Hate Crimes Bill signed :: Free Realms

#52 REDACTED, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 10:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,

Quote Reply

#53 Oct 29 2009 at 10:45 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Samy,

Quote:

Not every crime involving perpetrators and victims of different races is a hate crime.

It is if it involves more than one white person attacking a minority.

There may be some truth to that, but it's usually a case of real racism or the equally disgusting reverse racism. It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. I'm not going to complain though, considering the years of sterotyping, discrimination, and at times, outright oppression, the tendency to assume racial motivation in a crime involving white on black isn't all that surprising.

Whether said assumption holds up in court is a completely different matter, of course, and it doesn't always, which is likely contrary to what you're implying.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#54 Oct 29 2009 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

if doing all those things to a couple of innocents doesn't fit the criteria for being a hate crime then nothing should. What do you think the word HATE means?

In the case of hate crime law, something totally different than what you think it means.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#55 Oct 29 2009 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Honey if doing all those things to a couple of innocents doesn't fit the criteria for being a hate crime then nothing should. What do you think the word HATE means?

Hahaha, you're a freaking idiot. I bet you're one of the people who think "global warming" literally means everything everywhere is getting hotter.

wikipedia (Yes, I know it sucks, but it sucks less than Varus) wrote:

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

It has nothing to do with how angry you are or how much hate you have. If those students were targeted because they were white and for no other reason than to punish them for their race, it would be a hate crime.

Edit: Disturbingly, one of my coworkers made a similar argument to that of Varus. "My brother was a criminal psychologist and his 20 years of experience let me know that EVERY crime has hate involved." I struggled to explain to her, yes, no kidding, killers can be angry people, but a "hate crime" is very different from "hate" itself.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 12:50pm by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

#56 REDACTED, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 10:50 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Brown,

Quote Reply

#57 Oct 29 2009 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

I'm completely against all hate crime legislation because you don't punish a person for their thoughts you punish them for their actions.

And when their actions are done to intimate or degrade a group of people, the penalty should be more severe, right? THAT'S what hate crime legislation is about.

▲ Page top

#58 REDACTED, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 10:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,

Quote Reply

#59 Oct 29 2009 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Brown,

I think you people said something about the state of the criminals mind when they're engaging in the activity right?

Well I'm quite sure those thugs were thinking they were going to show those rich white college brats.

I'm completely against all hate crime legislation because you don't punish a person for their thoughts you punish them for their actions.

Can you prove it? Cause if you can, then there's a case for a hate crime. Just knowing it in your heart won't do, sorry.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#60 Oct 29 2009 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Locked,

Quote:

I bet you're one of the people who think "global warming" literally means everything everywhere is getting hotter.

And I bet you're one of those idiots who thinks humans can actually alter global temperatures by driving a hybrid.

Me and an overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, yup.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with how angry you are or how much hate you have. If those students were targeted because they were white and for no other reason than to punish them for their race, it would be a hate crime.

They were punished for being white.

So you're saying if the car had contained black kids, they wouldn't have done what they did to them? I'm amazed you knew their motives. Were you friends? Did you interview them?

If there was indeed a racial motivation to picking out those students, then yes, it should have been a hate crime. Which, y'know, means you AGREE with hate crimes being prosecuted.

Quote:

And like i've said show me some cases where you have a couple of whites beating up a minority who weren't charged with a hate crime and you might have a leg to stand on.

And as we already discussed, no legislation is perfect but this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It gives protection to groups who traditionally had very little. The big improvement with this bill is that transgendered people are now covered under the hate crimes law.

I appreciate that you'd rather have hate crimes be unpunishable until the system is 100% perfect, but we live in reality and you live in your own world. A little protection for those who need it, at the expense of NOTHING to you, is a GOOD thing.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 1:01pm by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#61 Oct 29 2009 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1599437935794

Sage

1,137 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Also, you might consider that these lawyers know what they're doing. Perhaps being convicted of attempted murder carries a heavier sentence than a hate crime, so that's why they chose that.

Typically, when someone is prosecuted they can have a laundry list of charges - which adds to their sentence. So if it was a true hate crime, they could have been tried for murder AND a hate crime to boot and they would have had a hefty amount of years added to their sentence. If both charges were brought against them and were found not guilty of a hate crime but guilty of murder, they would be in the same boat they are in today.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#62 Oct 29 2009 at 11:20 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

ManifestOfKujata wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Also, you might consider that these lawyers know what they're doing. Perhaps being convicted of attempted murder carries a heavier sentence than a hate crime, so that's why they chose that.

Typically, when someone is prosecuted they can have a laundry list of charges - which adds to their sentence. So if it was a true hate crime, they could have been tried for murder AND a hate crime to boot and they would have had a hefty amount of years added to their sentence. If both charges were brought against them and were found not guilty of a hate crime but guilty of murder, they would be in the same boat they are in today.

I'm no lawyer, but I think in some cases, they may actually choose not to press for certain charges in the same trial so that if the "main" trial fails, they can go back and try them for the lesser charge without the risk of double jeopardy or an influenced jury. I think.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#63 Oct 29 2009 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1599437935794

Sage

1,137 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

And as we already discussed, no legislation is perfect but this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It gives protection to groups who traditionally had very little. The big improvement with this bill is that transgendered people are now covered under the hate crimes law.

To be perfectly fair, I was shocked gays werent included in the original law.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#64 Oct 29 2009 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1599437935794

Sage

1,137 posts

BrownDuck wrote:

I'm no lawyer, but I think in some cases, they may actually choose not to press for certain charges in the same trial so that if the "main" trial fails, they can go back and try them for the lesser charge without the risk of double jeopardy or an influenced jury. I think.

Oh, I see. Well, if thats the case that makes sense.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#65 Oct 29 2009 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

ManifestOfKujata wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Also, you might consider that these lawyers know what they're doing. Perhaps being convicted of attempted murder carries a heavier sentence than a hate crime, so that's why they chose that.

Typically, when someone is prosecuted they can have a laundry list of charges - which adds to their sentence. So if it was a true hate crime, they could have been tried for murder AND a hate crime to boot and they would have had a hefty amount of years added to their sentence. If both charges were brought against them and were found not guilty of a hate crime but guilty of murder, they would be in the same boat they are in today.

Again, I'm sure these lawyers are smarter than you are. They know the political climate of the area at the time, and they know the pool of jurors. I can only assume that they thought it would hurt their case if they tried to throw racial prejudice in there.

However, even if they were just stupid and didn't think of it, that takes absolutely nothing away from my point.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#66 Oct 29 2009 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

ManifestOfKujata wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

And as we already discussed, no legislation is perfect but this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It gives protection to groups who traditionally had very little. The big improvement with this bill is that transgendered people are now covered under the hate crimes law.

To be perfectly fair, I was shocked gays werent included in the original law.

I think a lot of people were, especially after the Matthew Shepard incident in 1998. The 1997 law did not give authorities the right to go after his killers for hate crimes. The new law made these changes:

Quote:

crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which would drop the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#67 Oct 29 2009 at 11:58 AM Rating: Good

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Nadenu,

Quote:

No, the case varus is talking about isn't a hate crime. It was a carjacking gone horribly wrong and had nothing to do with the fact that the victims were white.

WHAT!?

These thugs kidnapped, tortured, raped, mutilated, and finally horrendously murdered a couple of white college kids and the best you can come up with is "it was a carjacking gone horribly wrong".

Honey if doing all those things to a couple of innocents doesn't fit the criteria for being a hate crime then nothing should. What do you think the word HATE means?

Then all crime is a hate crime, if there are innocent people involved.

These guys didn't kill those kids because they were white.

▲ Page top

#68 REDACTED, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 12:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,

Quote Reply

#69 Oct 29 2009 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Nope...I'd rather a criminal be punished for the crime they commit, not what their motivation, or thought process, for committing the crime was. If someone is starving and they rob a grocery store they should be as guilty as someone who just steals for kicks.

Well it's a good thing we don't let uneducated folk like you make laws.

▲ Page top

#70 REDACTED, Posted: Oct 29 2009 at 12:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Duck,

Quote Reply

#71 Oct 29 2009 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Our justice system is in the shabby state it's in because it has, over time, devolved into a system that strays a bit too often from common sense and the incredibly obvious, and focuses a bit too much on technicalities. There's no reason to assign a partisanship to this process.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 1:52pm by AshOnMyTomatoes

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#72 Oct 29 2009 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1681085903309

View User Forum

Scholar

21,720 posts

Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Our justice system is in the shabby state it's in because it has, over time, devolved into a system that strays a bit too often from common sense and the incredibly obvious, and focuses a bit too much on technicalities. There's no reason to assign a partisanship to this process.

More succinctly, our justice system's dependency on technicalities is directly proportional to the loss of common sense. One does not have to have a political affiliation to be an idiot.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#73 Oct 29 2009 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Locked,

Quote:

And as we already discussed, no legislation is perfect but this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It gives protection to groups who traditionally had very little. The big improvement with this bill is that transgendered people are now covered under the hate crimes law.

Translation:

No matter the circumstances minorities can't be tried for hate crimes against whites, and this is fair because whites have taken advantage of minorities for so long.

No worries Varus, I get it, you don't like minorities. Even worse, you're scared of minorities. It's ok, they look and act differently than you; it's scary.

Quote:

I appreciate that you'd rather have hate crimes be unpunishable until the system is 100% perfect, but we live in reality and you live in your own world. A little protection for those who need it, at the expense of NOTHING to you, is a GOOD thing.

Nope...I'd rather a criminal be punished for the crime they commit, not what their motivation, or thought process, for committing the crime was. If someone is starving and they rob a grocery store they should be as guilty as someone who just steals for kicks.

Unfortunately we know liberals like to use legislation to control thoughts of groups of people they don't like.

If some is specifically targeting an individual because of their affiliations/traits, all that hate crime laws do is say that is a crime; there is nothing wrong with thinking thoughts, but when you act upon them, you pay up precisely because your action is to inspire fear, anger, and intimidation to a group of people. If you beat someone it's still assault. If you beat someone because they're gay, it's assault AND a hate crime. Motivation does play a HUGE role in crimes. I guess you've never studied US law? Even the couple of business law classes I took addressed that you need two things for a crime: mens rea and actus reus. The criminal (guilty) mind is the most basic build block of the criminal justice system.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 3:24pm by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#74 Oct 29 2009 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Nope...I'd rather a criminal be punished for the crime they commit, not what their motivation, or thought process, for committing the crime was. If someone is starving and they rob a grocery store they should be as guilty as someone who just steals for kicks.

lol

Don't think I've heard very many pro-starvation arguments for those kinds of scenarios.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#75 Oct 29 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1701044194859

Guru

12,735 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

CBD,

Quote:

Since when does hate crime legislation protect minorities only?

Could you show me any cases where a minority, or minorities, who attacked a white person were convicted of hate crimes.

Edited, Oct 29th 2009 9:40am by publiusvarus

K.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#76 Oct 29 2009 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

teh article Exodus linked wrote:

Well-known black political columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson, who has explored both sides of the story in a levelheaded manner, was quoted by City News Service as noting that the latest FBI hate-crimes report showed that blacks now commit more than 20 percent of the hate crimes, the majority of victims white.

Huh.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Hate Crimes Bill signedFollow