RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit

RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/2/2009 2:28:37 PM)
The problem with hate crimes is that the alleged victim often realises they can get a tougher sentence by claiming they were called things they never were and thus it being classed as a hate crime when it was just two thugs fighting one another. I'd like some independent scrutiny of crimes being classed as hate crimes i.e. it should be done on witness statements other than that of the alleged victim and close associates. That is my only issue with so called hate crimes, they are not new here and the policy is right for the most part.

GotSteel -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/2/2009 5:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard The problem with hate crimes is that the alleged victim often realises they can get a tougher sentence by claiming they were called things they never were and thus it being classed as a hate crime when it was just two thugs fighting one another. I'd like some independent scrutiny of crimes being classed as hate crimes i.e. it should be done on witness statements other than that of the alleged victim and close associates. That is my only issue with so called hate crimes, they are not new here and the policy is right for the most part. Can you cite cases where this has happened?

Raiikun -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 2:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Again I would ask why anyone cares what sentences thugs get or whether they get years tacked on.The more years the better. And I think those same number of years should be tacked on no matter the target or reason for the crime. It's just as evil and reprehensible to rape someone randomly as it is to do so out of hatred. So I think both cases should have many many years of prison, and think it's stupid to think one deserves more than the other. So to flip the question back - quote: Can someone explain why they feel they are affected by hate crime laws. Why do you feel you are affected by laws that punish other forms of evil as harshly as hate?

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 4:32:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Can you cite cases where this has happened? How exactly would that work? We are basing the classification of crime on the sole statement of the alleged victim, can't you see the logical dangers of this, should I really need to state examples, do I need to state examples of the dangers of DNA evidence based prosecutions or cases where people have been found guilty of shaking babies based on the testimony of one expert witness? No review is going to say "Oh that hate crime we prosecuted the other day wasn't a hate crime at all." Law should be applied dispassionately and those with an emotional relationship to the defendant shouldn’t have an influence on sentencing. That empowering the victim politicking is not how the law should work. Recently UK government has said convicted criminals should have their names and addresses published and the community should help decide on a punishment , I think we can all see where that is going to lead. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980620&slug=2757116 http://www.interfire.org/res_file/acb_kh.asp http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1298324.stm http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=884310&nav=168XAVxV http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/21/21470_student_admits_stabbing_dad.html http://web.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/breaking/midway_fire.htm http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2001/10/06/export99600.txt

MmeGigs -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 7:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard We are basing the classification of crime on the sole statement of the alleged victim, can't you see the logical dangers of this, The victim doesn't bring charges, the state does. The prosecutor looks at all of the information, including the victim's statement, and charges you with whatever they think they can get away with. They may charge you with a whole pile of things in the hopes that one or two of the charges will stick. It's up to the judge and/or jury to decide what, if anything, you're guilty of, and if you are guilty to decide what punishment you deserve. They decide what is or isn't a hate crime, not the victim or the prosecutor. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your examples. They're all of folks who tried to make themselves look like the victims of racially motivated crimes. They're all being charged with the crimes they committed. I don't see what any of the stories have to do with hate crime legislation.

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 8:21:05 AM)
I have no problem in the main with hate crime legislation I'd consider racist graffiti to be a worse crime than mere vandalism of property also I'd consider racist or religious insults to be worse than other insults. Where I draw the line is defining a difference between a violent crime and a violent hate crime. What sticks in my mind about this is the fact it gives the message that some violent crime is worse than other violent crime and we should consider the motivations of the criminal rather than the consequences of their actions. It trivialises other forms of violent crime. Hit someone over the head with a hammer does it matter as to why you did it, if it wasn’t self defence? The point of the stories is people lie for all kinds of reasons and the police charge people accordingly based on those statements, in each of those cases there were probably initial suspects other than the victim. Is the victim going to suddenly change their story if the police actually charge the wrong person to lessen the effects? No of course not because they would incriminate themselves. So they'll just look after themselves and keep quiet about their lies. How this differs from other cases is witness statements don’t overly affect sentencing. You speak of what the prosecutor will charge you with but they are limited in terms of what the witness says. If it’s racially motivated according to the victim then the prosecutor can up the ante, since in reality only minorities can claim such violence it creates a two tier justice system that treats victims differently according to their background. Good idea? All I've said is there should be more evidence than a victims testimony alone, some of those cases were initially considered hate crimes based only on the statement of the witness and if someone found themselves a suspect they'd still be a suspect in a hate crime regardless of the truth. In these few cases the truth came out but in how many other cases was someone convicted of a hate crime which wasn't motivated in that way at all? Sorry you fail to recognise the significance of that in terms of the topic of hate crimes.

Lorr47 -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 12:05:32 PM)
quote: For the life of me,I can`t figure out we anyone would stand up for the rights of hateful criminals. Because the rights you have under the law are the same rights he has under the law. If you decrease his rights, then your rights are likewise decreased.

DarkSteven -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 12:07:13 PM)
[sm=goodpost.gif]

Termyn8or -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 1:50:52 PM)
"For the life of me,I can`t figure out we anyone would stand up for the rights of hateful criminals." As much as I hate to say it, we must. Even the worst asshole in the world has rights. We can't pick and choose. Oh yes we can pick and choose who we incarcerate or even execute, based on law, but nothing more. Prosecutors frequently trump up charges to impel the accused to make a deal. That in and of itself is unfair, but to give them stronger ammunition is in no way the path to fairness. Here's a slant on it, not a hijack but something a bit different. Let's say someone attacks me and successfully robs me, beating me badly. While I have no homosexual tendencies at all what if I said "He called me a faggot and kept on hitting me". That would be a lie but I might be in a state of mind to stick it to the SOB as much as I could. Would that be right ? Or would they make me prove I was Gay to invoke this ? I don't see how, what would they say "Give the judge head and the perp will get an extra ten years" ? NO, this is creating special priveledges for a certain class of people. There is even more. The local jails around here stopped segregating Gays years ago, but did the prison system ? What if we had all Gay prisons and sent the fagbashers to that prison where they can meet ALOT more people than they would care to. On the same note, what if we sent child molesters to prisons filled with people who have kids ? Would that be fair ? On the other hand, examining the exact reason and intent of incarcerating anyone is still not quite clear. You are taken out of your life and in a place where you don't want to be. How far should we take that ? Also, the days of the fagbashers is just about over in this area. The Gays responded and got tough. I have never robbed anyone in the street, nor have I ever beat anyone up due to their,,,,, anything. Now if you have a thug who robs a Gay person, saying "I'm going to go rob that fag", how do you weigh the proportion of hate crime vs. regular crime ? Are they going to come out with some sort of slide rule type deal and say "It is found that 42.7% of your motivation was hate crime based and the rest was the money, so your sentence is 11 years, 42 days, 12 hours and 16 minutes" ? And then "Oh, wait, we found that a straight guy was actually carrying more money in that vicinity so the sentence will be 12 years, 37 days, 4 hours and 3 minutes". The whole notion of it goes against what we are supposed to stand for by creating a special class of citizens, but furthermore, if any type of fair application of the law is possible it would be a nightmare to figure out, so suffice it to say it will not be implemented fairly. Makes about as much sense as laws against suicide, WTF could they do to you ? I am not saying the issue is similar, I am saying it makes about as much sense if one doesn't intend to apply the law selectively. But I didn't think that was the idea here. Or was it ? T

popeye1250 -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 2:00:27 PM)
I could never understand why someone would want to harm a gay person just because they're gay.

Termyn8or -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/3/2009 2:25:06 PM)
Fear pop, fear. And the most ironic fear is that of their own security in their own sexual identity. I have not only read about this trait of humans in psychological textbooks I have seen it in real life. It is an ugly side of humanity. With some people it pervades their mind. It applies to much more than just this issue. The old Man chiding the teen for having long hair in the past, sometimes the old Man is bald and it is based in jealousy. Sometimes the old Man sees the teen as looking effeminate, and possibly attractive. That is when the worst of it comes. There are varying degrees of this trait, to describe I can use a metaphorical statement which compares quite well in type, but not magnitude. You are driving down I 90, you just got a ticket the other day for doing 12 MPH over the speed limit. So a day or two later you are driving along, a bit slower perhaps and a car whizzes by, possibly doing close to double the speed limit. What is the first thing in your brain ? "Where the hell are the cops now ! ?". It may be different in intensity by orders of magnitude, but the root is very similar. When we percieve that someone is more priveledged than we, we do not take kindly to it. That is just part of what we are. And it doesn't matter if that disparity is real or imagined. It seems real enough. Somehow, that also applies to the OP actually. What a coincidence. T

MmeGigs -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 4:58:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard The point of the stories is people lie for all kinds of reasons and the police charge people accordingly based on those statements, in each of those cases there were probably initial suspects other than the victim. In all of those stories, the person who told the lie is being charged. From what I recall of the stories, none of them indicated that anyone else had been charged prior to the lie being discovered. And again, these had nothing to do with hate crime legislation. This kind of thing happened long before hate crime legislation existed. quote: All I've said is there should be more evidence than a victims testimony alone, some of those cases were initially considered hate crimes based only on the statement of the witness and if someone found themselves a suspect they'd still be a suspect in a hate crime regardless of the truth. In these few cases the truth came out but in how many other cases was someone convicted of a hate crime which wasn't motivated in that way at all? Sorry you fail to recognise the significance of that in terms of the topic of hate crimes. Are a significant number of people being convicted unjustly of hate crimes? I looked and didn't find any. I assume that you didn't either, or you would have posted them as examples. As for people being unjustly suspected because someone lied or set them up, that was going on long before anyone was talking about hate-crime legislation. To your point about the victim's testimony being the only evidence, I think that you're off base. Again, the prosecutor can bring all kinds of charges, but that doesn't mean that they're all going to stick. Before I can be convicted of a hate crime, I have to be found guilty of the underlying crime. If I am guilty of the crime, the prosecutor will have to convince a judge/jury that my crime was hate-motivated. They'll need more than a victim's statement to do that.

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 5:50:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs Are a significant number of people being convicted unjustly of hate crimes? I looked and didn't find any. They don't record such things so you'll never find the information for them it doesn't mean it doesn’t happen. Do I need a statistic to prove every logical assumption I make? quote: As for people being unjustly suspected because someone lied or set them up, that was going on long before anyone was talking about hate-crime legislation. The difference as stated previously is the witness statements don't affect sentencing. quote: To your point about the victim's testimony being the only evidence, I think that you're off base. What other factors go into something being considered a hate crime because photographic evidence of graffiti etc. and other witness statements I can understand. What other evidence in the case where someone has hit someone and the only witnesses apart from the victim are those not in ear shot? If the victim says "He called me so and so before he hit me." Is the prosecution going to ignore that and say "sorry nobody else heard that so we can't consider this a hate crime"? quote: Again, the prosecutor can bring all kinds of charges, but that doesn't mean that they're all going to stick. The charges have to fit the context of the crime in the UK or it wouldn't even get past the pre trial hearing; where the prosecutor has to state their case and the evidence they have to support it. The problem is witness evidence alone is good enough to change the status of the crime at that point and beyond that point such scrutiny of details don't affect what the person is being charged with because beyond that point it is all about proving the crime was committed not what crime, the jury can decide a lesser charge but with the emotive statement for the prosecution good luck with that. quote: Before I can be convicted of a hate crime, I have to be found guilty of the underlying crime. If I am guilty of the crime, the prosecutor will have to convince a judge/jury that my crime was hate-motivated. They'll need more than a victim's statement to do that. I'm sceptical of how that works in practice. If there is a sense of injustice no matter how invalid that view is it will only lead to resentment and do more harm than good in the long run. Something’s I think you can separate the hate or not hate issue out but other crimes are more difficult, random violence seems to happen all the time does it mean it is hate related? Is it just seen as hate related because of who the victim is?

philosophy -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 8:18:35 AM)
FR .....society has the right (some would argue the duty) to discourage crimes and behaviours that lead to crimes. Society has the right to perceive a difference between crimes and punish accordingly. Society has the right to formulate laws that reflect a general disgust with specific crimes. Any hate crime is essentially a second crime layered over the basic crime. For example, person A smacks person B in the face....assault. Person A smacks person B in the face because person B is straight (and person A is gay) and that's a hate crime. (it's not just gay people protected by hate crime legislation..its crimes based on sexual orientation). As for the idea that hate crimes are wrong because they require a court to determine a state of mind, well they already have to. Mens Rea, for those who like looking things up. We already routinely ask the courts to determine intent in crimes, this is just an extension of that.

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 8:34:09 AM)
When someone spits in my face I find that pretty hateful but to a court it's not a hate crime and is trivialised by these distinctions. All this really indicates to me is that overall crime is not taken seriously because if it was we'd have no need to distinguish between motives only consequences. Being as I am a straight white male it is next to impossible for me to be the victim of a hate crime and any crime committed against me is thus classed as a second rate crime, that is discrimination just the same as positive discrimination is discrimination. Think carefully about this: Since when did we start saying "Certain assaults are understandable but if it was done out of bigotry then that is not at all understandable"? That is the message you send out with the sentencing tariffs.

philosophy -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 8:43:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard Being as I am a straight white male it is next to impossible for me to be the victim of a hate crime ...incorrect. If you are the victim of a crime based on your sexual orientation or race then you have been the victim of a hate crime. Doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, white or black. quote: ...and any crime committed against me is thus classed as a second rate crime, that is discrimination just the same as positive discrimination is discrimination. See my above point. You appear to be arguing that because straight bashing is incredibly rare, as opposed to gay bashing, then by suggesting that we ought to penalise those who vicitimise people based on sexual orientation we somehow discriminate against straight people. You may want to think that through.

beargonewild -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 8:47:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard Being as I am a straight white male it is next to impossible for me to be the victim of a hate crime and any crime committed against me is thus classed as a second rate crime, that is discrimination just the same as positive discrimination is discrimination. If you are being harassed and bullied because your shin is white - yes that can be classified as a hate crime. If you are a victim of a crime because you are British - yes that falls under a hate crime. If you are being prosecuted because of your religious views - yes that can be classified as a hate crime. As philosophy stated, hate crime classification isn't strictly based upon a person's sexual orientation.

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 8:49:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...incorrect. If you are the victim of a crime based on your sexual orientation or race then you have been the victim of a hate crime. Doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, white or black. I can list those cases on one finger, so what does that say? quote: You appear to be arguing that because straight bashing is incredibly rare, as opposed to gay bashing, then by suggesting that we ought to penalise those who victimise people based on sexual orientation we somehow discriminate against straight people. You may want to think that through. No what I am saying is motives are irrelevant as the consequences to the victim are the same. If we dealt with crime correctly and tolerated no violence against anyone we wouldn't need to distinguish.

philosophy -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 8:53:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard No what I am saying is motives are irrelevant as the consequences to the victim are the same. ....so you see no difference between manslaughter and murder? No difference between accidentally causing death and doing so in a pre-meditated manner? In order to treat those crimes differently we have to assess motive, intent....... You accidently drop a box on someone that breaks their toe. You're as guilty of assault as someone that deliberately takes a baseball bat to someone and breaks their toe?

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 8:58:18 AM)
Do you consider a hate murder to be worse than the standard kind? The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, if you assault someone the intent is the same regardless of why you did it; you intended to do it. Thus it's not a correct analogy on your part.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875