Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:38 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2001 6:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 5999
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
Whewwww... Tough issues indeed Ian. . .

Laws must not discriminate. Why should I be treated more leniently for killing a white person than if he were black?

Why should I be given special consideration because the person I robbed was white and therefore the crime wasn't hate related?

Why should O.J. Simpson be acquitted as a sort of "payback" for all the blacks who were unjustly imprisoned?

All too complicated for me. A crime is a crime and justice must be equal for all.

Now I know this isn't the case, but having more laws on the books will not speed up the process of making me live harmoniously with blacks, Jews, Catholics, Chinese, Gays, Stupid people and Taekwondoist!

Equal treatment for all is the only answer.

Boy . . . this thread should get interesting! Image

PS. Remember we are talking issues, not personalities!!!

------------------
GEM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2001 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 270
Location: Washington, DC
I agree that laws cannot force change. But they can encourage change and set a precedent that as a society, this is an ideal we are striving to uphold.

If tolerence for all is the ideal then the laws already cover that...in theory. But in practice there are many times when the "for all" part is forgotten by individuals or groups. That is the time when the laws can highlight and detail how the "for all" needs to be applied to "all".

Perhaps for a brief moment in time this results in something that can be construed as special consideration. And the entire reason for the extra consideration is becuase individuals were not being properly considered in the first place.

I see the focused language of modern anti-discrimation laws as tools to help remind society at large that we are seeking liberty and justice for all - not just for those who we remember to consider.

Hopefully, one day in the future, these new laws will fall by the wayside, as out of date as intolerance.


dana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2001 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
No one should be treated more leniently for robbing a white than a black. Or vice versa. And under hate crimes laws they aren't. **They're laws that provide extra punishment for race based crimes, not special consideration for any particular race.** It goes like this:

If I rob a white guy for money the sentance is X, and if I rob a black guy for money the sentance is X as well.

(Actually, in america, I doubt the black guy would see his attackers punished as severely but that's another story.)

If I rob a white guy to terrorize white people, and this is proven, the sentance is then X+Y. Same with the black guy.

No race is preferentially treated, BUT racist crimes are treated more harshly than nonracist crimes of equal violence. This is because while the first is bad, the second one has an additional impact on the targeted group and race relations in general. Just like copkillers get longer sentances because they killed a person AND attacked the gov't while if they killed someone at random that'd just be the former.


Now OJ getting off made no sense at all. The man's DNA was at the scene of the crime no matter what the police did before or after he killed two people. The general argument for "jury nulification" is that it can provide a way for people to voice opinions about laws or correct mis-enforced laws.

This would make some sense if a freedom advocate sat on a jury faced with the assignment of sending to prison someone that grew pot. He could find a guilty person NG because the law is unjust. Or free a black person facing ten for crack when predominantly black people use crack and predominatly white people serve only 1 for coke (madeup numbers to illustrate harsher sentances for minority favored drugs symptomatic of racism in the justice system). Or free a person "guilty" of defending himself in an attack if the person was charged with assault for defending his home.

This is sane jury nulification. Freeing OJ was just insane.


[This message has been edited by Ian (edited February 17, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2001 5:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
Here's a good crime related tough issue: hate crimes laws, which became a national issue after the murders of Matthew Shepard and the dragging death of an african american in Texas (*kicks self for not being able to remember name*).

Opponents generally say:

1) The penalty the perps were facing is death so what can hate crimes laws add to that?
2) These laws punish thought because the only difference between a murder and a hate provoked murder is motive = thought.
3) These laws create special rights for the protected classes.
4) They won't make a good deterrent anyway, racists or homophobes or whoever isn't planning to get caught.

#1 fails because no law passed after the crime would affect the attackers; rather, it could only affect future attackers, whose sentances may be increased.

#2 mostly fails because there's no punishment for thinking, just for an action. Arguments could be made that hate crimes affect more people than standard murders.

#3 "Special rights" like these already exist for many. There's a greater punishment for shooting the president or a cop because these crimes attack a government as well as a person. So why not a greater punishment for shooting a minority *because* they're a minority, because its an attack on the whole group?

#4 could be said about any punishment, and isn't, so there must be some other reason people who use it oppose the laws.

Proponents tend to use arguments like these:

#1 hate crimes are more vicious than other crimes because they're directed against a group. Beat one gay person, and it has a chilling effect on the activities, lives, open-ness, speech, and ability to associate of the others. This does not occur with random crimes, and therefore extra punishment is appropriate.

#2 Society by means of cultural prejudice and discriminatory laws makes second class citizens out of minorities who are victims of a disproportionate number of crimes, and society needs to make a statement that it as a whole disaproves of hate crimes. It is the perception of society's dislike for minorities that allows these crimes to happen. This more than the deterrent value of additional punishment is what may prevent crimes in the future.

The argument against #1 is that a person is a person and it's not always easy to show an attacker meant to terrorize a community instead of beat one person. Against #2 it could be said that crime legislation is not the best way to handle discrimination in society, and that groups pushing for these laws could be working on education and the like.

Personally I don't think the laws make much more than a symbolic difference, but I think it's an important symbol. Further, I think the dialog is key. If someone's arguement against hate crimes laws is that they're not going to work that's one thing, but if its because that person hates gay people, that's quite another. And that's what it often comes down to, with sugarcoating. The VA govenor, Gilmore, said he doesn't think gays should be covered in hate crimes laws because there are already enough laws to cover assault. Fine, but then I have to wonder **why isn't he opposed to protecting women, racial minorities and religious groups?**

I also think that hate is taught to children, sometimes by adults, often by each other. Young kids are often the best about being accepting of the old, the different colors we have, different religions and sexual orientations and so on. Only later do they learn to hate. The best way to prevent hate crimes, I think, is to promote tolerance *and acceptance* of all these groups in our public schools and expose them to the consequences of prejudice from the beginning.

Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:42 pm 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
No one should be treated more leniently for robbing a white than a black.
Do you mean that a black should be treated more leniently for robbing a white man than a whittie should?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
No, Sensei Mattson means that the race of your victim should not affect your sentancing. And naturally neither should your race.

Hate crime laws wouldn't treat crimes against whites or blacks any differently, they would just treat racist, sexist, homophobicly motivated crimes more harshly whatever the races, genders, sexual orientations etc of the attacker and victim.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2001 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
There is no need for any "hate crime" laws. The fact is that every crime is in some way a "hate crime". There are laws to be enforced regardless of any discriminatory overtures. To keep from fanning any flames, we can stay away from the fact that these laws create harsher punishments for perpetrators against certain groups and instead focus on a group (which Ian mentioned) that transcends race, religion, sex and sexuality. Law enforcement officers.

In Massachusetts a few years ago, there was a push on to pass the death penalty as a punishment for murder. Advocates and opponents of this new law came out of the woodwork from various places. A man who's son was kidnapped and brutally murdered, a woman who's sister was abducted, raped and murdered, and opponents who considered murder sanctioned by the State no different than murder committed by an individual. However they all missed one little detail of the proposed legislation... It wouldn't have changed the penalties in any of the mentioned cases one bit! Why? Because the proposed legislation only increased the penalty to death in the case of the murder of a police officer or other government employee. there's no need to get into any debate over the death penalty one way or the other in general to have a reason for opposing this particular law.

Murder is murder. Period, end subject. The murder of someone who happens to be wearing a badge is no more or less heinous than the murder of anyone else. (Especially, IMNSHO, if that someone else happens to be one of my loved ones!) My opposition to the proposed legislation as written need no more reason (in my mind/opinion) than the fact that (for me) there isn't an LEO or government employee in the land who's life is worth more than my loved ones. Period, end subject. They are not more important. If the death penalty is a good idea for someone who murders a cop, then it's just as good an idea for someone that murders your or my loved ones. The same holds true in the case of supposed "hate crime" laws.

I recently had the conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be a minority. He stated in unequivocal terms that if a white person commits a crime against a minority, then it is, by definition, a "hate crime" deserving of additional penalties! His position was that if a minority robs/mugs a white or another minority or a white robs/mugs a white, then that is just a "regular" crime... however, if a white robs/mugs a minority, then that's a "hate crime"! Image What?!?!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Not equal in ability. Not equal in outcome or even opportunity... But rather Equal in the eyes of the law! That is proven in the writings of the Founders. Therefore, if we are all "equal in the eyes of the law", it is incumbent on each of us to make sure that the laws are applied equally... regardless of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. One place to start is by not getting out of jury duty... serve on the jury and know what your duties and Rights are as a juror. You not only have the duty and the Right to judge on the evidence in the case, but also on the fairness, validity and Constitutionality of the law being enforced. If it is an unConsitutional or unjust law, nullify it. If it is being applied in an unjust way, state the fact and either lower the charge or acquit the defendant with a strong message of admonishment to the court. That principle has been used and upheld since the days of Thomas Paine...



[This message has been edited by Panther (edited February 19, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2001 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
The thought crime concern is serious and I understand why people have it. Let's take a peek at how the US actually does punish thought, however:

#1 I shoot and kill Ted.

Motive A: to steal his money
Motive B: by mistake in a hunting accident
Motive C: to protect my family because Ted was breaking in with a mac 10.

In A the punishment is for murder. In B it could range from invol. manslaughter to nothing (Ted wearing a deersuit). In C the penalty is or should be nothing.

Now I know we're used to thinking of these as completely different ACTS. But they're not. They're different mental states. Notice that only motive differentiates the "acts" which in all cases are, "I shoot Ted."

Let's look at the following scenario:

#2 I a) during a robbery, I order a kid to be in his room for 5 minutes. b) I knife two parents to death.

If during a robbery i just told a kid to be somewhere, that'd probably not even come up in a trial. But say I ordered the kid to be somewhere so he had to watch his parents being slayed. That's be extremely cruel. What differentiates the actions is my cruelty. Two bodies in both cases but in another additional mental anguish.

As for treating all humans identically, and treating all crimes identically, what do people think about this:

#3 a teen:
1) spraypaints a flower on synogogue.
2) spraypaints swastika, and scenes of death on a synagogue

Which one did more damage? Which one are you more worried about going really bad? The physics of paint on the wall ar the same, the monetary repair cost is the same; the intent differs and the crime done differs too.

So look at this math:

#4 I shoot a person for their wallet. VERSUS I shoot a minority during the 60's south in order to: terrorize the whole group, prevent them from exercising their right to free speech and association and voting, out of fear. The shooting and the body count are the same, the intent differs.

Sentance for the murder: X

For the murder and the terrorism: X + Y

For bubba, who wished the same malice on blacks but never left his home that night: NOTHING.

For bubba, who is racist, but later kills a man for his wallet: X

**No thought is punished; only terrorism: an action motivated by a thought.** There has to be an action. What do people think?

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited February 19, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 821
Location: Ptld OR USA
In my opinion, the law _only_ has a right to judge on actions. I believe that punishing thoughts and motives is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment. I also dread the institution of a "thought crime" as a tool to control the people. No matter the value or horror of the thought controlled to some, the precedence is in place.

By hate crimes legislation, I believe we are creating the modern version of a punishment for heresy, a punishment for thinking differently than the state wishes one to think. A heresy implies a dogma. I firmly believe that the most important part of the American Experiment was the creation of a government with absolutely no right to attempt to control the minds of the citizens in any way.

JMO,
Rory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2001 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:

So look at this math:

I shoot a person for their wallet. VERSUS I shoot a minority during the 60's south in order to: terrorize the whole group, prevent them from exercising their right to free speech and association and voting, out of fear. The shooting and the body count are the same, the intent differs.

Sentance for the murder: X

For the murder and the terrorism: X + Y

For bubba, who wished the same malice on blacks but never left his home that night: NOTHING.

For bubba, who is racist, but later kills a man for his wallet: X

**No thought is punished; only terrorism: an action motivated by a thought.** There has to be an action. What do people think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many thoughts and they will be coming soon... However, let me wonder out loud why it always has to be "during the 60's south"? And then the use, with resulting connotations of the term "bubba"...

Here's a tid-bit of information and food for thought for you.

I grew up "in the 60's South". Yes, there were racial problems in the South. there were also racial problems in the rest of the country... including the North, but those didn't garner the national media attention. In 1966, we were told to integrate... specifically the public schools. In 1967, a year before the civil rights act was actually passed, we started school in the fall with black, white, red and yellow all sitting in the same classrooms. Interestingly enough, in my home town, the biggest opposition to integration came from the all-black school officials. (and yes, I realize that it isn't "PC" to use the term "black" anymore, but that's how all my black friends referred to themselves and thats how I referred to them... It was a statement of observable fact, not racism.) Anyway... I had been going to school and playing after school with other kids of various races for four years when I saw the enormous violence that integration was causing in another part of the country... A few years after that, I happened to move to that area. It's called "Boston"! A full nine years after we had started back to fully integrated schools in my area of the South, I watched the TV in horror from my Boston apartment as whites from "southie" and "eastie" nearly overturned busses and threw bricks at innocent black grade-school children who were forcefully being bussed into the area under a judges orders! I sat with tears in my eyes and can still remember the image to this day of a terrified, crying little black girl shown on TV who was being whisked away after an injury from one of those bricks. Despicable. Yes, there was opposition to desegregation in the South. There were protests, there were incidents of tear-gas and water-cannons and all manner of civil rights abuses... They began in the 50s and carried into the 60s. There was name-calling and viciousness. But make no mistake about it... The ugly head of racism is not the sole purview of the South... nor is it a strictly "white" affliction. Trash comes in all creed, color, sex, sexual orientation and nationality... In that respect, I consider myself an "equal opportunity bigot"... I despise all that "trash" and think it's past time in this country to "empty the trash". It is disheartening, as a person from the South and who is proud of his Southern Heritage to continually get bombarded with erroneous hollywood and Northern stereotypes based solely on my place of birth or the accent in my voice. After over 24 years in Massachusetts, I must tell you that the comments about my assumed inherent racism and my assumed geneological "in-breeding" have grown old and tiresome. These "jokes" and innuendos still occur on almost a daily basis... after twenty-four years. Something to think about... your statement could have been just as accurate if it had been "during the 70's in east Boston".



[This message has been edited by Panther (edited February 22, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2001 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Hidden Hate Crimes
By Greg Kay

(NOTE: Please read the whole article before complaining; it may not be what you think.)

"Hate Crimes"; it's the latest political catch-phrase, attracting knee-jerk attention from politicians and laymen alike. Laws against hate crime are passed, more are considered, and still more are called for daily, in spite of those few cries raised that the very term is an oxymoron and that EVERY violent crime is, by the very nature of the act, a "hate crime", and that one is no more worthy of special attention and punishment than any other.

What is a hate crime? It is, by the "modern" definition, an illegal act against another individual or group based, in whole or in part, on some particular personal attribute of the person, such as their ethnicity or religion; in other words, a hate crime is an act of bias or discrimination. In the liberal mindset, this motivation makes the act more grievous and more worthy of punishment than violent acts committed for other reasons, such as sexual pleasure or economic gain.

On the surface, the motivations behind the supporters of the concept of "hate crimes" may seem both admirable and practical in this society of revolving-door prisons; yet the underlying purpose and real-world application of this paradigm run into some real problems. Consider the following examples:

Fayetteville, North Carolina: As part of an initiation into a white supremacist gang, two teenaged black girls were kidnapped and shot to death. Six white adults and one juvenile were taken into custody, and police reported finding racist-related material in the suspects' possession, identified as being associated with known race-based criminal organizations.

Flint, Michigan: Three black teenagers (a 15 year old boy, and a 14 year old boy and girl) wandered into a white neighborhood by mistake, and were seeking a pay phone to call for a ride home when they were attacked by a gang of white racists. They robbed the teens, beat them, gang-raped the girl, then shot all three in the head, execution-style.

Witchita, Kansas: In the culmination of a week-long crime spree that has already left one dead and one severely injured, two white brothers broke into an apartment, where they robbed five young black professionals at gun-point, then kidnapped them. They forced them to drive first to a nearby ATM and withdraw money, then took them to a nearby athletic field, where both women were stripped and raped by the brothers as the male victims were forced to watch; then the women were forced to perform homosexual acts on each other, and finally the men were forced to have sex with the women, all for the amusement of the pair of criminals. Tiring of the game, they then shot all five, execution-style. One woman managed to survive, and staggered naked and bleeding through the snow for over a mile to get help.

"EXACTLY!" the hate crimes law supporters exclaim. "These are PERFECT examples of the type of crimes that this type of legislation is designed to address."

Well, not exactly and not so perfect, either. You see, NONE of these examples are hate crimes. Nope; not a one has been or is being prosecuted as such. How can that be? Easy; I lied. Not about the events; no, each and every one of these sordid, savage affairs took place exactly in the ways and places described, with a single exception - I just reversed the races of the victims and their attackers. That's why none of them were adjudged to be hate crimes; ALL of the victims were actually white and ALL of their attackers were black.

Rest assured that, had the races been as I deceptively described them, i.e. white on black, they would have been automaticly presumed to be hate crimes and been shouted from the housetops and screamed from pulpits all across the world. The news media would have done endless repetitive hours of specials and interviews with sobbing relatives, Jesse would be fighting with Al for the microphone, and still more legislation would be desperately rushed through congress to deal with this terrible problem. These victims were white, however, so we don't hear a peep.

Why is that? For many reasons, but here are the four major ones; the status quo, culture, mental illness, and racism. Let's take them in order.

The status quo, or existing order of things is that whites are among the "natural" prey of black criminals, while white criminals do not normally prey on blacks. I can hear the stuttering liberal parrots firing up now, "What about...What about...What about..." Well, I'll tell you what about. Statistics show that, in crimes of violence that involve both blacks and whites (whites in the study included those of European, Middle Eastern and Hispanic origin), blacks were 90% more likely to be committing the crime against whites than vice-versa; in other words, 9 out of 10 times! In fact, black on white crime is so common as to be literally an everyday thing, while white on black crime attracts notice simply the fact that it is so rare makes it remarkable

The difference in white and black culture exacerbates the situation. When a white man commits a crime of extreme violence against anyone, black or white, whites in general are quick to condemn it, and rightly so, as we saw in the dragging death of the black man in Jasper Texas by three whites, and tend to have the attitude of "Take the S.O.B. out and hang him!" Blacks in general, on the other hand, will rally around even the most heinous, violent, deviant and obviously guilty criminals SOLELY BECAUSE OF RACE, holding demonstrations and prayer vigils, not for the victim or the victim's family, but for the criminal. The self-appointed black "leadership" will be flown in to explain that it's not the perpetrator's fault, but it's really society's fault - the white part of society in particular, and even the act of charging him, let alone convicting and punishing him, is racism by it's very nature. Tenured black law professors will tell the black public that they should never vote as a juror to convict any black man of a crime against whites under any circumstances, lest they be a traitor to their race. (I would like to see the result of a white professor trying the same thing.)

This situation is the result of a significant percentage of both societies being mentally ill. Much of "mainstream" black culture is sociopathic and illusionary in nature, transferring guilt for the actions of their members elsewhere (to white society) and developing the paradox of low self esteem coupled with an out-of-control ego, based not on the accomplishments of the successful members of their race (These are rejected, because they don't fit the black self-image.), but on the paranoid fantasies of victimization. White culture, on the other hand, has, through constant liberal conditioning, not only rejected it's own accomplishments, but actually feels guilty for having made them. In fact, "acceptable" white culture is infected with an obsessive guilt complex and such a full-blown phobia about being called "racist" or "insensitive" that it will readily abandon logic, common sense, and even basic survival instincts in it's compulsive desire to be liked.

These two delusional outlooks compliment and feed off each other in a symbiotic relationship, and woe betide the individual from either race who dares to rock the boat by challenging these tightly-held beliefs; if black, he will be branded a traitor or an "Uncle Tom" and if white, he will be excoriated as a racist of the worst kind. Either label gives both groups the excuse that they need to ignore the offender's arguments, whoever accurate they may be.

The strangest part of the whole thing is that it IS based on racism - anti-black racism at that! Of course, the preponderance of black on white attacks and their staunch defense in the black community at large definitely indicate anti-white bias and discrimination; however, it is based on anti-black racism, by both whites and blacks! The only logical conclusion to the argument of both the "mainstream" blacks and liberal whites that a criminal is somehow less responsible for his actions or has a different capability of emotions and motivations simply because of his race is that he is inherently not as mentally competent or maybe not even as human as are members of the other races. This is the argument that the KKK and similar groups have been making for years, and every single incident like this adds credence to their claims.

Not me. No, black community and their white apologists, I'm not going to let you off that easy!

You see, I've seen far too many good men and women, the Clarence Thomas', Walter Williams' and Bob Harrisons, who happened to be black to believe that you have, geneticly, any less capacity for intelligence or any more propensity for violence inborn in you than people of any other color. That tells me one thing, black criminal; you are the way you are for no other reasons than that's what YOU choose to be, your community allows you to be, and the white liberal hand-wringers encourage you to be, holding you down by making excuses for your inexcusable behavior and not demanding that you be given the same right to be responsible for your own behavior as anyone else!

I don't want to hear your excuses - yours OR those of your apologists. You're men and women, not animals; so stand up on your hind legs out of your gutter of self-pity and victimization culture and act like it! You want to be accepted fully and willingly into society, then act in a socially acceptable manner! You want to get respect, then you've got to have respect; respect for the rest of us and respect for yourself! Until YOU demand acceptable behavior from the members of your own communities, and YOU hold yourselves to the same standards and responsibilities that you would like to hold everyone else to, then YOU are never going to be anything BUT a victim of the ultimate hate crime - that of self-hatred!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2001 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 821
Location: Ptld OR USA
Cool, so that's how the quote function works.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian:

#1 I shoot and kill Ted.

Motive A: to steal his money
Motive B: by mistake in a hunting accident
Motive C: to protect my family because Ted was breaking in with a mac 10.

In A the punishment is for murder. In B it could range from invol. manslaughter to nothing (Ted wearing a deersuit). In C the penalty is or should be nothing.

Now I know we're used to thinking of these as completely different ACTS. But they're not. They're different mental states.

Rory: Ian, I have to believe that you are too intelligent to confuse "motive" and "intent". Is this example just a disingenuous debating tactic or are you serious?


Ian: Let's look at the following scenario:

#2 I a) during a robbery, I order a kid to be in his room for 5 minutes. b) I knife two parents to death.

If during a robbery i just told a kid to be somewhere, that'd probably not even come up in a trial. But say I ordered the kid to be somewhere so he had to watch his parents being slayed. That's be extremely cruel. What differentiates the actions is my cruelty. Two bodies in both cases but in another additional mental anguish.

Rory- In this state, agg. murder either way. Multiple homicides in commission of another crime. But let's say you _feel_ that you should be punished more for having a child watch. Then set up having the child watch as an additional charge, child abuse.

Ian: As for treating all humans identically, and treating all crimes identically, what do people think about this:

#3 a teen:
1) spraypaints a flower on synogogue.
2) spraypaints swastika, and scenes of death on a synagogue

Which one did more damage? Which one are you more worried about going really bad? The physics of paint on the wall ar the same, the monetary repair cost is the same; the intent differs and the crime done differs too.

Rory- Yes, which is why we have the separate crimes of Vandalism, Harrassment and Intimidation. Now, what if someone painted flowers on a steakhouse in a clear example of vegan aggression?

Ian: So look at this math:

#4 I shoot a person for their wallet. VERSUS I shoot a minority during the 60's south in order to: terrorize the whole group, prevent them from exercising their right to free speech and association and voting, out of fear. The shooting and the body count are the same, the intent differs.

Sentance for the murder: X

For the murder and the terrorism: X + Y

For bubba, who wished the same malice on blacks but never left his home that night: NOTHING.

For bubba, who is racist, but later kills a man for his wallet: X

Rory: This particular example is so jingoistic, I almost don't want to touch it. I will point out again that denying access to voting rights, speech or association are all separate charges and would make a crime that had these effects more egregious regardless of race of victim or perpetrator and without resorting to hate crimes legislation. I will also point out that attempting to add penalties because of the literature a criminal reads, the people he or she associates with, what they say or the tattoos they wear are EQUALLY VIOLATIONS OF THEIR RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION.

Ian: **No thought is punished; only terrorism: an action motivated by a thought.** There has to be an action. What do people think?

Rory: Yes there must be an action. Yes, action is motivated by thought. If those in power choose to punish equivalent actions differently based on whether or not the thought they assume is behind it is palatable to them, then they are punishing thoughts.

Rory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2001 5:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 51
Location: Climax, MI U.S.A.
I've seen this article before, and I still like it. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2001 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
The other options for dealing with certain aspects of some crimes don't work as well in some situations and in all, aren't arguments against hate crimes laws, just alternatives.

For example, in my 60's south example [used because it was the easiest way to get at what I was meaning, not to incriminate all southerners or imply that northerners are faultless], the murderer DOES NOT deny anyone voting rights or free speech. There is NO WAY they could be prosecuted for such. However the fact of their crime is that it terrorizes people into not being able to use these rights. That's why they harm more people than random murders. That's what the laws attempt to address.

I think there should be a heavy burden on the prosecution to prove that a hate crime took place. Maybe I just never heard it, but I'm not aware of any convincing evidence in that TX dragging case that the attackers targeted the victim because he was black and not because they were just animals. Now I AM aware of what in my mind constitutes proof that the murderers of Matthew Shepard intended to kill him FOR being gay and as a result, they terrorized MANY individuals. Down here in Virginia, for example, there was an effect on the gay community that would not have been felt if MS had been killed for the contents of his wallet. FYI, murders of gay people for being gay continue at a rate equivalent to that of the lynching of blacks during the civil rights struggle.

If Rory wants to simply CALL hate crimes Intimidation or Harrassment and file that charge against the perpetrators instead, that would accomplish exactly the same thing in my mind. I don't see how it would change the central point I am trying to make: that hate crimes legislation should punish people for the additional crime of sending a message of intimidation, and should never be used in a biased fashion that assumes anything about race etc relations in the united states. Let the standards of proof be the same for black and white and whomever else.

But let me also point out that vegans really cannot send a message of cultural intimidation to carnivores. Eating meat is not integral to a person's identity, targeting meat eaters would be almost the same as targeting the whole country (almost EVERYONE "singled out") and vegans don't have the cultural power to intimidate meat eaters, the way gays can't send messages to heterosexuals letting them know they're the subject of systematic antistraight discrimination in housing, employment, the legal system and in the arena of personal safety. So I don't worry about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2001 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 1070
I am of many, many minds about hate-crime legislation; yet, for the most part, I don't favor it.

I am a Jew. I am in the first generation of my family born in this country. Doubtless I have lost relatives in the Holocaust. I know I lost an aunt to a Cossack pogrom in the Ukraine.

And yet I do not favor most hate-crime legislation for three reasons: 1) the difficulty in crafting; 2) the difficulty in enforcing; 3) the unlikeliness of its deterrent effect.

Difficulty in crafting

Free speech is never a problem with popular speech. Advocating mom and apple pie will not bring down the wrath of the system upon you.

I have no love whatsoever for White Aryan Resistance, Covenant and Sword of the Lord, Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam, to use some severe examples. But cutting off their right to speak eventually will have impact on my own right to speak - or yours. Once we start legislating in that direction, I fear the end result.

Difficulty In Enforcing

Adding an additional element to crimes, that of a hateful intent, makes the job of the prosecutor all the more difficult. The prosecutor must now not only show the behavior, but also prove the motivation in order to obtain the conviction. Many of the crimes covered by hate-crime legislation were crimes without the additional element, and consequently should be easier to prove in court without that extra burden.

Lack Of Deterrence

I do not agree with His Occupancy about a lot of things, but in the debates with Gore, Bush correctly pointed out that the crimes for which the three in Texas were tried carried the possibility if the death penalty; two of them were sentenced to death.

If the death penalty for murder does not deter murder, why would we think an enhanced penalty for it being a hate crime (and there's a bizarre thought for you; how do you intend to enhance the death penalty?) would deter murder any better?

student

[This message has been edited by student (edited February 23, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group