[quote]forlife wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Can you give me a study showing that hate crime laws reduce hate crimes?
Isn’t crime prevention one of the primary purposes of having a legal system in the first place? If laws didn’t help prevent crimes, why have them?[/quote]
…Just because that is what laws are SUPPOSED to do doesn’t mean that’s what they DO.
Plus, once again —> Means. Ends. Do not justify.
Seriuously, how many times do I have to put that out there?
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.[/quote]
Not even close to the same thing. You’re equating help with punishment as though you can dole that out in the same way.
I’m laying out my argument pretty clearly here. Number 2 is really the only premise you could possibly object to, and I think I’m capable of defending it. Unless you want to attack premise 1, which would be difficult to argue, seeing as it is a base moral value (meaning it has no basis in argument, meaning it is thereby hard to argue one way or the other beyond feelings and inherent reason).
And that’s my daily philosophical moment.
Are you suggesting that we abolish the legal system then? Your logic isn’t limited to hate crimes legislation.
Why do you keep talking about means and ends? It’s not as if the means are themselves damaging in any way. They help high risk groups without hurting lower risk groups, so what is your point?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
2. The only difference between a hate crime and a crime is the thought behind it.[/quote]
The difference it that hate crimes legislation provides additional protection for higher risk groups. If blacks are more likely than the average person to experience violence soley due to their skin color, they are at higher risk, and the legislation offers additional protection accordingly.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
2. The only difference between a hate crime and a crime is the thought behind it.
The difference it that hate crimes legislation provides additional protection for higher risk groups. If blacks are more likely than the average person to experience violence soley due to their skin color, they are at higher risk, and the legislation offers additional protection accordingly.[/quote]
How does additional punishment translate to additional protection?
By this logic, the death penalty should be used for basically every violent crime. It’s additional protection right?
I have no problem with putting more police officers in a bad neighborhood. I have a big problem with punishing the thoughts of a criminal.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you suggesting that we abolish the legal system then? Your logic isn’t limited to hate crimes legislation.[/quote]
Er what? Punishing someone for murder is hardly punishing a thought. I’m lost.
[quote]
Why do you keep talking about means and ends? It’s not as if the means are themselves damaging in any way. They help high risk groups without hurting lower risk groups, so what is your point?[/quote]
I think the means by which you are protecting the high risk group is sacrificing a MAJOR American value: freedom of thought.
I think the ends, less violence against a certain group (if that is even an end, you’ve yet to provide evidence for such), do not justify the means, punishing thoughts.
Like I said, I have no problem with increasing the police funding in a bad neighborhood or a gay neighborhood (their are gay neighborhoods right?).
You’re trying to justify a means, punishing thoughts, with an ends, protecting a class. I’m saying that an end CANNOT justify a mean that is fundamentally immoral.
The fact that you think the means aren’t damaging is equivalent to someone saying the death penalty isn’t damaging anyone. Or that laws that step on the 4th are ok because “we have nothing to hide.”
[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.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
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.[/quote]
God help us, we’re going to stamp out discrimination among criminals! So to further the interest of developing equal opportunity criminals, we’re going to encourage them to victimize this class of people instead!
Earlier in this thread, we discovered that hate crime law decided that certain classes of people suffer more emotional harm than others for the same actions taken against them. Note, different classes of people, not different people.
Today, we learn that hate crime law is also designed to punish for crimes not-yet-committed. You know, it seems like there was a story written about this once? Maybe it was also a recent movie? With Tom Cruise starring?
Boy these hate crime laws just get better and better! Savor them awhile, and you get more and more delicious nuance.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Today, we learn that hate crime law is also designed to punish for crimes not-yet-committed. You know, it seems like there was a story written about this once? Maybe it was also a recent movie? With Tom Cruise starring?
[/quote]
What does Jerry Maguire have to do with hate crime laws?
[quote]forlife wrote:
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?
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.[/quote]
most at risk . . . hmmmm
ok, well according to the FBI there were 860,853 aggravated assaults against Americans in 2006,of which 184 could be classified as hate crimes motivated by/based on sexual orientation (not distinguishing orientation m/f, homo/hetero etc) or merely .02% of the total number of aggravated assaults . . .
interesting facts . . .
[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe if you used a club it would even be more satisfy… um, more economically efficient?
[/quote]
you are one sick puppy . . . violent much? Are you juicing?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
How does additional punishment translate to additional protection?[/quote]
Again, the working principle of the legal system is that the punishments attached to a particular crime help reduce the likelihood that people will commit that crime.
You can challenge that logic, but it extends beyond hate crimes and is endemic to the entire legal system.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Er what? Punishing someone for murder is hardly punishing a thought. I’m lost.[/quote]
You argued that there is no evidence that hate crimes legislation reduces the incidence of hate crimes. The same logic applies to every other crime legislation, so why have laws at all?
The legal system is designed under the premise that attaching punishments to the violation of laws decreases the likelihood that people will transgress those laws.
People aren’t being punished for their thoughts. They are being punished for attacking people in certain high risk groups.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ok, well according to the FBI there were 860,853 aggravated assaults against Americans in 2006,of which 184 could be classified as hate crimes motivated by/based on sexual orientation (not distinguishing orientation m/f, homo/hetero etc) or merely .02% of the total number of aggravated assaults . . .
interesting facts . . .[/quote]
Interesting, but not complete. To be fair you would need to compare the percentage chance that someone from a protected class would be attacked vs. the percentage chance that someone from a non-protected class would be attacked, if no hate crimes legislations existed.
Hate crime laws are bullshit. I would assume that half of the time, extra sentences are tacked on just for the simple fact that the victim was in a “protected” group, whether or not the motive of the crime was “hate-related”.
Example, white guy assaults black guy… instant hate crime, extra 5 year sentence. OR, 2 men get into a fight, person A calls person B a faggot right before breaking his jaw. Little did person A know, person B actually was. Person A now goes to jail for many many years.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Er what? Punishing someone for murder is hardly punishing a thought. I’m lost.
You argued that there is no evidence that hate crimes legislation reduces the incidence of hate crimes. The same logic applies to every other crime legislation, so why have laws at all?[/quote]
WOW. Unfortunately for you, I can easily prove that laws against murder reduce murders. You can’t take a lack of empirical evidence for one claim and just generalize like that. That’s fucking stupid.
“Adding lots of salt to cookies doesn’t make them taste good, so adding salt to food must not work either.”
You see how dumb that is? Not a perfect metaphor, but the same concept.
[quote]
The legal system is designed under the premise that attaching punishments to the violation of laws decreases the likelihood that people will transgress those laws.[/quote]
Sure. But you’ve yet to produce a study or even some stats suggesting hate crime laws reduce hate crimes.
The only difference between a hate crime and a crime is thought. Therefore, you are punishing thought. Do you seriously not see that?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Again, the working principle of the legal system is that the punishments attached to a particular crime help reduce the likelihood that people will commit that crime.
You can challenge that logic, but it extends beyond hate crimes and is endemic to the entire legal system.[/quote]
Is it based on that premise? Sure. Does that mean said premise can be applied to every law?
Hell fucking no. That’s just dumb.
So I suppose if we make laws against, say, smoking marijuana, usage will totally go down right? How about alcohol prohibition? That worked great as well hmm?
Seriously. Think before you type such nonsense. The fact remains that hate crime legislation punishes the thoughts behind a crime, no matter how much you say it doesn’t. There is no way around that. At all. Every argument you’ve made in favor of hate crime legislation makes it pretty damn clear you are OK with that.
So either admit you’re OK with punishing a criminal’s thoughts, or back down. Unless, once again, you can prove to me that there is some other difference between a hate crime and a crime other than thought.
EDIT: A little bit more on topic, I challenge the claim that MORE punishment = MORE protection. Not that punishment and protection are completely separate.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Hate crimes = Thoughtcrime
Always has and always will. An absolute affront to freedom and liberty in any senses of the word.
The end’s do not justify the means, even IF hate crime legislation were to reduce the amount of “hate” violence. (Anyone have a study for this btw?)[/quote]
Agreed, it is the dumbest idea ever. In Shenandoah, Pa. there was a trial involving two youths who got into a fight and killed an illegal alien. there were four individuals involved. One is being sentenced as a juvenile, one took a deal to plea to a hate crime. The other two got convicted of simple assault.
How did this happen? was it a prejudiced all white jury who go them off? Not really. the feds helped create this mess. They had a hard on for third degree murder and aggravated assault.
Here’s how it went down. The guy who a witness, an illegal alien delivered the fatal kick when he was down was offered probation and was tried as a juvenile. why thye did this I do not know.
The other three two juveniles and one 18 year old were to be tried as an adult. They were all offered a deal by the feds to plead guilty to ethnic intimidation and would get 4-9 years. One gets the deal. the two who went to trial had an attorney who basically told them to go fuck themselves.
Funny thing, the guy who took the deal in exchange for testimony was the fella who hit him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the pavement. So the fellas who are not being tried were the guys fingered by eye witnesses at the scene as dealing the serious blows. WTF?!
Now the other two get simple assault and people are shocked. I’m friends with the brother of the attorney who is defending the juvenile. He told me his brother was at every meeting and the local AG did not do crap and hardly said a word. This was FBI and federal prosecuters looking to get some notches on their belts.
Now the local hispanic community is up in arms, thinking it’s unfair and such. but you won’t see this stuff on the TV news. the behind the scenes stuff, I mean.
My take, the dead guy is a scumbag and the kids are assholes. One who got off is arrogant and according to his mommy can never do anything wrong, but in this case the verdict might be correct.
An illegal alien who is currently serving time for about everything identified the juvenile at the scene as delivering the fatal kick. He was approached early about a deal for testimnoy, why? I think they knew he was gettign a juvenile trial.
the guy who hit him and knocked him over, causing him to strike his head took the federal deal. Now that leaves two guys that might have thrown a punch or two with no serious effect.
Now as for the dead guy. At the time he was banging a 14 year old girl. He was 24. He was also reputed to be dealing drugs. Some people who know the situation closer than I told me about the relationship of him and the girl also mentioned the drug part.
At the time of this incident his " fiancee" a piece of local white trash went around to every media outlet selling her story. She was given money by hispanic groups etc. A lot of money, well into the thousands. She was in People and gave a local Spanish newspaper a picture of her dying “fiancee” lying in his hospital bed in intensive care.
A real class act. Now funny thing is the 14 year old he was banging was this nitwhit’s step sister. Yep, the woman he had two kids with that he was “engaged” to had a step sister he was fooling around with. What does this have to do with anything? The fight supposedly started when the boys yelled to the 14 year old girl wasn’t it past her bed time or curfew? the hispanic fella took offense and starting jawing with them. He took off his shirt and handed this girl his cell phone according to her testimony.
Then the fights tarted. The media portrayed this as some guys looking to beat a Hispanic. the got it wrong. It was a scumbag fighting some assholes because they were both drunk. During the fight, the Hispanic came back for more a few times after he was knocked around. this was not some ethnic intimidation like some are making it to be, just some drunks getting in trouble. Both sides admitted to drinking, BTW.
So this long and rambling post shows what happens sometimes when the cry of ethic intimidation or hate crime goes out and how it can actually screw over a victim. Without the feds running things, there was a better chance of someone getting serious time, most likely the juvenile or the guy who took the deal.
You want to read about this, go google the Hazleton Standard Speakeror the Republican Herald. they don’t have all the info I told you since some is confidetial sort of, but they outline it fairly well.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Unfortunately for you, I can easily prove that laws against murder reduce murders.[/quote]
Why do you think that laws against murder reduce murders? And why do you not think that same cause > effect relationship wouldn’t exist for hate crimes?
It’s impossible to prove a criminal’s thought process. The point, again, is that hate crimes protect groups at higher risk of experiencing violence. How is reducing crime against these higher risk groups undesirable in any way?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Is it based on that premise? Sure. Does that mean said premise can be applied to every law?
Hell fucking no. That’s just dumb.[/quote]
If the law doesn’t reduce the incidence of the crime, why have it in the first place?
Yes, drug and alcohol laws exist because they are believed to reduce drug and alcohol abuse. They don’t eliminate abuse, which is beyond the reasonable scope of any law, but by attaching penalties with breaking these laws, it makes it less likely that people will do so.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
So this long and rambling post shows what happens sometimes when the cry of ethic intimidation or hate crime goes out and how it can actually screw over a victim. [/quote]
I think this is a good example of how difficult it can be to prove that something is in fact a hate crime.
That said, I still think hate crime legislation reduces the incidence of hate crimes, at least that is the theory behind having them. If in fact there is no reduction, I think they should be taken off the books to avoid situations like what you describe.