[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.
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.[/quote]
arguing for elevating certain groups of people above the rest is a good thing because it does not directly increase the amount of crime they suffer? I thought the whole point was EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW?
My initial reaction is to be against “hate crime legislation” in general for the reasons listed above.
Then I wonder about systematic discrimination. I’m just not sure how prevalent it is in this day and age. I’m positive that it USED TO BE prevalent, and thus used to be appropriate, but I don’t know the statistics about today. If it is a major problem, I can understand the legislation.
Then there comes the “F’ 'em” in me. If some bastard kills someone “because he’s black/gay/whatever” then I don’t care if ten years are added on to his sentence.
My initial reaction is to be against “hate crime legislation” in general for the reasons listed above.
Then I wonder about systematic discrimination. I’m just not sure how prevalent it is in this day and age. I’m positive that it USED TO BE prevalent, and thus used to be appropriate, but I don’t know the statistics about today. If it is a major problem, I can understand the legislation.
Then there comes the “F’ 'em” in me. If some bastard kills someone “because he’s black/gay/whatever” then I don’t care if ten years are added on to his sentence.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
My initial reaction is to be against “hate crime legislation” in general for the reasons listed above.
Then I wonder about systematic discrimination. I’m just not sure how prevalent it is in this day and age. I’m positive that it USED TO BE prevalent, and thus used to be appropriate, but I don’t know the statistics about today. If it is a major problem, I can understand the legislation.
Then there comes the “F’ 'em” in me. If some bastard kills someone “because he’s black/gay/whatever” then I don’t care if ten years are added on to his sentence. [/quote]
That’s why judges and juries have discretion when it comes to sentencing, as I think it ought to be. Individual cases should be given individual considerations.
(As an aside, this is the same reason I am against mandatory sentencing for any crime. Every crime has different circumstances, and the judge and jury should have some leeway.)
But legislation stating that certain classes of people suffer more emotional damage than other classes for identical crimes injects bias into the proceedings from the very start.
Hate crime legislation states bluntly that crimes against certain classes just aren’t as big as deal as crimes against other classes. And that’s the first step down a dark road we shouldn’t be following.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
both murders should get life imo.
.[/quote]
Life sentences are Bullshit.
Let’s save some money and use a 56 cent Bullet instead. I can’t believe we allow silly women to kill their unborn babies while at the same time protect the life of a MURDERER!
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
both murders should get life imo.
.
Life sentences are Bullshit.
Let’s save some money and use a 56 cent Bullet instead. I can’t believe we allow silly women to kill their unborn babies while at the same time protect the life of a MURDERER![/quote]
I’d rather not give the government the power to kill people thanks. That’s my stance and I’m sticking to it. The government sucks at pretty much anything, why would deciding who should get the death penalty be any different?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
both murders should get life imo.
.
Life sentences are Bullshit.
Let’s save some money and use a 56 cent Bullet instead. I can’t believe we allow silly women to kill their unborn babies while at the same time protect the life of a MURDERER!
I’d rather not give the government the power to kill people thanks. That’s my stance and I’m sticking to it. The government sucks at pretty much anything, why would deciding who should get the death penalty be any different?[/quote]
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
both murders should get life imo.
.
Life sentences are Bullshit.
Let’s save some money and use a 56 cent Bullet instead. I can’t believe we allow silly women to kill their unborn babies while at the same time protect the life of a MURDERER!
I’d rather not give the government the power to kill people thanks. That’s my stance and I’m sticking to it. The government sucks at pretty much anything, why would deciding who should get the death penalty be any different?
So you are against abortion then.
[/quote]
As a moral matter? Absolutely. As a legal matter? I’m undecided at this point and time. I’m leaning towards pro-choice, though only in the first trimester. Even that is just a left-over of my former beliefs in absolute pragmatism.
What does abortion have to do with the death penalty? The abortion debate is about the beginning of person-hood. The death penalty debate is about whether or not I trust the government to have the power to sentence people to death.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
both murders should get life imo.
.
Life sentences are Bullshit.
Let’s save some money and use a 56 cent Bullet instead. I can’t believe we allow silly women to kill their unborn babies while at the same time protect the life of a MURDERER!
I’d rather not give the government the power to kill people thanks. That’s my stance and I’m sticking to it. The government sucks at pretty much anything, why would deciding who should get the death penalty be any different?
So you are against abortion then.
[/quote]
Yes, until we can enforce it retroactively against liberal wusses . . . and I don’t think rounds are .56 cents anymore - Probably up to about 1.28 now . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
both murders should get life imo.
.
Life sentences are Bullshit.
Let’s save some money and use a 56 cent Bullet instead. I can’t believe we allow silly women to kill their unborn babies while at the same time protect the life of a MURDERER!
I’d rather not give the government the power to kill people thanks. That’s my stance and I’m sticking to it. The government sucks at pretty much anything, why would deciding who should get the death penalty be any different?
So you are against abortion then.
Yes, until we can enforce it retroactively against liberal wusses . . . and I don’t think rounds are .56 cents anymore - Probably up to about 1.28 now . .[/quote]
Maybe if you used a club it would even be more satisfy… um, more economically efficient?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I’m leaning towards pro-choice, though only in the first trimester. What does abortion have to do with the death penalty? The abortion debate is about the beginning of person-hood. The death penalty debate is about whether or not I trust the government to have the power to sentence people to death.[/quote]
Do you understand that a JURY OF PEERS decides to apply the death penalty, and not your government?
How can you be OK with aborting a new life, but against aborting an old one that is proved to be a killer of other lives?
First trimester??? That’s like saying “Im against the death peanalty, but for it for 30-40 year olds only.”
Makes no sense.
Back to the topic. A crime is a crime, no matter the “Motive”.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Do you understand that a JURY OF PEERS decides to apply the death penalty, and not your government?[/quote]
Those jury of peers are a part of our government while standing in the jury booth. And regardless, I don’t trsut them to apply it either.
[quote]
How can you be OK with aborting a new life, but against aborting an old one that is proved to be a killer of other lives?[/quote]
I’m really not OK with it. At all. My stance is one of general pragmatism. Without early abortion (IE Morning after pill) we’d have one hell of a lot more kids.
[quote]
First trimester??? That’s like saying “Im against the death peanalty, but for it for 30-40 year olds only.”
Makes no sense.[/quote]
Well, if you absolute DNA evidence and multiple witnesses, than I suppose I’d be OK with the death penalty. I’m just against it in principal. Just like I’m against abortion in principal.
[quote]
Back to the topic. A crime is a crime, no matter the “Motive”.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
both murders should get life imo.
.
Life sentences are Bullshit.
Let’s save some money and use a 56 cent Bullet instead. I can’t believe we allow silly women to kill their unborn babies while at the same time protect the life of a MURDERER!
I’d rather not give the government the power to kill people thanks. That’s my stance and I’m sticking to it. The government sucks at pretty much anything, why would deciding who should get the death penalty be any different?
So you are against abortion then.
Yes, until we can enforce it retroactively against liberal wusses . . . and I don’t think rounds are .56 cents anymore - Probably up to about 1.28 now . .
Maybe if you used a club it would even be more satisfy… um, more economically efficient?
[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]
I don’t think the basis is the idea that the victim has greater standing, but that the action of the criminal was different because of his or her intent.
You have the right to not be assaulted. You also have the right to not be discriminated against for things like your race, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, etc. So if someone punches you in the face because you’re white, it’s a qualitatively different crime than if they punch you because you were walking down the street when they felt like punching someone, since now you’re having two rights infringed upon.
Also, there is the issue of how likely someone is to commit a similar crime again, and the safety of other members of whatever the group in question is. Someone beats someone up at a bar over an argument, probably not as likely to repeat the experience as a KKK member who attacks a black person and gets out with the minimum sentence for simple assault.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt 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.
I don’t think the basis is the idea that the victim has greater standing, but that the action of the criminal was different because of his or her intent.
You have the right to not be assaulted. You also have the right to not be discriminated against for things like your race, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, etc. [/quote]
How exactly is assault denying someone a good/service/position/job because of their race hm?
[quote]
So if someone punches you in the face because you’re white, it’s a qualitatively different crime than if they punch you because you were walking down the street when they felt like punching someone, since now you’re having two rights infringed upon.[/quote]
So why aren’t they charged with “discrimination” then?
[quote]
Also, there is the issue of how likely someone is to commit a similar crime again, and the safety of other members of whatever the group in question is. Someone beats someone up at a bar over an argument, probably not as likely to repeat the experience as a KKK member who attacks a black person and gets out with the minimum sentence for simple assault. [/quote]
Oh this is just a load of bully. Means. Ends. Do not justify. You can put it together.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
arguing for elevating certain groups of people above the rest is a good thing because it does not directly increase the amount of crime they suffer? I thought the whole point was EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW?[/quote]
I see it more as a case of targeting high risk groups. For example, if you have a truckload of penicillin, it would make the most sense to give the penicillin to the people at highest risk of developing severe health issues without the help of the penicillin. Doing so doesn’t adversely affect the health of anyone else, but it does improve the health of people that are most at risk.
