RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit

RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (Full Version)

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

Message

philosophy -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 9:40:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard 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. ......and that's patently untrue. You appear to have conceded my point that intent does, indeed, play a role in determining appropriate sentencing.

Raechard -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 9:42:34 AM)
There is intent and there is motive these are two different things regardless of how many people such as yourself want them to be the same thing and for the motive to dictate sentencing.

Raiikun -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 11:30:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy 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. And the first assault isn't any less harmful than the second, and both should be punished equally.

Termyn8or -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 11:53:15 AM)
I assumed that the subject matter itself was a prima facie indication that were not discussing anything in the way of mishaps. Seems to me this deals with intentional acts only, accidents are excluded, or am I wrong ? Of course disregard for safety based on race, lifestyle preference or whatever, there is another can of worms. You see we could have a rich and pure lifestyle on this planet if only we could bring ourselves to accept it. Give up on all this BS and learn true tolerance. This is nothing but class warfare, but to a lesser degree. Bigots, which includes homophobes, believe themselves to be in a different class than those they are bigoted against. It is all the same thing. What's more it is a part of human nature, and something we grow past when possible. Once we are all past it, the perfect world will come shortly thereafter. But for now, we got what we got. T

Raiikun -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 1:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 explain the irony to Matthew Shepard`s mom. Or explain the irony to Jesse Dirkhising's mom. You know, the 13 year old boy that was tortured and raped to death by 2 gay men about a year after Mathew Shepard. The boy who got next to no media attention while a national issue was made over Shepard's death being a hate crime. The boy who wasn't a victim of hate crime, but who suffered and is every bit as dead as Mathew Shepard. (Funny enough, with all the Fox News bashing - they were the only network to cover the trial for Jesse Dirkhiing's killer). And in the end...Jesse's killers got the same effective sentence as Mathew's - life in prison. Which is as it should be. One was a "hate crime" and the other was just a selfish pleasure at another's expense crime; but both were incredibly evil.

Jack45 -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 4:06:11 PM)
Raiikun who decided that Sheperd was NATIONAL NEWS, international news and yet this little boy who was SAVAGED and tortured to death by these two homosexual men was of no interest to America? That is what interests me. Just as with that Byrd case in TX, two White excons dragged a black excon to death. Horrible, yes. It was national news and international news. Yet within a few weeks of that case a little boy in MO I think it was his momma was paying for the gas and this black fellow took the car was throwing the kid out of the car as it drove on the highway and the boy was dragged behind for several miles, he died horribly. Yet that case also, and another a week or so after that in OHIO with the vic in that case a mature White woman, got ZERO national play and certainly NO international play. Why is that I wonder...

philosophy -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 5:17:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy 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. And the first assault isn't any less harmful than the second, and both should be punished equally. ....actually (and i'm sure you'll not be surprised) i disagree. Both crimes injure the victim, i'll even concede that their injuries are identical. Additionally, both crimes feed into the fears of the entire wider community, making everyone feel a little less safe. The difference between them though, is that a hate crime also makes those of a particular status fear especially. For instance, let's assume that at one point in history there's been a riot where many shop windows were broken and nasty slogans daubed on the wall. Simple vandalism. However, if all those windows belonged only to, say, Jewish people.....and the slogans were anti-semitic, then can you see how that creates an additional emotional injury? Can you see how treating such an event as mere vandalism fails to address the issue?

rfd1 -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 6:17:08 PM)
Nobody wants people bothered for just being what they are, that is self-evident. However this is BAD STUFF, real bad. quote: …the reality of these laws is dark as any Orwellian tale. Hate crime laws intensify punishment for crimes motivated by bias against specially protected groups. This would be bad enough; our government representatives have no right to create more (and less) protected classes, and they certainly have no right to mine our thoughts and beliefs, then punish what they deem incorrect! But hate crime laws get even worse. In hate law countries such as Canada, they are quickly broadened to punish pure speech, even if no crime is committed. Harmony Grant

Raiikun -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 6:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy For instance, let's assume that at one point in history there's been a riot where many shop windows were broken and nasty slogans daubed on the wall. Simple vandalism. However, if all those windows belonged only to, say, Jewish people.....and the slogans were anti-semitic, then can you see how that creates an additional emotional injury? Can you see how treating such an event as mere vandalism fails to address the issue? And the "non-hate crime" incident I would punish as harshly as the other. Both incidents cause serious financial and emotional injury and would take time to recover from; and I'd slap the perpetrators of BOTH instances with penalties harsh enough to say to others "This crap won't be tolerated for any reason."

MmeGigs -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/4/2009 7:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard 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? I don't think that your assumption is logical. You're saying that false accusations are a major problem with hate crime legislation because the legal system is taking the victim's word for it and people will be wrongly convicted. All of the examples you provided show the opposite - the "victims" in those stories weren't taken at their word. All of those "victims" are now charged with crimes, and there's no indication that any innocent person was wrongfully charged with their crimes. You were able to find these cases without a lot of trouble, so it would seem logical that if there were some cases out there that supported your assumption that folks are being wrongfully convicted you would have found some examples. I've gone out and looked for these cases, and have tried all kinds of google searches. I didn't find any cases, but I did find this at http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rww_in_focus_false_alarm_on_hate_crimes- quote: Another section of the law makes it clear that federal courts could not rely on evidence of a person’s outlook or statements to convict someone of a hate crime unless those expressions were directly related to the commission of the violent crime in question: “In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness.". This seems to set a fairly high bar for charging someone with a hate crime, and to give the accused a lot of latitude in disputing the charges. Can you provide some sites of cases where a person was convicted of a hate crime based solely on the victim's testimony? quote: 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. If I were convicted of mudering your spouse/kid/parent, I'd have the opportunity to plead my case for leniency in the sentencing phase of my trial. Would you want the opportunity to tell the judge/jury what the loss has meant to you, or would you be satisfied to let me - the person who murdered your loved one - have the last word? Regardless of your response to that, this really doesn't have anything to do with hate crimes. Victim impact statements in the sentencing phase didn't come about as a result of hate-crime legislation, but as part of the victims' rights movement, which came about because victims of crime were angry that they seemed to have fewer rights than the criminals, and because many victims felt as victimized by the legal system as they were by the crime. quote: 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"? Yep, the prosecutor will probably ignore it unless there is some corroborating evidence - folks who've heard the alleged criminal make pertinent hateful statements, prior crimes of a similar nature, a hate blog, that kind of thing. The prosecutor can't just claim that the crime was a hate crime, they have to have evidence that they think might convince a judge/jury that this was the case. It's possible that some prosecutors will tack hate crime charges on with nothing other than the victim's statement to go on, but I imagine that most of them understand the whole "cry wolf" thing, and know that bringing frivilous charges will damage their credibility on the more substantive charges. quote: 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. I don't see how hate crime legislation changes any of this. Either way, the prosecutor has to prove to the satisfaction of the judge/jury that the person committed a crime. Even if there was no such thing as hate crime legislation the prosecutor could bring up the hate stuff to establish motive and to encourage a judge/jury to impose a stiffer sentence - it could certainly be considered an aggravating factor. That's really what hate crime legislation is all about - establishing that hate is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor. This has not always been the case. We don't have to look too far back to find cases where folks got off easy because their victim was one of "them" and it was understandable that the perpetrator would react to "them" violently. quote: 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? You seem to think that everyone who is charged with a crime will be charged with a hate crime. It doesn't actually happen that often, and convictions for hate crimes are pretty rare. Why don't you take a look at some cases where folks were convicted of hate crimes and see how they worked in practice?

StrangerThan -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/5/2009 7:05:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife This is a general reply to all who have taken the position that any crime of hatred is a hate crime. If you shoot your Jewish neighbor because he was sleeping with your wife then obviously you hated him, but it is not a hate crime, because you shot him for sleeping with your wife not because he was Jewish. On the other hand, if you are a member of the Aryan Nation and shot him strictly because he was Jewish then it was what hate crime laws are intended to target. They were, and are, meant to be very narrowly-defined laws. They are meant for cases like Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, who was the black man dragged to his death behind a pickup truck in Texas for no other reason than his murderers hated blacks. Unless you happen to utter, you kike bastard! just before you shot him. Then it becomes a hate crime because a slur was invoked, regardless of the fact that you really didn't give a shit that he was Jewish or not, what you really cared about was the fact that he was boning your wife. The bastard thing slipped out because you were supremely pissed, obviously hated him, and weren't in control of your senses enough to know that if you simply said, you bastard!, you'd get out a few years earlier. Now that, is the stupidity behind these laws. Then again, there are many who believe the extra years should exist because of the slur, which amazes me since these same people tend to spout their belief in the right to free speech. But only certain forms of free speech - namely their form. Everyone else's is just another Fire! in a crowded room. Actually, nothing about humanity really amazes me anymore.

Termyn8or -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/5/2009 9:06:14 PM)
OK if this path leads to races and creeds, so be it. The last time I used the N word in a non examplatory way was to a blue eyed, blonde haired guy of German descent, about as White as they come. I said "What are you a fucking N****** ?" after he threw a jumbo size drink from a fast food place out of his car in front of my house. I then threw it back in his car forcefully and that caused the lid to dislodge. Lucky for him he had drank most or all of it and it was mostly melted ice. Now what if that would have escalated into a fight, and let's say I killed him. What if later it was found that he had some Black blood in him ? And there were witnesses and all that. Assess that folks. Hate crime or not ? Strange, I think your post reads more like a rant, but if I read it right in essence I agree. I am also dismayed by the percentage of the people who would support this. I am a White heterosexual Man, and if special laws existed to protect me from those of other races or preference than I, I would not support nor accept them. But to be perfectly honest, if I were a victim of violence and laying there hurting, I really can't say that I wouldn't take advantage to stick it to the perp. I believe my beleifs pretty strongly, but to be honest they have not been tested to that extreme. But the point is, should I even have that option ? At this time I think not. And although a point for debate, how often it is invoked in reality matters not. If it is unjust it does not belong in the body of law. T

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/5/2009 9:51:00 PM)
~FR~ Okay all I can find is blog shit, which does not amount to news for me. I saw the tail end of something news related that said pedophiles were protected under this amendment, but veterans were not. Not sure how the two relate, but does anyone have any news links on this?

StrangerThan -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/6/2009 4:28:23 AM)
It's not really a rant Term. I just know how law works. The intent for legislation is one thing. How it is actually applied is another. This type of legislation in particular institutionalizes differences rather than erases them, and embeds prejudice in legal statute. The situation I gave could easily be a real one. Anyone who followed the Duke rape case - which I had no choice really in following since I lived in NC at the time - saw a lot of the cracks in our system. Had any of the accused been convicted, hate crime would have been invoked due to the fact that the victim indicated several racial slurs were used in the alleged rape. The prosecutor and media were all over these guys. Some of the quotes coming out of student populations, colleges, and from around the nation basically convicted them before trial. I even listened to one person indicate they should go to prison regardless of whether or not they committed the actual crime because their ancestors probably had. And once it all fell apart, who apologized? Basically the DA once it became certain he was going to face being disbarred. The truth of the matter is that this type of legislation seems to sit on the border of violating free speech as the exact scenario given could land someone in prison with a longer sentence. Another truth that goes with this is one I've been saying all along, no one is less victimized by murder, rape, or assault because of color or sexual orientation. Anyone who believes that to be the case needs to talk to some victims.

Termyn8or -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/6/2009 8:49:19 AM)
Strange, still sounds like it annoys you though. Don't sweat it, it annoys me as well.. T

gman992 -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/6/2009 10:34:06 PM)
So, is there like a point system? A white man equals less points than a black man or vice versa...remember the good old days when people went to prison for their actions and not their thoughts?

Owner59 -> RE: Bigotry Takes Another Hit (5/6/2009 10:59:56 PM)
Poor poor criminals..... [image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m17.gif[/image]....

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125