Matthew Shepard Act

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]forlife wrote:
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?[/quote]

Again, you’re committing the GIGANTIC fallacy of assuming empirical evidence for one relationship is the same for every other relationship of its type. It has been well proven that the death penalty doesn’t reduce violent crimes. It has been well proven that prohibition doesn’t reduce the amount of drinking in a society. It has been well proven that banning Mary Jane doesn’t stop people from toking. Seriously. This entire statement of yours is just fucking stupid.

I don’t “think” laws against murder reduce murders. I know. I do not know that hate crime laws reduce hate crimes. And if they DID, I would STILL be against hate crime legislation, because it is still the thought that is being punished.

[quote]
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]

So if I attack a black guy because he calls me a cock sucker, I’ve committed a hate crime? Even if no racial slurs or even mildly racial comments were involved? You don’t see how that is horribly unjust?

And, as well, you’re treating people as a group. Groups are not individuals. Groups cannot be “hurt” or “helped”. only individuals WITHIN groups can be harmed/helped. Its like saying having a black Preisdent is somehow good for black people. Such a notion is ridiculous. It is good for INDIVIDUALS, who may experience less racism due to a black man in a high position, and it may be BAD for individuals who experience more racism due to such. Even if EVERY single black man benefited from Obama being black, you still could not say having a black man as President inherently helps “blacks”.

There is no “blacks.” There is no “whites.” There is no “gays”. There are only individuals.

And by your argument, why shouldn’t we just have the death penalty for every crime? What’s wrong with wanting to reduce crime? WHY ARE YOU AGAINST REDUCING CRIME!?!?!?

Do you really not see what’s wrong with your logic here?

82

[quote]forlife wrote:
If the law doesn’t reduce the incidence of the crime, why have it in the first place?[/quote]

Because it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that racists are being punished extra.

[quote]
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]

This is bullshit. guess which nation has less per capita pot smokers, the US or the Netherlands?

Attaching a penalty to something doesn’t necessarily decrease its occurrence. And attaching a HIGHER penalty to something that is ALREADY A CRIME certainly doesn’t guarantee a drop in occurrences. That kind of logic is just plain wrong.

83

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
[/quote]

So, in other words, you believe the ends justify the means.

84

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
forlife wrote:
If the law doesn’t reduce the incidence of the crime, why have it in the first place?

Because it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that racists are being punished extra.

…[/quote]

No. If I am not mistaken, calling a crime a hate crime federalizes it. It is no longer assault, subject to local law and courts. Different courts, different jury pool, different procedures, different DAs, different resources.
(But I could be wrong.)

85

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Again, you’re committing the GIGANTIC fallacy of assuming empirical evidence for one relationship is the same for every other relationship of its type.[/quote]

I’m assuming no such thing. I’m stating that the laws exist based on that assumption, and if the laws in fact do not decrease the likelihood of the crime being committed, why have them at all?

So do you support eliminating the death penalty, drug, and alcohol laws?

I have no idea what standards are used to differentiate a hate crime from violent crimes in general. My point is that irrespective of those standards, if hate crime legislation reduces the incidence of hate crimes, then why would you oppose it?

The crux is whether or not hate crime legislation reduces hate crimes. You don’t believe they do, and if you are right, I agree there is no reason to have them. If you are incorrect, I think a case can be made.

It’s not about helping a group, it’s about decreasing the statistical probability that members of said group will be victims of an attack by virtue of belonging to that group.

86

[quote]forlife wrote:

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]

I don’t understand why you think that a crime against a certain group should carry a different punishment. Doesn’t that go against the idea of Americans all being equal? One person’s life is more valueable than another’s because…?

Isn’t the standard penalty for assault/murder enough to deter someone from attacking a member of a “high risk” group?

87

[quote]TxCASH wrote:
I don’t understand why you think that a crime against a certain group should carry a different punishment. Doesn’t that go against the idea of Americans all being equal? One person’s life is more valueable than another’s because…?
[/quote]

Like I said earlier, I have mixed feelings about hate crimes legislation. If hate crimes legislation effectively reduces the incidence of violence against high risk groups, then I see no reason not to have it. If it doesn’t effectively do this, why have the law in the first place?

88

I seriously doubt hate crime legislation does anything to stop the almost non-existant amount of crimes committed against these so-called “high risk” groups. There are already laws protecting people from being attacked, whatever their sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. That should suffice. No group should get special protection. Bottom line.

A little statistics for you…
According to FBI statistics, out of the 1,408,337 violent crimes in 2007, only 7,624 were “hate crimes”. And I’m willing to bet that at least half of those hate crimes weren’t hate crimes at all. They were just altercations among people where one party just so happened to be of a “high risk” group, and because of the unnecessary legislation, they got slammed with a hate crime.

89

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m assuming no such thing. I’m stating that the laws exist based on that assumption, and if the laws in fact do not decrease the likelihood of the crime being committed, why have them at all?[/quote]

That’s it. You’re obviously a moron. I’m sorry, but you contradicted yourself in two sentences. Laws aren’t supposed to be based on assumptions. They are supposed to be based on FACTS and RIGHTS. Like I said, there are many laws that do not decrease the likelihood of the crime being committed, hence you fucking FAIL. Seriously. Unless I’m grossly misinterpreting your argument, you have some serious mental issues.

To be clear, this is what I think your argument is:

  1. The purpose of a law is the reduce the occurrence of a crime.
  2. All laws on the books are based on that assumption.
  3. That assumption must be true in every case, or else all laws are bunk.
  4. Therefore, if hate crime laws don’t reduce the occurrence of hate crimes, our entire legal system is meaningless.

If you haven’t picked up on it by now, premise 3 is fucking stupid. And that makes the conclusion equally as malformed.

[quote]
So do you support eliminating the death penalty, drug, and alcohol laws?[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes in the case of prohibition, and I’d like to see the drinking age reduced to 18 as well as the removal of penalties for parents who let their kids drink (note I said THEIR kids).

[quote]
The crux is whether or not hate crime legislation reduces hate crimes. You don’t believe they do, and if you are right, I agree there is no reason to have them. If you are incorrect, I think a case can be made.[/quote]

I never claimed they did not reduce hate crimes. I merely insinuated that you have yet to provide evidence that they do. I think that is, however, beyond the point. I was providing an argument against an argument I anticipated. If hate crimes laws do reduce the amount of hate crimes, i would STILL be against them. they punish thoughts in the case where they punish racist beatings etc, and they treat classes of people differently (AKA discrimination) based on standards forbidden by the 14th and 5th amendments in the case where entire classes are “protected.”

[quote]
It’s not about helping a group, it’s about decreasing the statistical probability that members of said group will be victims of an attack by virtue of belonging to that group.[/quote]

So why would you only increase the punishment for a particular group? If, as you say, increased punishment leads to increased protection, why not just make the punishment for all violent crimes the death penalty? That would protect us all equally right? Why do you feel it is necessary to single out a class of people grouped by something arbitrary, even if they are statistically more likely to receive violence?

How about this example:

Women are more likely to be victims of rape then men, so should the penalty for male on male rape be less than the penalty for male on female rape?

90

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]

I don’t think they reduce it at all. IMO, I don’t care why you kick my head in. Hating a white straight guy doesn’t make me feel worse or better. Mommy and daddy should have told you not to kick people’s heads in.

If you want to rob me and beat me up, that’s not as bad as beating me because I’m white? Huh?

I saw recently that stats fro crime between black/white goes like this : most crime is black on black, next is black on white, last is white on black. Do you seriously think anyone wil prosecute a black man for a racial slur during the commission of a crime?

And they shouldn’t. the crime is bad enough as it is. This is just special righst and privileges, not equal rights.

91

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
That’s it. You’re obviously a moron. I’m sorry, but you contradicted yourself in two sentences. Laws aren’t supposed to be based on assumptions. They are supposed to be based on FACTS and RIGHTS. Like I said, there are many laws that do not decrease the likelihood of the crime being committed, hence you fucking FAIL. Seriously. Unless I’m grossly misinterpreting your argument, you have some serious mental issues.[/quote]

Ad hominem attacks don’t further your argument in any way. I’ll ignore them for now, but if they continue, you can find someone else to discuss the issue with.

[quote]1. The purpose of a law is the reduce the occurrence of a crime.
2. All laws on the books are based on that assumption.
3. That assumption must be true in every case, or else all laws are bunk.
4. Therefore, if hate crime laws don’t reduce the occurrence of hate crimes, our entire legal system is meaningless.[/quote]

1 is partly true. I haven’t gotten into it, but laws also exist as a punitive measure for crimes that have already been committed, irrespective of the preventive aspects of the law.

2 is true, given the above caveat.

3 is not true. I never suggested all laws are bunk. I did question the specific utility of laws designed to prevent crime, which do not in fact do so.

4 is not true. I never said the entire legal system was meaningless, only that laws designed to prevent crime, which fail to do so, are meaningless.

[quote]So do you support eliminating the death penalty, drug, and alcohol laws?

Yes, yes and yes[/quote]

Sounds like you agree with me then, assuming your statistics on the effectiveness of these laws are correct.

We’re just talking value judgments now. You believe punishing a person’s harmful intent is such a serious violation of human rights that it trumps saving lives through hate crimes legislation. My value system is different, and I disagree. Apparently, so do the large majority of legislators who have approved hate crimes legislation in nearly every state of the country.

Because focused interventions offering additional protection for high risk groups potentially protect more people overall than generic interventions do.

You can get more ducks by sighting along the scope, although doing so effectively narrows your range of vision. You can’t get all the ducks in any case, but focus allows you to get more than having no focus at all.

That is the theory, at least. If your statistics are correct that hate crimes legislation do not actually reduce hate crimes, then it is irrelevant and hate crimes legislation shouldn’t exist.

92

[quote]forlife wrote:
My value system is different, and I disagree. Apparently, so do the large majority of legislators who have approved hate crimes legislation in nearly every state of the country.
[/quote]

Of course legislators push for those types of laws. It scores them major points with minorities or “high risk groups” as you like to call them.

93

[quote]tom63 wrote:
I saw recently that stats fro crime between black/white goes like this : most crime is black on black[/quote]

Well, obviously we need special and tougher penalites for blacks committing crimes against blacks. Call them “Self-hate crimes.” Heck, one might even hear the big N word get thrown around during the crime, making it an open and shut case.

94

[quote]tom63 wrote:
…next is black on white…[/quote]

I’m in a high risk group?!

95

[quote]forlife wrote:
Ad hominem attacks don’t further your argument in any way. I’ll ignore them for now, but if they continue, you can find someone else to discuss the issue with.[/quote]

I apologize. You are not a moron. But the idea I thought you were supporting is moronic. from your quote below, I’ve figured out I misinterpreted a bit.

[quote]

  1. The purpose of a law is the reduce the occurrence of a crime.
  2. All laws on the books are based on that assumption.
  3. That assumption must be true in every case, or else all laws are bunk.
  4. Therefore, if hate crime laws don’t reduce the occurrence of hate crimes, our entire legal system is meaningless.

1 is partly true. I haven’t gotten into it, but laws also exist as a punitive measure for crimes that have already been committed, irrespective of the preventive aspects of the law.

2 is true, given the above caveat.

3 is not true. I never suggested all laws are bunk. I did question the specific utility of laws designed to prevent crime, which do not in fact do so.

4 is not true. I never said the entire legal system was meaningless, only that laws designed to prevent crime, which fail to do so, are meaningless.

So do you support eliminating the death penalty, drug, and alcohol laws?

Yes, yes and yes

Sounds like you agree with me then, assuming your statistics on the effectiveness of these laws are correct. [/quote]

But if the death penalty will reduce violent crime, and that is the purpose of law, why not use it?

[quote]
We’re just talking value judgments now. You believe punishing a person’s harmful intent is such a serious violation of human rights that it trumps saving lives through hate crimes legislation. My value system is different, and I disagree. Apparently, so do the large majority of legislators who have approved hate crimes legislation in nearly every state of the country.[/quote]

Unfortunately, you’re not punishing a persons harmful intent. Because every assault has harmful intent. You’re punishing the racist/sexist/etc thoughts behind that intent. That is a clear violation of the first amendment.

BTW, that is a lovely defense of the US Patriot Act. I suppose Mr. Bush’s value system is just different, and he values our safety more than our 4th amendment rights.

Also, the large majority of legislators voting for something does not make that something just.

One more thing: There is no scale of violation of human rights. Either they’re violated or they aren’t The second we start creating gray areas, we open the door to the end of those rights. We can set limits, for sure, but we cannot create a “scale of violation.” Punishing thoughts is a violation of freedom of speech. Because those thoughts hurt no one. The actions certainly did, but the thoughts did not encroach on anyone’s rights.

[quote]
Because focused interventions offering additional protection for high risk groups potentially protect more people overall than generic interventions do.

You can get more ducks by sighting along the scope, although doing so effectively narrows your range of vision. You can’t get all the ducks in any case, but focus allows you to get more than having no focus at all.

That is the theory, at least. If your statistics are correct that hate crimes legislation do not actually reduce hate crimes, then it is irrelevant and hate crimes legislation shouldn’t exist.[/quote]

Focus? How does that make any sense? You can’t focus a law. Why is punishing one over the others in particular make it less likely to occur? That makes absolutely no sense to me. If hate crime laws did reduce hate crimes, that would be evidence of increased punishment = increased protection. So why wouldn’t we just increase ALL punishments?

And for the love of pete, I never said hate crime laws don’t reduce hate crime! I’ve only said that the burden of proof is on YOU, the man who wants to shit on the first amendment in the name of an end.

96

[quote]Sloth wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I saw recently that stats fro crime between black/white goes like this : most crime is black on black

Well, obviously we need special and tougher penalites for blacks committing crimes against blacks. Call them “Self-hate crimes.” Heck, one might even hear the big N word get thrown around during the crime, making it an open and shut case.

[/quote]

Might as well! What do you do if a black guy robs a white woman and calls her a white bitch? Or a black guy robs a white gay guy? And slurs are yelled? Does the white wipe out the gay? Or does gay trump white?

I’d like someone to show me a single case of a minority prosecuted for a hate crime after these statutes have been in place. I do not believe there wasn’t a honkie or cracker said one time in a commission of a crime.

But the laws are still stupid, call me what you want, but don’t bash my brains in, rob me, or kill me. Your I don’t like this group isn’t the problem, it’s the doing the bad thing is the problem.

And does anyone seriously think that passing a law will bring peace, love and understanding? No it won’t.

97

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
But if the death penalty will reduce violent crime, and that is the purpose of law, why not use it?[/quote]

Why stop there? Why not have the death penalty for jaywalking?

To be just, the punishment has to be commensurate with the crime. I don’t think anyone is advocating the death penalty for violence (as opposed to murder), regardless of whether or not the victim belongs to a high risk group.

The first amendment doesn’t protect free speech to the point of violence against someone else. Free speech is protected only to the point that your fist meets someone else’s face.

Exactly. Most of us disagree with him, but the Patriot Act was clearly informed by the values Bush had as President at the time.

The thoughts produced the action due to their extreme nature. Hatred is protected by freedom of speech to the extent that it is controlled, but when the hatred becomes so virulent that it spills into action, it crosses the line and is no longer protected by the first amendment. It’s a question of degree. Freedom of speech has limits, just as any other freedom does.

Of course you can. Every law has scope. If it didn’t, it would apply universally regardless of the act, the situation, the perpetrator, or the victim, and would be meaningless.

Because it draws attention to that particular target, increasing awareness of the act and the negative consequences of committing the act.

[quote]And for the love of pete, I never said hate crime laws don’t reduce hate crime! I’ve only said that the burden of proof is on YOU, the man who wants to shit on the first amendment in the name of an end.
[/quote]

I’m not the one passing hate crimes legislation. I’m simply pointing out that IF hate crime legislation effectively reduces hate crimes, there is a valid reason for it to exist.

98

In case anyone missed it - if you hold traditional Christian values - you’ve become the minority in America - no one gives a shyte about those things anymore -get used to being persecuted for what you think.

99

You’re welcome to hold “Christian” values and have every right to do so. Just don’t try to push them on everyone else, including other Christians.

100

nice of you to offer those condolences as what everyone else believes get shoved down our throats - thanks for the generosity . . .