|
|
| Posted: 01 Jul 2008 17:32 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So why bother with hate crimes? In order to punish someone more severely for a crime of hate you must first know what was going on inside that person's mind. Do you not? Is it not more just to punish the act itself rather than try and guess as to what the person felt toward the victim? If someone shoots someone of complete indifference is it not as bad as shooting someone out of hate? Either murderer is a danger to society.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 01 Jul 2008 18:13 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
In order to punish someone more severely for a crime of hate you must first know what was going on inside that person's mind.
There has to be evidence beyond the shadow of doubt that personal hatred was the motivational cause of the crime for additional penalties to be applied. It is no more guesswork than determining any other motive for any other crime. There are rules and processes that must be adhered to.
I do agree that shooting someone is still just shooting someone, regardless of motivation and does not affect whether it is a crime or not. It doesn't really change it to a better or worse crime because of the motivation, does it? I completely agree with you there.
Where our paths are diverging is on what the legislation is for. Hate crime legislation isn't about making a particular crime seem better or worse. It is supposed to be a deterrent for people thinking of acting on that hate. The way it becomes a deterrent is when people see others getting punished(legally and justifiably so)for acting on their hatred.
I gather that the main reason you oppose the legislation is that you think your religious leaders or maybe some of your religious friends might get hammered by the law for speaking out against homosexuals. If there are other reasons you have for being against this, please point them out. If this is the only reason you are against it....tough. There is a huge difference between pointing out a passage in the bible to explain or defend it and going on a hate-filled diatribe against them which may incite peoples hearing it to act on that hatred. There is a huge difference between sharing an opinion in a helpful or caring manner and forcing your opinion on someone.
For a person to feel ill effects of that legislation they would have to be found guilty of a crime in the first place-criminals don't deserve too much sympathy as far as I'm concerned. The criminals we speak of here are guilty of harming another person, destroying property, or some combination of the two. They're being found guilty of those particular crimes or they are not-if not guilty they won't have to contend with hate crime legislation at all. If they are found guilty of harming another person or destroying someone's property we now move on to determining penalties for their determined guilt which is when the court takes into account the motive for the crime. Trying to kill a gay guy and trying to kill a guy because he's gay is the same crime but does not warrant an equal penalty. Again, this is done as a deterrent for people who hate gays and would even possibly attempt to kill one.
I'd like to also remind you of a few things you might have glossed over in trying to defend hate speech. The legislation has been on the books since (I believe-you can look it up to argue if you like) 1969. The only change in the recent legislation is that it added one group to the already established protected groups from the earlier legislation. That extra group would be people of an 'alternative sexual lifestyle'. That group has been added to the definition of who gets protected by already existing legislature- one of which is people of any certain faith or denomination thereof.
The only reason some of your religious leaders are kicking up a fuss about hate crime legislation might be because this finally shows them as the criminals they've been all along.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 01 Jul 2008 18:26 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Should there be extra punishment doled out for someone attacking religious groups or no? No.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 01 Jul 2008 20:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I'm not convinced entirely and as bad as this sounds, I would like to see your actual response when faced with the actual situation. I don't really wish anyone harm but I really believe you'd react completely differently if on the receiving end of it.
Since it is highly unlikely that someone in your particular community is going to go rogue against your religious group(which might explain a sense of security that shades your answer), and increasingly less plausible I would see the results of it, perhaps you could answer another question instead.
What exactly would we gain by taking away the amended group to the legislation if not the whole legislation?
Consider that the answer would be put side by side with why we should keep it.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 02 Jul 2008 01:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Since it is highly unlikely that someone in your particular community is going to go rogue against your religious group(which might explain a sense of security that shades your answer), and increasingly less plausible I would see the results of it, perhaps you could answer another question instead.
You do know I'm a street preacher right? We're attacked all the time, legally harassed, you name it. So to imply that I don't really mean what I say, that my principles aren't really what I'm basing this on and that I am only saying that because I know that I'll never be put to the test, you'd be surprised.
And if you don't mind, could you rephrase your question? I want to make sure you're asking what I think you're asking before I answer.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 02 Jul 2008 03:14 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
We have hate crime legislation in place right now. You and Tim are against it for whichever reasons which says to me you think we would be better off without it. I am asking what would society gain as a consideration for removing said legislation -or- what do we gain from taking away the intended benefits of it?
I can applaud your efforts as someone who walks his talk but I still think strongly you haven't really seen the business end of a true hate crime. I don't mean that as an attack or defamation of your character, just something of a 'vibe' for lack of a better term. I'm having a hard time imagining what's happened to you on a similar par with other horror stories I've heard.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 02 Jul 2008 14:42 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
well, Pak, you are probably right that other folks have no doubt endured pretty horrible treatment by some pretty horrible people . I've never been killed (obviously) although I have been assaulted while on the street. I have been spit on and called names and even had used condoms and beer bottles thrown at me while preaching. But I don't need to have experienced something to have a valid opinion about it.
I suspect as a a cabbie you've had to develop a pretty good 'vibe' for human nature. So let's assume your right that I've never been the victim of what you would refer to as a 'hate crime'.
Let's back up a bit. What is the purpose of laws? According to the Declaration of Independence you have certain inalienable rights and governments and laws are instittued to protect those rights from violation by your fellow man.
So let's take a case that I think we can both agree is a horrible crime, the case of Matthew Shepard. Although I am not an advocate of homosexuality, nobody deserves what they did to him. So let me ask you,keeping in mind that we as a society have invented all kinds of goofy rights that have no basis except inour own whimsical notions, what natural born rights of Matthew Shepard were violated? Laying aside all our national PC hand-wringing, what actualy happened?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 02 Jul 2008 14:51 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Pak does getting robbed by a black man count as a hate crime?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Jul 2008 01:38 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
What is the purpose of laws?
Already answred this. In the case of this particular legislature it's an attempt to prevent people from being victimized which is done by extra punishment on violators. I'll go further by putting this in the same league as drug free school zones and third strike rules for repeat offenders.
Quote:
what actualy happened?
I am honestly not familiar with the case.
Quote:
does getting robbed by a black man count as a hate crime?
If you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt he did it solely motivated because of a)your apparent race/color/creed/gender, b)your apparent religion, or c)your apparent sexual preference, then yes.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
|
