• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hate Crime

lxskllr

lxskllr

No Lifer
I'm watching a story on TV about a sailor that was killed at Camp Pendleton. He was apparently gay, and people are questioning whether it was a hate crime or not. I don't see why it matters. Hate crime laws are bullshit imo, and existing laws cover the respective crimes sufficiently. Is it really that much worse if I call you a i love you before I shoot you? Most crimes of this nature are "hate crimes" of some sort, and additional laws aren't needed for a few protected classes.
 
I think the idea is that some people have more incentive to act out against certain minority groups and that those groups have to be protected to stop crimes against them that would not happen against other people under the same conditions. Not sure how I feel on it though.
 
a few protected classes? no, they are meant to protect all classes and they serve their purpose, although i agree when the violence results in murder the "regular" laws would/should probably suffice.
 
Originally posted by: rise
a few protected classes? no, they are meant to protect all classes and they serve their purpose, although i agree when the violence results in murder the "regular" laws would/should probably suffice.
Click to expand...

What "hate crime" isn't covered well enough by existing laws? The government needs to get out of the business of legislating thought. It's my right to hate anyone I want, and as long as I don't act criminally, everything's fine. As soon as a crime is committed, existing laws cover it well enough.
 
Intent, motive, etc. are a big part of our legal system and absolutely should be considered. Intention for example is the difference between manslaughter and first-degree murder.

I don't really like the idea of hate crime laws that are intended to protect only certain groups of people, though. They should apply equally to all, because anybody can be the victim of a "hate crime" (I hate that term BTW, lol).
 
Hate crime legislation is no different than the thousands of other pointless laws on the books. Why do we need a ban on cell phone use while driving when reckless driving is already a crime? Because it makes people feel like they are doing something good and right, and it gives politicians something to rally around and gain the support of the masses. That's all.
 
Originally posted by: lxskllr
I'm watching a story on TV about a sailor that was killed at Camp Pendleton. He was apparently gay, and people are questioning whether it was a hate crime or not. I don't see why it matters. Hate crime laws are bullshit imo, and existing laws cover the respective crimes sufficiently. Is it really that much worse if I call you a i love you before I shoot you? Most crimes of this nature are "hate crimes" of some sort, and additional laws aren't needed for a few protected classes.
Click to expand...

I thought that you were going on about this at first...
 
Originally posted by: Anubis
all crimes are hate crimes
Click to expand...

not really.

IIRC, the original point of hate crime laws was to open up an avenue for federal prosecution in a place where the local officials might be more lax when it comes to prosecuting criminals who victimized people of certain colors, religions, etc.

and there's the argument that attacking an individual because of their (whatever) is an attack on everyone of that (whatever).

and yes, hate crime laws can even protect you white, heterosexual males.
 
Its goes to intent. The same applies for killing someone.
There is first degree and lower. Hate crime laws apply to the higher end spectrum that shows an intent that is much more damaging then just assault.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481


and yes, hate crime laws can even protect you white, heterosexual males.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I suspect that burning a cross in a fat white guys yard wouldn't get the same attention it would if he were black.
 
hate is a facet of human emotion. there's no getting away from it. all you can do is compel people from acting on hateful emotion.
 
It's called a "special circumstance" or "enhancement" and is a method for the state to tack on extra years for a crime. It's no different than the special circumstance of a gun being used to commit a crime or a crime being "gang related" or any of the other hundreds of special circumstances that are all already on the books.

Are you against all crime enhancements or just the hate crime enhancement?
 
Its always good to shout, "I'll always love you!!" before killing someone. That way more serious charges don't get tacked on for being a hate crime, and you can claim it was a 'crime of passion' and were insane at the time.
 
Originally posted by: DayLaPaul
It's called a "special circumstance" or "enhancement" and is a method for the state to tack on extra years for a crime. It's no different than the special circumstance of a gun being used to commit a crime or a crime being "gang related" or any of the other hundreds of special circumstances that are all already on the books.

Are you against all crime enhancements or just the hate crime enhancement?
Click to expand...

I'm against all enhancements. In your example above, armed robbery is different from robbery. Whether or not a crime is gang related is irrelevant, unless unless the specifics allow it to fall under organized crime laws(racketeering, et al)

 
I just sent a guy away for life. The special circumstances for his crime were that he used a gun to commit murder and that he "lay in wait" in order to ambush his victim. Those two special circumstances made life in prison without the possibility of parole the mandatory sentence. If he hadn't done those two things, he would have gotten 25 to life.

I could see the gun enhancement being somewhat redundant, as he could have used any method to murder his victim and dude would have been just as dead, but I do agree with the "lying in wait" enhancement. I think ambushing a guy that never had a chance is especially heinous and deserves more penalty than an "ordinary" murder.

Editted to add:

Likewise, I think crimes that are proven to be racially motivated or that target a specific sexual orientation are also deserving of a greater penalty than "ordinary" crimes. Our country was founded on certain ideas and these types of crimes go directly against our foundation.
 
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Hate crime legislation is no different than the thousands of other pointless laws on the books. Why do we need a ban on cell phone use while driving when reckless driving is already a crime? Because it makes people feel like they are doing something good and right, and it gives politicians something to rally around and gain the support of the masses. That's all.
Click to expand...

no, we need ban on cell phone use while driving because it's been proven that driving while on the phone is dangerous, and ppl need a set of rules to abide by, no matter how hard it is to enforce.

i don't know about you, but the last thing i need is someone slamming into my car because they were yacking away or texting on their phones.

this is a public safety measure and has nothing to do with politics or revenues from fines.


and i agree with OP. labeling crimes as hate is stupid. there's so many different ways to hate, are we goign to categorize them all?
 
Is killing a person for absolutely no reason(maybe for fun?) better than killing someone FOR a reason, even if that reason is because that person was gay/black/jewish or whatever? both people are fucked up but I'm not sure one is worse than the other. Let alone the former might get off for being insane
 
Originally posted by: DayLaPaul
I just sent a guy away for life. The special circumstances for his crime were that he used a gun to commit murder and that he "lay in wait" in order to ambush his victim. Those two special circumstances made life in prison without the possibility of parole the mandatory sentence. If he hadn't done those two things, he would have gotten 25 to life.

I could see the gun enhancement being somewhat redundant, as he could have used any method to murder his victim and dude would have been just as dead, but I do agree with the "lying in wait" enhancement. I think ambushing a guy that never had a chance is especially heinous and deserves more penalty than an "ordinary" murder.
Click to expand...

The differentiation makes sense in your case above. That's more like assassination, rather than 2 guys fighting, and one pulls a knife and kills the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top