Time to put up or shut up

[zsdersw]

Hate crime enhancements serve the dual purpose of expressing societies moral disapproval of bigotry while also protecting the targeted class, and protecting society from general decline. The trouble with inter-class violence is unlike individual common crimes motivated by individuals desires, these crimes are a function of groupthink. Because of that, they tend to feed off of themselves and escalate. You can take Europe and its treatment of Jews long prior to the Holocaust as an example.

Bigotry itself is not a crime, though. Bigotry is perfectly legal. Acting on that bigotry against others is the point at which a crime is committed, but it is only the action itself that is punishable.. not whatever thoughts were behind it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Bigotry itself is not a crime, though. Bigotry is perfectly legal. Acting on that bigotry against others is the point at which a crime is committed, but it is only the action itself that is punishable.. not whatever thoughts were behind it.

Do you think violence motivated by class animus can feed off itself and escalate to more violence from the same side, or even from the other side as retaliation? Isn't there a heightened danger to society with any violence motivated by groupthink, be it terrorism, hate crimes, gang violence, etc? Set aside the moral judgment for the moment. If the purpose of the criminal code is to protect the innocent, shouldn't we come down harder on crimes that set a precedent for other crimes of a similar nature?

 

[zsdersw]

So you think the person who stole food to feed his starving kids should get the same sentence as the person who stole for personal greed? What about the person who kills someone who molested her child after he got off on a technicality versus the person who killed because he enjoys killing people? Note that I'm not arguing that any of these people are innocent, only that the motive can be a mitigating or aggravating factor in the penalty. It's OK if you think otherwise. I just want to clarify what your position is here.

Yes, I do think theft is theft, murder is murder, molestation is molestation. Each of us is responsible, 100%, for not only our actions, but also for our reactions.

 

[zsdersw]

Do you think violence motivated by class animus can feed off itself and escalate? Isn't there a heightened danger to society with any violence motivated by groupthink, be it terrorism, hate crimes, gang violence, etc?

There may be a heightened danger to society from those things, but I do not think what we're talking about is an effective or justifiable way to address that danger.

If the purpose of the criminal code is to protect the innocent, shouldn't we come down harder on crimes that set a precedent for other crimes of a similar nature?

No, because the crime remains the same.

 

[CPA]

As a republican, I hate how the majority of repubs talk a good game about illegal immigration control, but do absolutely nothing about it, cowering to the smallest "advocate" voice for amnesty or op-ed piece against reform. Arizona is about the only state with balls right now.

 

[Munky]

So you think the person who stole food to feed his starving kids should get the same sentence as the person who stole for personal greed? What about the person who kills someone who molested her child after he got off on a technicality versus the person who killed because he enjoys killing people? Note that I'm not arguing that any of these people are innocent, only that the motive can be a mitigating or aggravating factor in the penalty. It's OK if you think otherwise. I just want to clarify what your position is here.

I don't have a problem with the motive of the crime being considered in sentencing, as long as that motive applies equally to everyone. If you legislate that a white killing a black deserves harsher sentencing than a black killing a white because blacks are a "protected class" then you are are discriminating based on race, which is the issue we're trying to avoid in the first place. That's how we arrived at such disastrous legislation like VAWA.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Do you think violence motivated by class animus can feed off itself and escalate to more violence from the same side, or even from the other side as retaliation? Isn't there a heightened danger to society with any violence motivated by groupthink, be it terrorism, hate crimes, gang violence, etc? Set aside the moral judgment for the moment. If the purpose of the criminal code is to protect the innocent, shouldn't we come down harder on crimes that set a precedent for other crimes of a similar nature?

Do you think that punishing certain crimes harsher if they happen against a minority will cause prevailing attitudes to be less bigoted or more bigoted? It's not a stretch to think that if white people receive harsher sentences for crimes against black victims than black people receive for crimes against white victims, it's not going to make white people more sympathetic to blacks. It simply serves to heighten the divide between two groups.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
So, then, what criticisms of "your side" do you have?

My 'side' is conservative, with a generous helping of libertarian.

So, I don't really have a party (Repub nor Dem).

But my big complaints are that they have not adopted my platform on:

1. Drop the War on Drugs.

2. Economic initiatives (basically use the SBA etc to pump money into the (smaller) private sector via guaranteed SBA loans. Use the existing banking/SBA network. They know what they're doing far better than Congress who has merely doled out 'freebies' to projects pimped by lobbyists.)

3. Illegal Immigration - We have limited resources etc, we have a right to determine who immigrates here. You 'imported' yourself illegally, we motivate you to 'export' yourself: Cost = (pretty much) zero. I've immigrated to several countries: It'll be effective.

Oh, another biggy, stop trying to 'nation build' in Afghanistan. GTFO.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

delete

 

[woolfe9999]

double post

 

[dank69]

I don't have a problem with the motive of the crime being considered in sentencing, as long as that motive applies equally to everyone. If you legislate that a white killing a black deserves harsher sentencing than a black killing a white because blacks are a "protected class" then you are are discriminating based on race, which is the issue we're trying to avoid in the first place. That's how we arrived at such disastrous legislation like VAWA.

Do you think that punishing certain crimes harsher if they happen against a minority will cause prevailing attitudes to be less bigoted or more bigoted? It's not a stretch to think that if white people receive harsher sentences for crimes against black victims than black people receive for crimes against white victims, it's not going to make white people more sympathetic to blacks. It simply serves to heighten the divide between two groups.

I don't think that any white man killing a black man is automatically considered a hate crime and I also don't think any black man killing a white man is automatically not considered a hate crime. Why do you two think otherwise?

 

[woolfe9999]

Do you think that punishing certain crimes harsher if they happen against a minority will cause prevailing attitudes to be less bigoted or more bigoted? It's not a stretch to think that if white people receive harsher sentences for crimes against black victims than black people receive for crimes against white victims, it's not going to make white people more sympathetic to blacks. It simply serves to heighten the divide between two groups.

I confused two posters in my earlier responses so deleted both.

Anyway, you are mis-describing the hate crime laws by leaving out the motive element.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't have a problem with the motive of the crime being considered in sentencing, as long as that motive applies equally to everyone. If you legislate that a white killing a black deserves harsher sentencing than a black killing a white because blacks are a "protected class" then you are are discriminating based on race, which is the issue we're trying to avoid in the first place. That's how we arrived at such disastrous legislation like VAWA.

I 100% agree as groupthink violence presents the exact same danger to society no matter what direction it goes. That said, every hate crime statute I've read is neutral as to "direction."

 

[Munky]

I don't think that any white man killing a black man is automatically considered a hate crime and I also don't think any black man killing a white man is automatically not considered a hate crime. Why do you two think otherwise?

What if it is shown that the crime was racially-motivated? Would a white person receive the same sentencing as a black person? Or for a better example, see what happens when you consider violence between men and women. Women can literally get away with murder because the sentencing does not apply equally to both sexes.

 

[dank69]

What if it is shown that the crime was racially-motivated? Would a white person receive the same sentencing as a black person?

I believe the intent of the law is that would both receive the same sentencing.

Or for a better example, see what happens when you consider violence between men and women. Women can literally get away with murder because the sentencing does not apply equally to both sexes.

I don't think women are getting away with murder, if you mean that literally.

 

[Munky]

I believe the intent of the law is that would both receive the same sentencing.

I don't think women are getting away with murder, if you mean that literally.

Not literally, but almost. They receive much lower sentencing. For example, the case of the wife who shot her husband in the back with a shotgun some years back, claimed some BS excuse, and got off free after only a few years in jail. I can't remember her name.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Hate crime enhancements serve the dual purpose of expressing societies moral disapproval of bigotry while also protecting the targeted class, and protecting society from general decline. The trouble with inter-class violence is unlike individual common crimes motivated by individuals desires, these crimes are a function of groupthink. Because of that, they tend to feed off of themselves and escalate. You can take Europe and its treatment of Jews long prior to the Holocaust as an example.

What I want to know is whether the bolded actually works. There's an implicit assumption in this country that harsher punishments make a greater deterrent. However, when it comes to serious violence and murder, we've already reached the point of diminishing returns. Adding ten years onto a 25 year sentence isn't really going to change much.

I will also disagree with you about what happened to the Jews. The problem was that crimes against Jews were not prosecuted, not that they were only treated as equal to other crimes. The same goes for lynching.

 

[dank69]

Not literally, but almost. They receive much lower sentencing. For example, the case of the wife who shot her husband in the back with a shotgun some years back, claimed some BS excuse, and got off free after only a few years in jail. I can't remember her name.

Was the 'BS excuse' years of domestic violence by any chance?

 

[dank69]

What I want to know is whether the bolded actually works. There's an implicit assumption in this country that harsher punishments make a greater deterrent. However, when it comes to serious violence and murder, we've already reached the point of diminishing returns. Adding ten years onto a 25 year sentence isn't really going to change much.

I will also disagree with you about what happened to the Jews. The problem was that crimes against Jews were not prosecuted, not that they were only treated as equal to other crimes. The same goes for lynching.

I am going to venture a guess. I do not know for sure so I may be way off base here.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that violence against another person is okay just because they aren't the same as you in some way, whether it be racial/religious/sexual or whatever else the criteria may be. A kind of ignorance that simply updating the laws doesn't magically fix. These types of people don't care what the laws are because they know what is right and what isn't. They know this from years of being inbred to believe that this type of violence is not only not bad, but actually encouraged. To get through to these people, you need harsher consequences, because that is the only thing these people understand. Law - 'It is illegal to kill gay people.' Ignoramus - 'My pappy taught me that god hates fags! Screw your devil worshiping laws!' Law - 'You will spend the rest of your life behind bars for killing a homosexual man simply because he is a homosexual.' Ignoramus - 'Please don't send me to jail for life! I promise I won't kill any more fags! Bawwwwww!'

 

[Munky]

Was the 'BS excuse' years of domestic violence by any chance?

What difference does that make? The DV legal system is already heavily biased in favor of women, and now you think that is a valid factor for mitigating a murder sentencing?

 

[crashtestdummy]

I am going to venture a guess. I do not know for sure so I may be way off base here.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that violence against another person is okay just because they aren't the same as you in some way, whether it be racial/religious/sexual or whatever else the criteria may be. A kind of ignorance that simply updating the laws doesn't magically fix. These types of people don't care what the laws are because they know what is right and what isn't. They know this from years of being inbred to believe that this type of violence is not only not bad, but actually encouraged. To get through to these people, you need harsher consequences, because that is the only thing these people understand. Law - 'It is illegal to kill gay people.' Ignoramus - 'My pappy taught me that god hates fags! Screw your devil worshiping laws!' Law - 'You will spend the rest of your life behind bars for killing a homosexual man simply because he is a homosexual.' Ignoramus - 'Please don't send me to jail for life! I promise I won't kill any more fags! Bawwwwww!'

Wouldn't it be at least 20-life for first degree murder no matter what? Why would mandatory life or the death penalty really change anything?

 

[woolfe9999]

What I want to know is whether the bolded actually works. There's an implicit assumption in this country that harsher punishments make a greater deterrent. However, when it comes to serious violence and murder, we've already reached the point of diminishing returns. Adding ten years onto a 25 year sentence isn't really going to change much.

I will also disagree with you about what happened to the Jews. The problem was that crimes against Jews were not prosecuted, not that they were only treated as equal to other crimes. The same goes for lynching.

With respect to your first point, you raise a valid question. However, as you say, the question is much broader than the hate crime issue. It has to do with the degree of deterrence we can expect from harsher punishments in general. European countries punish violent crime with much less prison time, and they do not have capital punishment. Yet violent crime is generally lower in Europe than it is here.

With respect to the example of the Jews, that again turns on the question of punishment and deterrence. Failing to prosecute, prosecuting but letting people off because of biased juries and judges, giving light sentences, giving heavy sentences. It's all along a continuum. It does, as you say, turn on where in the continuum we reach the point of diminishing returns. Also, of course, what happened with the Jews turned on numerous factors besides the degree of punishment for violent crimes against them. Bigotry in any society is a very complex issue.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't think that any white man killing a black man is automatically considered a hate crime and I also don't think any black man killing a white man is automatically not considered a hate crime. Why do you two think otherwise?

I was using race as an example for convenience, not because of any real world statistics. Race is easy for us to identify with given our country's long and complex history of race relations. That said, it appears the stats don't line up with the contention of hate crimes on a racial basis; the FBI reports that blacks are charged with committing hate crimes at a higher rate than they are a percentage of the population (though still significantly less often than whites). It's not broken out by victim, so it could be hate crimes against different genders or sexual orientations, but seeing as how I wasn't even attempting to use a real-world example, I'll just leave it.

My point was more that it is not easy to prove someone's motive was based around a specific prejudice, so hate crime legislation doesn't affect very many crimes to begin with. But I think it does more to reinforce existing stereotypes in the minds of bigots than it does to quell them; if someone is already a racist and they see a white man locked up longer for committing a hate crime, that's not going to make them less racist. If anything, it furthers their sense of persecution and the righteousness of their struggle, however morally abhorrent we may find it. The thing that's going to change minds is education and contact with different cultures, not punitive measures for crimes that have already happened.

 

[Ninjahedge]

As a republican, I hate how the majority of repubs talk a good game about illegal immigration control, but do absolutely nothing about it, cowering to the smallest "advocate" voice for amnesty or op-ed piece against reform. Arizona is about the only state with balls right now.

CPA, what they actually balk at are the companies/agricultural interests that yell at them when they threaten their cheap labor source.

Fact: Until we all want to pay $2.50 for a head of Iceberg, Jose is needed. Even if we ARE willing, there are very few "Americans" that want to work out n a field all day for tiny, but legal, wages. the problem is not as simple as open borders (unfortunately).

 

[HumblePie]

On my side we are always forced to wear these god awful stinking helmets all the time. Never once do we get to take them off even when taking a shit. Also all our "superiors" run around in bathrobes. I can't decide if they are hippies or monks. To me they all look like homeless people are we are suppose to follow them?

On top of that there is way too much emotional attachment used in making any decision. It's always releasing your anger, and going with your feelings. While I don't mind venting a little anger from time to time, making a huge decision that literally effects billions of lives should probably not be made while angry.

Seriously I could go on and on about it all. Still it could be worse.