no crime called 'hate crime'. A hate crime is a crime that, irrespective of whether it is racially or religiously motivated, is still a crime. You're not found innocent of all charges if the crime in question wasn't racially or religiously motivated. The 'hate' aspect of the crime only affects the seriousness of the crime, which in turn affects sentencing.

This is the same with every other aggravating factor in crime. I don't know why it's an issue at all. Crimes are more serious when aggravating factors are present. Some of these factors are apparent, such as violent crimes against the vulnerable. If the victim is a child, you don't need to prove he's vulnerable. He's a child


I think it is stupid to single out certain forms of "hate".

If you are randomly choosing people to hurt based off of nothing they did to you, but because you dislike something about the group they are in, I don't think the group you are in matters.
 
2013-04-04 02:39:38 PM

liam76: Dissociater: You don't have to prove they're 'sending a message' but you do have to prove that the crime was racially motivated in order for the hate crime legislation to come into effect in the specific instance. There is no crime called 'hate crime'. A hate crime is a crime that, irrespective of whether it is racially or religiously motivated, is still a crime. You're not found innocent of all charges if the crime in question wasn't racially or religiously motivated. The 'hate' aspect of the crime only affects the seriousness of the crime, which in turn affects sentencing.

This is the same with every other aggravating factor in crime. I don't know why it's an issue at all. Crimes are more serious when aggravating factors are present. Some of these factors are apparent, such as violent crimes against the vulnerable. If the victim is a child, you don't need to prove he's vulnerable. He's a child

I think it is stupid to single out certain forms of "hate".

If you are randomly choosing people to hurt based off of nothing they did to you, but because you dislike something about the group they are in, I don't think the group you are in matters.


Ding.Ding.Ding. Ding. we have a winner and very concise reasoning for why some of us find "hate" crimes silly.

The "hate" in hate crime does not affect the sentencing because of the seriousness, it affects the sentencing because of who was involved belongs to a certain group label.  That is it.  We have presented arguments on other situations that are just as serious and have the similar aggravating factors.  The laws exist where a judge can apply the same sentence to the case regardless of what category the victim belongs to.

Setup:
The aggravating factor is the victim belonged to group X.  The seriousness of the crime is that anyone in group X could have been the victim.

Here is the hate crime difference:  if X is a racial, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation group, then it is a "hate" crime.  If X is other, it is regular crime.
 
2013-04-04 02:45:52 PM

Hyjamon: Better (real) examples: SF 49'er fan gets stabbed at the Falcon's playoff game in Atlanta. That should be a hate crime for the same reasons as racially motivated ones. Or SF fan gets beaten up at a Dodger's game. Yet it isn't. I am just arguing that hate crimes need to be abolished or greatly expanded.


Same effect either way. If you allow for the groups to be sufficiency specific, you can almost guarantee a perpetrator and victim differ on at least one categorization. Like a heavy thrash metal fan beating up a death metal fan or some such nonsense.

/Fallacy or not,
//Slippery slope is fun
 
2013-04-04 02:49:54 PM

Hyjamon: Setup:
The aggravating factor is the victim was targetted because they belonged to group X. The seriousness of the crime is that anyone in group X could have been the victim.

Here is the hate crime difference: if X is a racial, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation group, then it is a "hate" crime. If X is other, it is regular crime


FTFY, but I get your point.
 
2013-04-04 02:51:03 PM

ProfessorOhki: Hyjamon: Better (real) examples: SF 49'er fan gets stabbed at the Falcon's playoff game in Atlanta. That should be a hate crime for the same reasons as racially motivated ones. Or SF fan gets beaten up at a Dodger's game. Yet it isn't. I am just arguing that hate crimes need to be abolished or greatly expanded.

Same effect either way. If you allow for the groups to be sufficiency specific, you can almost guarantee a perpetrator and victim differ on at least one categorization. Like a heavy thrash metal fan beating up a death metal fan or some such nonsense.

/Fallacy or not,
//Slippery slope is fun


It isn't that they "differ" it that they were targetted because they were in that group and not  because of soemthing they had done.
 
2013-04-04 02:55:38 PM

HeartBurnKid: doglover: Zeno-25: it's punishment for a predisposed prejudice the offender already had against the victim which contributed to the offender's motivation to commit the crime

Exactly, a thought crime.

If it's illegal to hate blacks, go break up the KKK and toss Rush Limbaugh in jail.

If it's illegal to hate whites, go break up the Black Panthers and toss Spike Lee in jail.

It it's illegal to hate latins, go break up the AZ militia and toss Adam Carolla in jail.

If it's illegal to hate (group here), go break up (their enemies's group) and toss (outspoken bigot) in jail.

But you can't because it's constitutionally protected to have the right to an opinion and express that opinion. Even, and this is important, if that opinion is horrifically amoral. It's not a crime to be a hater.

But with hate crime legislation, it is. If you are a hater and you commit a crime, hate crime laws basically say "Your opinions are illegal, too." Assault is assault. I don't care about the reasons, the law's job should be to stop it from happening again, not to make some assaults less assaulty because the assaulter wasn't racist enough. Being murdered by and equal opportunity killer doesn't make you any less dead than if they hated your social group. A crushed orbital socket doesn't magically heal faster if the guy who crushed it is the same color as you.

Hate crime is thought crime.

The thing you're missing is that, for example, if you assault a (black/Latino/gays/whatever) just because you hate (blacks/Latinos/gays/whatever), it's not just an assault.  It's also an explicit threat against every single person who shares that trait.  Same difference between writing "KILROY WAS HERE" on a wall and writing "DIE HOMO DIE" on it.  When you commit a hate crime, you're trying to "send a message".  So hate crime laws punish you for sending that message on top of the punishment for the other crime.


If that's the case, shouldn't every burglary be considered a hate crime? All you're doing is sending a message that says, "Anyone who has more shiat than me is going to get it stolen."

This exactly why i only commit random acts of violence. No pattern = no predispositions.
 
2013-04-04 03:20:44 PM

Hyjamon: liam76: Dissociater: You don't have to prove they're 'sending a message' but you do have to prove that the crime was racially motivated in order for the hate crime legislation to come into effect in the specific instance. There is no crime called 'hate crime'. A hate crime is a crime that, irrespective of whether it is racially or religiously motivated, is still a crime. You're not found innocent of all charges if the crime in question wasn't racially or religiously motivated. The 'hate' aspect of the crime only affects the seriousness of the crime, which in turn affects sentencing.

This is the same with every other aggravating factor in crime. I don't know why it's an issue at all. Crimes are more serious when aggravating factors are present. Some of these factors are apparent, such as violent crimes against the vulnerable. If the victim is a child, you don't need to prove he's vulnerable. He's a child

I think it is stupid to single out certain forms of "hate".

If you are randomly choosing people to hurt based off of nothing they did to you, but because you dislike something about the group they are in, I don't think the group you are in matters.

Ding.Ding.Ding. Ding. we have a winner and very concise reasoning for why some of us find "hate" crimes silly.

The "hate" in hate crime does not affect the sentencing because of the seriousness, it affects the sentencing because of who was involved belongs to a certain group label.  That is it.  We have presented arguments on other situations that are just as serious and have the similar aggravating factors.  The laws exist where a judge can apply the same sentence to the case regardless of what category the victim belongs to.

Setup:
The aggravating factor is the victim belonged to group X.  The seriousness of the crime is that anyone in group X could have been the victim.

Here is the hate crime difference:  if X is a racial, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation group, then it is a "hate" crime.  If X is other, it i ...


What?  That's not how it works at all.  It has nothing to do with the victim and everything to do with why the accused chose the victim.  Not all crimes that involve white on black violence are racially motivated.  Not all of those crimes are considered hate crimes.

The aggravating factor isn't that the victim belonged to group X.  The aggravating factor is that the accused targeted the victim BECAUSE he belonged to group x.  Can you seriously not see the difference?

It's the why of the crime.  The motivation.  In every single criminal case, the motivation is an issue in determining the seriousness of the crime.  It's what separates killing in self-defense from killing for fun.
 
2013-04-04 03:32:57 PM

INeedAName: Their is a mistake in the headline. I don't no if anyone caught it, butt it really pisses me of.


Me to.
 
2013-04-04 03:33:54 PM

liam76: ProfessorOhki: Hyjamon: Better (real) examples: SF 49'er fan gets stabbed at the Falcon's playoff game in Atlanta. That should be a hate crime for the same reasons as racially motivated ones. Or SF fan gets beaten up at a Dodger's game. Yet it isn't. I am just arguing that hate crimes need to be abolished or greatly expanded.

Same effect either way. If you allow for the groups to be sufficiency specific, you can almost guarantee a perpetrator and victim differ on at least one categorization. Like a heavy thrash metal fan beating up a death metal fan or some such nonsense.

/Fallacy or not,
//Slippery slope is fun

It isn't that they "differ" it that they were targetted because they were in that group and not  because of soemthing they had done.


I'd imagine it gets really fuzzy when affectations come into play... does "his body language was insulting, so I kicked his ass," have a basis of the individual or some trait the individual adopted as a marker of their membership in a group?
 
2013-04-04 05:43:15 PM
All crime is a hate crime.
 
2013-04-04 10:25:54 PM

xanadian: JasonOfOrillia: Pocket Ninja: What about if I make fun of headline submitters who don't understand how to use "a" and "an" correctly? Is that a crime, too?

What are you?  An pedantpendant?

FTFY
/pet peeve


Do you listen to the skeptics guide to the universe?
 
2013-04-04 11:40:50 PM

doglover: machoprogrammer: If you intentionally commit a crime against someone, why should the motivation of it make for different punishment?

The intention is the difference between a crime and an accident.

If someone's driving a car and spins out on black ice and takes out a kid, that's a tragedy.

If someone's doing donuts and spins out and hits a kid, that's manslaughter.

If someone sees a kid and runs his ass down like he was a Stephen King villain, that's Murder 1.

It's the mens rea or some shiat like that in lawyerese. But I do agree hate crimes are just thought crime. If you decide to beat someone up because they're alone and look weak, that's a crime and you will go to jail. But if you decide to do the same thing to someone and they belong to a different social group, you're going to jail for even longer.

Basically they just make the system more money by letting them tack on many multiple charges to the same solitary act, thus keeping you in prison longer and reducing the chance of successful rehabilitation and increasing the prison system's profits by keeping more people busy thus requiring more taxpayer money.


There's a valid principle in there somewhere.  A "hate" crime can be empowering to those with the same ...moral convictions(and hence perpetuate the behavior), and similarly generate real fear in the body that the victim belongs to.  That is where the difference lies.

I applaud the sentiment in the article.  There are groups that get hated on just for being who they are, I'm not talking about some good natured ribbing from another subculture that's just as off the beaten path.  the mentality is the exact same as any other bigot, the only difference is what is and isn't protected by law.(which I find a faulty concept, we should all have equal protection).

It comes down to a measure of intent, in my theoretical.  Any criminal act to be found where a major motivator was an irrational hatred for that person's style, affectations, or color, etc, should be a hate crime.

These sorts of criminals are a bit more dangerous than people who are more simple gang members or cheated on spouse.  Common criminals as such are influenced heavily by local culture and lack of education or a passing passion.  They know right from wrong, they just don't care.

But people who will beat the fark out of someone for their hair style are a different breed.  They're not so much sociopaths, but psychopaths.
These somewhat ordinary people have a deep seated obsession that goes above and beyond common criminals.

I think it may be better if we don't specifically protect people based on their color or sex, but go after every person who has those creepy traits that view others as lesser beings with much less leniency.  Common criminals can learn, psycho's will tend to not reform well, ever.

Their issues do not stem from culture or a bad start at life in a bad neighborhood, they are part and parcel of that person's psyche.
 
2013-04-05 01:29:11 AM
So let me see if I have this concept correct. White guy kills black guy, its a racist hate crime.Black guy kills white guy while screaming "die you mayonnaise eating, redneck,cracker-ass cracker" and its a typical Tuesday night in Detroit.Am I missing something?
 
2013-04-05 04:32:39 AM

yves0010: This is one of the best examples I can think of when it comes to how idiotic hate crimes are.


If hate crime legislation really is idiotic, why would people wanting to point that fact out need to lie about what a hate crime is?

Surely they could begin by accurately describing what counts as a hate crime and work from there? Basically, that whole clip is just the Chewbacca defense.

aNihilV10L8tr: So let me see if I have this concept correct. White guy kills black guy, its a racist hate crime.Black guy kills white guy while screaming "die you mayonnaise eating, redneck,cracker-ass cracker" and its a typical Tuesday night in Detroit.Am I missing something?



Chromosomes?
 
2013-04-05 10:36:18 AM
I don't think it's stupid at all, Subby.  Ok, so I'm not a lawyer, but Hate Crime.... committing a crime because of hate?

Even though I think some of these fashions and lifestyles are juvenile, I don't think that anyone should have to withstand physical attack due to the way they look.  I don't really care what law or statute the offender will be charged under, you just don't go around attacking people, unless it is in self-defense.
 
2013-04-05 01:53:58 PM

liam76: HeartBurnKid: No. There is no requirement in hate crime legislation that you have to prove they are "sending a message".

Ummm... yes, you do. You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime. It's just a crime.

So you fail to see the difference between the underlined? Or are you being dishonest?


No, I don't see a difference.  If you're targeting someone specifically because of their membership in a class, you're trying to send a message to others of that class.

liam76: HeartBurnKid: Maybe the problem is that there are more racist white shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point than racist black shiatbags committing crimes to prove a point? Just a thought

Mayeb. but I highly doubt there are 27X as many, which makes me question how evenly the law is being applied.


Do you have a citation on your numbers?  Because call me crazy, but that sounds like something you pulled out of your ass.
 
2013-04-05 02:22:35 PM

HeartBurnKid: liam76: HeartBurnKid: No. There is no requirement in hate crime legislation that you have to prove they are "sending a message".

Ummm... yes, you do. You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime. It's just a crime.

So you fail to see the difference between the underlined? Or are you being dishonest?

No, I don't see a difference. If you're targeting someone specifically because of their membership in a class, you're trying to send a message to others of that class.


So you think people with such irrational anger that they attack someone primarily because of their color are going to have the forthought to know they are "sending a message"?  Really?

HeartBurnKid: Do you have a citation on your numbers? Because call me crazy, but that sounds like something you pulled out of your ass


I have always thought it was higher, but had no idea it was that high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Cla s sification_of_crimes_committed_against_Caucasians">http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Clas sification_of_crimes_committed_against_Caucasians
 
2013-04-05 05:02:37 PM

liam76: So you think people with such irrational anger that they attack someone primarily because of their color are going to have the forthought to know they are "sending a message"? Really?


It's inherent in the irrational anger.  It's all about "gonna show them (n*****s/q****s/s***s/etc.) who's boss."

liam76: I have always thought it was higher, but had no idea it was that high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Cla s sification_of_crimes_committed_against_Caucasians">http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Clas sification_of_crimes_committed_against_Caucasians


Wow.  That is rather high.  But it seems to me that the better course of action would be to push for the law to be enforced more equally, rather than scrap it altogether.
 
2013-04-05 05:16:54 PM
HeartBurnKid:

Ummm... yes, you do.  You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime.  It's just a crime.

so when a mugger targets old people instead of 21 year old men because pensioners dont put up much of a fight, we can jail them for a hate crime?
 
2013-04-05 06:26:03 PM

darth_shatner: HeartBurnKid:

Ummm... yes, you do.  You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime.  It's just a crime.

so when a mugger targets old people instead of 21 year old men because pensioners dont put up much of a fight, we can jail them for a hate crime?


I love how, just because I can't mention every single caveat in a FARK post, people feel free to twist my words around to accuse me of saying things I didn't say.  You know what I meant.
 
2013-04-05 07:29:19 PM

HeartBurnKid: I love how, just because I can't mention every single caveat in a FARK post, people feel free to twist my words around to accuse me of saying things I didn't say.


Yeah, that shiat gets old.

It's that they want to argue and win, so if they can't do that, they fabricate the argument they think they can win against.

Lucky for them I'm not a mod.
 
2013-04-05 09:46:16 PM

HeartBurnKid: darth_shatner: HeartBurnKid:

Ummm... yes, you do.  You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime.  It's just a crime.

so when a mugger targets old people instead of 21 year old men because pensioners dont put up much of a fight, we can jail them for a hate crime?

I love how, just because I can't mention every single caveat in a FARK post, people feel free to twist my words around to accuse me of saying things I didn't say.  You know what I meant.


I'm not twisting anything - just arguing for consistency. If we're going to have hate crime laws, then make them apply in all hate situations that fit the bill, not just a few select ones so politicians can be seen to be doing something.
 
2013-04-05 10:07:04 PM

darth_shatner: HeartBurnKid: darth_shatner: HeartBurnKid:

Ummm... yes, you do.  You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime.  It's just a crime.

so when a mugger targets old people instead of 21 year old men because pensioners dont put up much of a fight, we can jail them for a hate crime?

I love how, just because I can't mention every single caveat in a FARK post, people feel free to twist my words around to accuse me of saying things I didn't say.  You know what I meant.

I'm not twisting anything - just arguing for consistency. If we're going to have hate crime laws, then make them apply in all hate situations that fit the bill, not just a few select ones so politicians can be seen to be doing something.


Then you're not grasping the concepts.

A mugger is a common criminal, targeting easy prey.  He doesn't steal purses because the people are old, he's stealing purses to gain material wealth. There's not necessarily any irrational hate involved, just apathy.  He chooses his victims with some intelligence, to minimize risk.

Even in gang crime, there is social status, ie street cred, protecting "your" turf and your "family".

A person who sets out to harm blacks, women, goths, whatever, the same psychology is present, a loathing of that particular group.  There is no gain(money in the purse).  Any social status gained is only with similarly irrational people. These victims pose no real threat to territory or family.

If you cannot see the difference, you may be of that irrational category, you may need to seek help.
 
2013-04-05 10:53:01 PM

omeganuepsilon: darth_shatner: HeartBurnKid: darth_shatner: HeartBurnKid:

Ummm... yes, you do.  You have to prove that the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a certain class; otherwise, it's not a hate crime.  It's just a crime.

so when a mugger targets old people instead of 21 year old men because pensioners dont put up much of a fight, we can jail them for a hate crime?

I love how, just because I can't mention every single caveat in a FARK post, people feel free to twist my words around to accuse me of saying things I didn't say.  You know what I meant.

I'm not twisting anything - just arguing for consistency. If we're going to have hate crime laws, then make them apply in all hate situations that fit the bill, not just a few select ones so politicians can be seen to be doing something.

Then you're not grasping the concepts.

A mugger is a common criminal, targeting easy prey.  He doesn't steal purses because the people are old, he's stealing purses to gain material wealth. There's not necessarily any irrational hate involved, just apathy.  He chooses his victims with some intelligence, to minimize risk.

Even in gang crime, there is social status, ie street cred, protecting "your" turf and your "family".

A person who sets out to harm blacks, women, goths, whatever, the same psychology is present, a loathing of that particular group.  There is no gain(money in the purse).  Any social status gained is only with similarly irrational people. These victims pose no real threat to territory or family.

If you cannot see the difference, you may be of that irrational category, you may need to seek help.


I get the concept from the pro-hate-crime POV, it just looks like it's nothing more than thought crime when the only difference seems to be the thought process of the criminal (and given that motive is already enshrined in law).

You mention women as a group example. Certainly a whole crapton of women's groups would agree (as do I) that rape is not about sex (and certainly not money) but power, and a loathing of women  And almost everyone would argue that the effect of rape is to intimidate a group of people in society into not feeling safe. So why not hit rapists with hate crime laws too. It would seem to fit the bill.
 
2013-04-05 11:57:03 PM

omeganuepsilon: There's a valid principle in there somewhere.  A "hate" crime can be empowering to those with the same ...moral convictions(and hence perpetuate the behavior), and similarly generate real fear in the body that the victim belongs to.  That is where the difference lies.


darth_shatner: I get the concept from the pro-hate-crime POV, it just looks like it's nothing more than thought crime when the only difference seems to be the thought process of the criminal (and given that motive is already enshrined in law).


Try reading the whole thread.

darth_shatner: You mention women as a group example. Certainly a whole crapton of women's groups would agree (as do I) that rape is not about sex (and certainly not money) but power, and a loathing of women  And almost everyone would argue that the effect of rape is to intimidate a group of people in society into not feeling safe. So why not hit rapists with hate crime laws too. It would seem to fit the bill.


I do not agree.  Neither do a lot of psychologists.  Rape is not always about power. This, however, is a discussion best suited for another thread, so I'll leave it with this.  While I don't condone it, it's not necessarily different from other crimes.  Some people are just apathetic and take what they can, be it shoplifting, purse snatching, or snatch snatching. The power and domination thing are also possibilities, but are not necessary to perpetuating the act.

Posing it as an absolute, as you're trying to do, is problematic. It is born of ignorance and seeks to spread it.  The more we know about the actual causes(of any given crime), the more we can do towards preventing it and/or treating the people that take such actions.

In short hand, you don't put hardened criminals in an asylum for the mentally ill, and you don't put mentally ill people in prison(ideally anyhow).

Every crime has assorted motivators.  Same with any illness... even though the symptoms are the same, diagnosis is important because not all things get treated the same.  Treat X(1) as if it's X(2) and you may make the problem worse.

Playing fast and loose with moral subjectivism is not the way to go about making a fair and rational world.  This is why most people dislike Westboro Baptists as well as any other extremist group.
 
2013-04-06 01:17:19 AM
One take away from this thread for everyone ought to be this:

You can see from the discussion why achieving a system of objectively fair punishment for many, perhaps most, crimes is one of the most difficult issues a conscientious judge can face.  Even harder for people like the Sentencing Commission that tries to articulate standards to be used by judges to assure judges' individual attitudes do not unbalance the system.

I'm no fan of the sentencing guidelines in federal courts at all. But if we as a society want these things, we have a very small taste of the sort of internal debates these judges and commissioners go through.
 
2013-04-06 02:08:46 AM

wejash: One take away from this thread for everyone ought to be this:

You can see from the discussion why achieving a system of objectively fair punishment for many, perhaps most, crimes is one of the most difficult issues a conscientious judge can face.  Even harder for people like the Sentencing Commission that tries to articulate standards to be used by judges to assure judges' individual attitudes do not unbalance the system.

I'm no fan of the sentencing guidelines in federal courts at all. But if we as a society want these things, we have a very small taste of the sort of internal debates these judges and commissioners go through.


On top of an already wonky court system.  fark this "jury of my peers", I want a jury of scientists or similarly methodical thinkers who understand the difference between fact and implication and all the little tricks lawyers use to manipulate and beguile the jury.
 
2013-04-06 02:09:48 AM
/hint: because I'm innocent
//for now..
///slashies
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report