This still goes on?Follow

I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one who brought that up.... pretty sure I was the one who replied....

Christ! I nearly found myself getting into a converstation with that dolt Almalique then....

Luckily, I've realised my mistake just in the nick of time, and from now on my only interactions with him will be abusive.

Ya because this.....

http://enews.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=15

and this

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/26262-us-troops-in-sick-taunt-of-iraqi-boys


Some real critical thinking right there. Could go on and on but I figure everyone here is competent enough to know everything isn't roses over there.

Edited, Oct 5th 2010 10:32pm by rdmcandie

I'm more of the opinion that occupying someone elses country for 9 years under the pretext of chasing the mythical Bin Laden, whilst providing untold amounts of recruitment propaganda for Jihadists as you slaughter innocent bystanders with 500lb bombs and relentless drone attacks, is more the shortcoming of the critical thinking going on. Dropping bombs on your allies is just more human incompetency, rather than someones deeply thought out strategy. Just think, if those fellas hadn't joined up, they wouldnt be standing underneath the bombs in the first place.

And, yes you muppet(Alma), I'm fully aware that 'politics' doesn't equal 'military', but I'm also aware that Obama seems to be really struggling to stand up to his Generals and their demands to expand and prolong the war against the Afghans.

Politicians may be one section of the enablers in Afghanistan, but its the Generals who are dictating strategy. Which, if you think about it, is not the way things should work.

So much for "logical" thinking on Alma's part, eh?

"Debunked" as in, said that you didn't agree with it and gave reasons?



Why would that be any different?

Mmmm...no, I mean debunked.

Considering that you can be convicted of a hate crime without either showing a likelihood of re-offending or an attempt to spread fear, you can't argue that that's what the law is about. Those things are not in the law. You don't have to do them to be convicted of a hate crime. I think that's more than enough evidence to say that it's either not what the law is about, or it's a complete and utter failure in addressing them. Either way, to argue that it is about them would be objectively wrong.

And again, if this was all about "chance to re-offend" and "spreading fear in a group", then why does it not apply to all groups? That's a rhetorical question.



Because it would protect everyone. Not just homosexuals, not just minorities (or if we're getting literal, not just people based on sexuality, not just race). It allows the law to truly do the only legitimate job that it should exist for: protecting everyone against crimes that are designed to terrorize. If, as you seem to be arguing, that's the point of hate crime laws, then why shouldn't they apply across the board? What possible merit is there to singling out gender, sexuality, and race?

The version of the law that I'm advocating is actually more powerful. It has broader scope. It can be used in cases of violence against a gender, sexuality, race, or any other quality of a victim, if the intent is to cause fear. I think Timelord's example of a drug lord who kills locals to keep them from reporting his crimes, was very apt.



Why would that be clear? You stopped responding to me after I made my citation a while back.



What? Well first off, I don't know what reasons you're referring to here. The "chance to re-offend" and "attempt to spread fear"? Showing how other crimes can have those same effects is a good way of demonstrating that those aren't what a hate crime is about. If hate crimes are about "chance to re-offend" and "attempt to spread fear", and other crimes do those very things, but are not hate crimes, then there is an inconsistency. This, in tandem with the fact that such wording isn't even in the law, and that someone can be convicted of a hate crime without doing either, shows that that isn't the reason that hate crimes exist (and that if it was the reason, that it does a ****-poor job of executing it).

So if that isn't the reason that hate crimes exist, then what is? And why does it justify the law? It cannot, as some have mentioned, be because "we view crimes of hate to be particularly heinous." My examples counter that as well. They show that hate crime laws don't apply to all crimes of hate. They only apply to crimes of hate due to sexuality, race, and gender.

If it is, as I believe, about deterring crimes against homosexuals and minorities (and is that really so illogical a conclusion?), then that reason does not suffice. It violates the 14th amendment.

Edited, Oct 6th 2010 3:49pm by Eske

Because I had stated that was how I thought it should be and asked for clarification on what the actual law was, which you provided. Again, I didn't make any effort to make that clear, so it's not a problem that you didn't realize that.

I would say that it's not the only reason the laws exist. It's not sufficient by itself.

This is probably part of it too. I don't know that this is necessarily a problem, as these groups are statistically more likely to be victimized. I still think it probably needs to be more general, I don't disagree with you on that.

If all of that were true, though, then we shouldn't have varying punishments for any crimes because it would be unconstitutional. I mean, the "harsher punishments for hate crimes" thing isn't the only time that a murderer gets a different sentence. You've got degrees of murder, pre-meditation, and of course the insanity defense.

What's the difference in a sentence for just a regular ol' murder and a "I hate those dirty jews, I'mma kill John Stewart" type murder?

And maybe we shouldn't be focusing on murder. Let's look at vandalism. Should it be the same sentence for a guy who sets some trash on fire at his neighbors house as it is for the guy who sets a cross on fire in a black guys yard?

No, not totally different. It's not necessarily the victim that makes a hate crime. It's the intent.

For example. Let's say I get pissed off at my black neighbor for playing loud music at two in the morning, so I go apply for a gun license, purchase a gun, buy bullets, and write in my diary, "That's it. This guy won't keep me up any more. I'm going to kill him." I would get a pretty harsh sentence for committing premeditated murder. If, however, I grab the first weapon I come across and go over there, bleary eyed, at three in the morning and start pummelling him, my sentence won't be so bad because I can claim temporary insanity.

If, however, I write in my diary, "That damn black guy, thinkin' he has the right to listen to music, I'll show him!" in my diary and then go bludgeon him to death, my sentence will most likely be closer to that of premeditation.



I don't see how changing the label from "hate crimes" to "terrorism" makes a difference. Currently, the definition for "terrorism" has to do with a political motivation. The same cannot necessarily be said for racism and the like. I don't see how everyone isn't covered under the blanket of "hate crimes." If we see a trend of people killing goth kids because they are goth, or killing homeless people because they are homeless, then I'm sure those things can be added under the "hate crimes" umbrella. Gender and sexual orientation was just recently added, it wasn't covered back when hate crimes were first legislated.

If it becomes apparent that there are people trying to intimidate the goth population, then yes, it would be a hate crime.



So, what you're saying is, we should have hate crimes, but not call them that?



I'm not sure if you're reading it, honestly. From what you quoted from the FBI:



Yeah, that encompasses a fuck ton of people, and it covers the groups that have issues of people trying to intimidate them. I get your hypothetical problem with the homeless and the goth kids, but really, no one is trying to intimidate those groups of people. If you, instead, wanted to point to a real world problem of a group of people being intimidated who aren't currently covered, then that would be different.



I don't know the answers to those questions. I haven't really heard of a trend of people killing goths and homeless people to try to intimidate other people not to be a goth or homeless.

And I don't know why you think you have to be a jerk to get your point across.

ETA: Honestly, I never really thought much about "hate crimes: good or bad?" But after playing devil's advocate in this thread, I don't have much of a problem with them and think they are probably still needed, to a degree. I would still like to know what the differences in sentencing there are with a hate crime versus a non-hate crime.

Edit 2: I am not talking to myself, I promise.

Edited, Oct 6th 2010 4:41pm by Belkira

Yes, my mistake. For some reason, I was thinking of the Grinch when I changed that.

You'd have to look at the history of hate crime legislation. It was started because people were trying to stop others from federally protected actions, like voting. Then stuff like what happened to Matthew Shepard happened, and people said, "Dude, this isn't ok. We need to stop people from doing things like this to intimidate other people. That's just wrong." So instead of writing new legislation, which is tedious, time consuming, and I can only imagine expensive, they decided to amend a current law to include stuff like gender and sexual orientation. Then they removed the "federally protected activity" jargon.

The lines aren't arbitrary at all. If anything, your idea of just making laws to protect hypothetical people in hypothetical situations is what would be arbitrary. Like I said before, as far as I can tell, the law is as all-encompassing as it needs to be right now. No one is getting any more protection than anyone else. No one is saying that one group is more important than another like you're trying to pretend it does. Surely you can see how it happening to a single person is not the same as people across the country being targeted in an effort to intimidate a group of people.



Ok. But I'd still like to know for my own opinion to be better informed.