Matthew Shepard Act

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
SpartanX wrote:
So if the black guy loses the fight, the government kills the white guy? But if the black guy wins, it is just seen as pay back and a big medal for the ‘supernegro mystique.’

stupid. and no. white people are protected by hate crime laws as well. deviation from that is injustice.[/quote]

It is a lot harder to convince a jury that black on white violence was racially motivated. And if you can, there will always be the sense that it was “deserved” or “revenge”.

Not that I don’t thing the concept of black on white hate crimes equally insulting.

22

[quote]SpartanX wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if a burglar targets homes in a wealthy neighborhood? As much as we hear about the wealthy, they’re obviously identified as a group by our society.

Do we live in the same country? This legislation is built for protection against fictional neo-nazi gangs that terrorize black families.

The truth is that more than 90% of interracial violent crime is black on white. The rest is latino on black and some smaller denominations. Less than 1 percent of all violent crimes are white on any other group.

To go furhter than this, there is some fiction of rape in this country. The truth of all the rapes committed in a year, its probably more than 90% black perpetrated. I read the statistics one time, its 1000s of white women beaten and kileld yearly by black rapists. For the year sampled, there were 0 black women raped and assaulted by a white male.

I know someone is gonna ask for the sources so I’ll post it later.

Isn’t violence enough, isn’t justice color blind, why do we need special legislation to protect the more criminal element of our society from reprecussion from the peaceful groups. Is this Zimbabwe or something?[/quote]

I’m seriously skeptic of these statistics.

Then again, this has little to nothing to do with my point. So w/e.

23

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if a burglar targets homes in a wealthy neighborhood? As much as we hear about the wealthy, they’re obviously identified as a group by our society.

key difference is hes not targeting the person for who they are but what they have.

[/quote]

What if witnesses, say acquinatances of his, have heard the burglar say things in the past like “They (the wealthy) have more than their fair share. Most of them lie, cheat, steal, and inherit their way to wealth. I’m just getting mine.” Hate crime?

24

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
hah hate crime is a legal classification as well.

Missing the point. One is an intent, one is an internal motivation. If you walk into a room intent on killing a man, you have commite4d murder. If you walk into a room and accidentally kill a man, you did not have intent, and therefore have committed manslaughter. Why you killed the man, in both cases, is totally irrelevant. You are confusing the emotional motivation for a crime with the criminals intent.

both murders should get life imo.

I agree. Because they are both intended MURDER.

its a higher degree of malice, there should be a higher penalty for that. just as theres a higher penalty than just plain assault, if you break the persons nose, or even more of a penalty if you inflict “grievous bodily harm.” or even more for using a weapon.

A higher degree of malice? So you admit we’re punishing thoughts then?

also the emotional harm between getting beat up and getting beat up because your skin is x color is miles apart.

Emotional harm. Really. You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me. Punishing people for incurring “emotional harm” on someone is, once again, PUNISHING THOUGHT. I don’t care WHAT the thought caused, you should be punishing the ACTION, not the thought behind it. Or else you are indeed implementing thoughtcrime.

its not convicting based on free speech, its convicting based on specific motive to commit a crime. last time i checked motive to commit a crime is not protected by the 1st.

But freedom of thought is. So you cannot punish someone for thinking something. No matter what. You can punish the horrible actions those thoughts cause him to commit, but NOT the thoughts themselves.[/quote]

no malice implies you’ve actually done something. not simply thought of it.

yes, the punishment for crime should, and does take into account the total damage done. not simply for what ever noun we assign to it.

25

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
SpartanX wrote:
So if the black guy loses the fight, the government kills the white guy? But if the black guy wins, it is just seen as pay back and a big medal for the ‘supernegro mystique.’

stupid. and no. white people are protected by hate crime laws as well. deviation from that is injustice.

It is a lot harder to convince a jury that black on white violence was racially motivated. And if you can, there will always be the sense that it was “deserved” or “revenge”.

Not that I don’t thing the concept of black on white hate crimes equally insulting.[/quote]

where am i advocating this is ok or right?

26

Try that, Barack Mugabe’s government won’t compile their info on crime racially so they take the cia factbook info and do it for you.

Read up on Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

If you don’t pull your head out of your ass, we’re going to turn into that shit.

27

You simply cannot get away from the fact that the hate crime legislation has just declared that one victim has greater standing than the other despite being victims of the same crime.

The victims are no longer equal, despite suffering the same injuries. That is unacceptable in a court system that is supposed to be blind and unbiased.

28

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

no malice implies you’ve actually done something. not simply thought of it. [/quote]

And so we will punish them for the ACTION.

[quote]
yes, the punishment for crime should, and does take into account the total damage done. not simply for what ever noun we assign to it.[/quote]

Total damage done BY THE ACTION. Not the thought.

Thoughts and words hurt people all time. And guess what? We can’t and should not be punished for that.

29

[quote]SpartanX wrote:

Try that, Barack Mugabe’s government won’t compile their info on crime racially so they take the cia factbook info and do it for you.

Read up on Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

If you don’t pull your head out of your ass, we’re going to turn into that shit.[/quote]

that may be true, but the FBI certainly does. The last compile i saw was 2004. perhaps it was changed after that, i dont know. i have no agenda for any race as far hate crimes are concerned.

30

[quote]SpartanX wrote:

Try that, Barack Mugabe’s government won’t compile their info on crime racially so they take the cia factbook info and do it for you.

Read up on Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

If you don’t pull your head out of your ass, we’re going to turn into that shit.[/quote]

I’m sorry but this website doesn’t really seem credible. Having anything that isn’t trying to sell me a book?

31

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
SpartanX wrote:
So if the black guy loses the fight, the government kills the white guy? But if the black guy wins, it is just seen as pay back and a big medal for the ‘supernegro mystique.’

stupid. and no. white people are protected by hate crime laws as well. deviation from that is injustice.

It is a lot harder to convince a jury that black on white violence was racially motivated. And if you can, there will always be the sense that it was “deserved” or “revenge”.

Not that I don’t thing the concept of black on white hate crimes equally insulting.

where am i advocating this is ok or right?[/quote]

Where am I advocating that you advocated this?

32

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:

no malice implies you’ve actually done something. not simply thought of it.

And so we will punish them for the ACTION.

yes, the punishment for crime should, and does take into account the total damage done. not simply for what ever noun we assign to it.

Total damage done BY THE ACTION. Not the thought.

Thoughts and words hurt people all time. And guess what? We can’t and should not be punished for that.[/quote]

yes, emotional damage is considered higher aggravation by law. aggravating circumstances are met with higher punishments.

if you think the emotional damage of a crime based on hate is no different that any other, then theres no point of discussing further.

33

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
SpartanX wrote:
So if the black guy loses the fight, the government kills the white guy? But if the black guy wins, it is just seen as pay back and a big medal for the ‘supernegro mystique.’

stupid. and no. white people are protected by hate crime laws as well. deviation from that is injustice.

It is a lot harder to convince a jury that black on white violence was racially motivated. And if you can, there will always be the sense that it was “deserved” or “revenge”.

Not that I don’t thing the concept of black on white hate crimes equally insulting.

where am i advocating this is ok or right?

Where am I advocating that you advocated this?
[/quote]

in tone it seemed like you were, or siding with spartans off the wall comments.

i see that you are not. apologies.

slumber awaits.

34

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
You simply cannot get away from the fact that the hate crime legislation has just declared that one victim has greater standing than the other despite being victims of the same crime.

The victims are no longer equal, despite suffering the same injuries. That is unacceptable in a court system that is supposed to be blind and unbiased.[/quote]

not the same, the degrees of malice and aggravation are entirely different. According to Black’s and modern US law, higher aggravation = higher punishment.

and no the injuries are not the same.

35

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
You simply cannot get away from the fact that the hate crime legislation has just declared that one victim has greater standing than the other despite being victims of the same crime.

The victims are no longer equal, despite suffering the same injuries. That is unacceptable in a court system that is supposed to be blind and unbiased.

not the same, the degrees of malice and aggravation are entirely different. According to Black’s and modern US law, higher aggravation = higher punishment.

and no the injuries are not the same.[/quote]

If we are now doling out additional punishment for emotional injuries, tell me where it ends? At what point does our court system tell the plaintiff to suck it up and deal with it?

Does all emotional injury warrant additional punishment, or just some? If it’s just some, why the delineation? How can a court prove or justify the differences in emotional injury between two victims of identical crime?

Causing emotional injury is either a punishable offense, and thus all perpetrators are punished equally for it, or it isn’t.

At an absolute minimum, what is the point of hate crime legislation for murders? In absolute terms, dead is dead.

There is no way to escape the fact the hate crime legislation states that all victims are NOT equal, and that flies directly in the face of what this country is supposed to stand for.

36

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

yes, emotional damage is considered higher aggravation by law. aggravating circumstances are met with higher punishments.

if you think the emotional damage of a crime based on hate is no different that any other, then theres no point of discussing further.[/quote]

hehe - you’re an idiot . . .

nobody commits a crime like a beating, rape or murder because they love the person they’re harming . . .

so now, whether you like it or not, you have began to classify certain hatreds as less hateful and other hatreds as more hateful BASED SOLELY ON THE VICTIM . . . but who is supposed to be the judge of that arbitrary standard . . . during one decade it’s gays, during the next it might smug little liberal policy wonks . . .

You punish the act, you add severity to the punishment for the severity of the crime, or you lessen the severity of the punishment due to actual intention/premeditation - to say that now I am going to add more or less punishment because you targeted a specific group (and lets be honest- that’s all this really is) makes all other victims of the same crime but not of that group lesser in the eyes of the law and that destroys equality before the law

and i cannot believe any is suggesting this - it is the ideological flip of supporting Jim Crow laws - but in reverse - but I shouldn’t be surprised that liberals like this idea - they were the ones supporting the Jim Crow laws back in the day . . . .

As I said earlier - hate crime legislation is not about the emotional intent of the criminal or the emotional impact on the victim (I would like to see the study that proves that getting beaten to death for being gay is worse emotionally than getting beat to death because you’re rich) - IT IS ABOUT ELEVATING CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE - ITS NOT ABOUT THE CRIME OR THE EMOTIONS _ ITS ALL ABOUT WHO WAS THE VICTIM!!! you are legislating that a crime committed against a gay person is worse than a crime committed against a straight person

and that’s the bottom line, cuz IrishSteel says so!!!

37

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
yes, emotional damage is considered higher aggravation by law. aggravating circumstances are met with higher punishments.[/quote]

So if you punch me in the nose, but I feel really, really bad about it, you should get your crime upgraded? This seems fundamentally… well… stupid.

[quote]
if you think the emotional damage of a crime based on hate is no different that any other, then theres no point of discussing further.[/quote]

It is different. The THOUGHTS are different. That’s it. We cannot punish thought, no matter how horrible, only evil actions deserve punishment.

38

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Hate crimes = Thoughtcrime

red herring much?

thoughtcrime is pretty self explanatory, its just a thought.

theres a difference in thinking “i dont like black people” and going out an looking for black people to murder because you don’t like them, or beating them up at poll booths to stop them from voting.

unless theres something in the bill that i missed that you saw, saying its illegal to be a racist ect.

Allow me to explain.

If a white man kills a black man for being black, let us say he shall receive 80 years in jail.

If a white man kills a white man because he does not like his face, let us say he shall receive 70 years in jail.

They committed the same exact crime, but due to hate crime legislation, one gets ten more years, despite having committed IDENTICAL actions.

Hence, we must conclude he is being punished for his THOUGHTS. Those extra ten years are a punishment for having racial motives. I see no real difference between punishing motives and punishing thoughts. If the crime is the same, they should receive the same sentence, regardless of the thoughts that motivated the crime.

Those things you mentioned, “looking for black people to murder because you don’t like them, or beating them up at poll booths to stop them from voting,” are ALREADY CRIMES.

Murder is already a crime. Assault is already a crime. Assaulting someone to prevent them from voting (I believe, correct me if I’m wrong) is a federal offense. Why then, is hate crime legislation necessary, unless you want to punish the thoughts that the perpetrators had while they commited their heinous act?

I’m with Beowulf on this one - it makes no sense to punish someone more for the same crime simply because their motive offends a certain segment of the population . . .

Say I kill someone because I hate gays - I get 80 years, But If I had killed a white hetero married business man because I hated his successful image - I only get 60 years? Smae crime, same affect, same act - one’s worse than the other?

Seriously?

And don’t try to justify this by citing the legal classifications of murder (manslaughter, murder etc) - that speaks to negligent, unintended, premeditated, etc.

This automatically makes the murder of anyone not in that group of less importance than the “special” group. I can hate someone for their shoes or their sexual preference, or perhaps I just love their taste (for all the Dahmer’s out there) - why does my internal emotional justification matter more in one case than another?

BS![/quote]

Agreed the only distintion that should ever be made is self defense, the whole concept of “hate crime” is stupid made up by entitlement minded a$$holes that think they deserve more rights than someone else because of some lame reason.

39

It looks like this has turned into a discussion of the merits of hate crimes in general, rather than discussing whether or not gays should be included in hate crimes legislation.

On that broader note, I’m not sure how I feel about hate crimes legislation. I agree with those that say the crime should be punished uniformly, irrespective of who the victim is.

On the other hand, one advantage of hate crimes legislation is that it reduces the likelihood that hate crimes will occur against the protected classes, without increasing the incidence of hate crimes among nonprotected classes. Isn’t that a good thing?

True, it doesn’t help unprotected classes…but it doesn’t hurt them either.

40

[quote]forlife wrote:
It looks like this has turned into a discussion of the merits of hate crimes in general, rather than discussing whether or not gays should be included in hate crimes legislation.[/quote]

I don’t think hate crime legislation should exist, so I must be opposed to expanding what is already on the books.

[quote]
On that broader note, I’m not sure how I feel about hate crimes legislation. I agree with those that say the crime should be punished uniformly, irrespective of who the victim is. [/quote]

Good.

[quote]
On the other hand, one advantage of hate crimes legislation is that it reduces the likelihood that hate crimes will occur against the protected classes, without increasing the incidence of hate crimes among nonprotected classes. Isn’t that a good thing?

True, it doesn’t help unprotected classes…but it doesn’t hurt them either.[/quote]

A) Can you give me a study showing that hate crime laws reduce hate crimes?

B) Ends, means, justify, don’t. You can put the words together.