OK Sen. Strips Race/Religious Rights Instead of Gay'sFollow

This is the Oklahoma state Senate, right? So technically the bill in its present form isn't law, because it has to be passed by the House, go into conference, blah blah. What's the likelihood that it'll pass the Senate and be signed by the (Democratic) governor?

Gonna play devil's advocate, because it amuses me


Hate crime legislation does not police thought. What it does is recognize that the thought process behind some actions is detrimental to society when those thoughts are acted upon and inflicts harsher punishment. You can't be prosecuted for hating Jews, but you can be given additional penalties to carving a swastika into a Jew's forehead, because your actions affect more than just that person: it scared other Jews.



Hate crimes however lend weight to the idea that sometimes a crime is committed that affects more than just a single individual, or that the individual was targeted solely because of one of their characteristics. The line of thinking behind this legislation is (likely) to reassure other members of the victim's characteristic that the gubbermint doesn't stand for that and anyone trying to do this will get punished HARD.



This is blatantly false, to the point where I think you're just trying to troll. If this were true there would be no difference between Murder 1 (planned) and Murder 2 (spur of the moment).


That said, I don't think hate crime legislation is particularly effective, but I have yet to see any studies on it, and hey, the public likes their emotional kind of justice so it appeals to desire to see bad people punished. Well, until some of the public happens to hold the same views that the attacker held, then they get uppity.

I generally agree with your second sentence though. In most situations criminal court should be all that is needed.

(not an adit, just for moe)

Fixed. You're welcome.

You can't be prosecuted for hating Jews but you can have years tacked on to your sentence if you commit assault with a deadly weapon because your victim is a Jew (or if the jury thinks you hate Jews). Hyperbolic rhetoric & hypotheticals aside, that is what is being discussed. And that is what is retarded.


No one in this world has the right not to be offended. No one in this world can have their state of mind effected by another person unless they allow it to happen. Crimes that "effect" (which is the word you should have been going for, in case you were wondering) others only do so because the other allow themselves to be effected. The line of thinking behind the legislation is almost exactly what you have said, and equally retarded. The government is saying "you are all delicate little flowers that need reassurance and we want your votes." Emotional arguments FTW!

There is no difference between Murder 1 and Murder 2. It is an artificial construct by people trying to make themselves feel better about imposing the harshest penalties allowed. The net result is still dead victim, and that is all that should matter. The only mitigation to murder should be self defense.

You're really not a good troll. Especially ending the post essentially agreeing with me.

If it were like that in the U.S. I'd have less of an issue with it, but still an issue. Here, though, it is "more criminal" to hate the person you committed a crime against and punishable by extra time.

Hugglze

If I write with lots

of space between the words

like I'm talking to a

mongo does it help you

understand (sorry, big word) easier?

So, in a discussion of the lunacy of certain legislation, you'll justify the negative with current ridiculous legislation? phail.

Yeah, lots of people don't like to address points that make their original arguments look stupid.

Depending on the definition of intent (or as I was responding to premeditation vs. impulse decision), especially in the case of murder 1 vs. murder 2. If the action that ended the life of the victim was done in an effort to do harm, it should not matter whether it was an impulse or a plot.

Mongo as in mongoloid. It's not racist, it's insensitive. You ******.

Which is what we're discussing. You're a ******.

I provided my reasoning in the original post. It hasn't changed simply because you're a ******. ******.

Inquire.

In that specific case, no. All actions have consequences, and we should be aware of, have evaluated, and signed off on (mentally) the potential consequences before we commit an action.

And you're just being obtuse in an effort to troll. A bad effort.

******.

I disagree. They come to the same conclusion, yes, but are very different. Murder in the spur of the moment is dangerous, but there isn't really anything that can be done to stop it. It (generally) occurs when emotions run high and someone chooses to do something without any heed to consequences. Those that commit these crimes are far more likely to regret doing it.

Those that plan murder have actively chosen the kill over consequences, and are far more dangerous for it. They aren't going to regret their decision (at least, not emotionally regret it--they may be pissed when they are in prison for 20 years).

These only matter, however, depending on how you think of prison. Is it punishment or rehabilitation? (Let's ignore the fact that our system sucks at rehabilitation, as that is a separate issue).

If punishment is the reason you think prisons should exist, then you might have a case for them being equal. However, I still disagree. In the first scenario, you have Murder. In the second, you have Conspiracy to Murder, Murder, and probably more crimes. They actively plotted to hurt someone (and society as a whole). In my mind, they committed a worse act that the other murderer. And, honestly, if you don't think intent matters than you can't support any crimes related with intent (sell drugs, terrorism, murder, etc.) And that's a huge problem, because it makes preventative legal action extremely difficult.

If you think of prison as rehabilitation, then it is more of a question of who needs more. The first murderer is more likely to truly regret his actions, and never intended (outside that window of raging emotions) to commit the crime. Compared to someone who plots, willingly goes against society and shows no remorse, I DO feel like he *requires* less time in rehabilitation than the second one (who may never be "fixed").

I do not believe in rehabilitation of criminals. I believe prison is for punishment. I believe that murdering someone, regardless of how long you think about it, is still punishable by the ultimate penalty.

As to your assertion about intent, I disagree. We can still punish people who posses drugs in quantity sufficient for sale, by adjusting the punishment for certain quantities (as we do today). We can still legislate attempted crimes, and the conspiracy to commit or attempt crimes. None of this, however, addresses the specific topic of hate crimes.