Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel2

LDS Church won’t oppose Utah LGBT Hate Crimes Bill

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In terms of the victim, at the core does it make a difference? I don't see any. 

But it does for potential future victims.  There may be a greater likelihood that the attacker will attack another if the motivation is more generic (in the terms of hating a group) than personal (attacking an individual for qualities more or less unique to that individual).  I don't know if this is so, but if it is, it could justify harsher punishment if the punishment acts as a deterrent for either him or others who think like him or are prone to see him as a role model/leader or it keeps him incarcerated longer so he can't attack others...at least outside the prison.

Also I expect it may help a victim going through the process of healing if it is publicly recognized in an obvious way that this wasn't about them, they weren't being a jerk or provocative, etc. in much the same way that public recognition that a rape victim didn't "ask for it" by some provocative behaviour can help that victim move away from feelings of guilt victims so often have.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/25/2019 at 10:13 AM, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry but I can't see how the church is so awesome for doing this, where it should have been a given! 

For those of us who have been stepped on it's big, Christians in the usa don't have the best track record over stuff like this.  Have seen more than my share of Christians act like entitled bigots, related to a few sadly.  Things like this will probably help the church out a bit.  Religion in general is hemorrhaging members esp. Men.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Punishment for a crime is not exclusively about the victim. It is also about the integrity of the community/society being attacked.

We fortunately do not have the problem from the story about the Greek had who freed his childhood slave nurse. She married afterwards but her husband died. Then she was murdered. Because she was not his slave anymore and she had no kin there was no one with standing to seek legal redress. Or the medieval approach where you needed a son in order to inherit your titles and avenge your death if necessary.

Bill burns down John's house because John is Puerto Rican and Bill hates Puerto Ricans. 

Bob burns down Martha's house to cover up evidence of a burglary in which all her valuables were stolen. 

Tom burns down Al and Jane's house because he is a druggy-wacked-out arsonist.

Bill, Bob, and Tom are apprehended, tried, and convicted.

John, Martha, Al, and Jane lost all of their possessions and suffered severe long-lasting emotional distress. 

Should Bill get a greater punishment than Bob and Tom? Why? 

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, because Bill is making an entire race fearful for their safety in this community.

Bob has a reason for what he is doing (even thought he is an idiot) and is unlikely to create a culture of fear with his actions. Unless there are a ton of druggie-wacked out arsonists in the community (doubtful) Tom is also not creating a climate of fear. Note that under normal sentencing guidelines most judges use to determine sentences both Bob and Tom are likely to get harsh sentences as well because neither is a crime of passion.

I see a lot of inconsistencies in your explanation. First and foremost is that the three victims suffer the exact same loss, but only one of them is privileged. The crime is perpetrated by an individual against an individual, not a community of evil-doers against a community of victims. This is not equal protection. If you live in an area with a lot of whacked out druggies, you do live in fear. Doesn’t make sense.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I see a lot of inconsistencies in your explanation. First and foremost is that the three victims suffer the exact same loss, but only one of them is privileged. The crime is perpetrated by an individual against an individual, not a community of evil-doers against a community of victims. This is not equal protection. If you live in an area with a lot of whacked out druggies, you do live in fear. Doesn’t make sense.

Some of us just haven't swallowed the cool-aid. I don't know if it is because of first-hand experience with protected classes or an individual's resistance to societal pressures, but some folks have been conditioned to call black, white and white, black. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I see a lot of inconsistencies in your explanation. First and foremost is that the three victims suffer the exact same loss, but only one of them is privileged. The crime is perpetrated by an individual against an individual, not a community of evil-doers against a community of victims. This is not equal protection. If you live in an area with a lot of whacked out druggies, you do live in fear. Doesn’t make sense.

So 9/11 was not an attack on the community. It was an attack by a group of individuals against a group of individuals?

Why did we attack Afghanistan again?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Some of us just haven't swallowed the cool-aid. I don't know if it is because of first-hand experience with protected classes or an individual's resistance to societal pressures, but some folks have been conditioned to call black, white and white, black. 

The Kool-Aid of accepting that criminal activity has wider societal ramifications then just the perpetrator and the victim? I did not realize this was such a disputed issue. Have you read up on penal theory at all? The reasoning is endemic to our legal system. I am curious why you choose now to complain. Also why you think this is a moral issue but the thread is based on the idea that apostles and prophets do not agree.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/25/2019 at 4:41 PM, strappinglad said:

This law is just another tool in the prosecutors  kit to get a conviction for something. A black guy attacks a gay white male , beats him and steals his watch while yelling ," I hate whites!" .  How many crimes were committed ? Anyone want to lay odds on the guy being charged for a hate crime because of what he yelled? How about a threat of being charged with a hate crime because the victim was gay? 

Are you saying hate crimes against white people arent prosecuted?

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/z4jadx/can-you-commit-a-hate-crime-against-a-white-person

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chicago_torture_incident

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So 9/11 was not an attack on the community. It was an attack by a group of individuals against a group of individuals?

Why did we attack Afghanistan again?

Act of war versus crime> Different laws and standards apply. Apples vs oranges.

By this logic, if a guy doesn't like Puerto Ricans and burns down someone's house, then law enforcement should burn down his neighborhood.

Questioning the validity and efficacy of hate crime legislation does not mean one devalues minorities if that is where you are heading.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Kool-Aid of accepting that criminal activity has wider societal ramifications then just the perpetrator and the victim? I did not realize this was such a disputed issue. Have you read up on penal theory at all? The reasoning is endemic to our legal system. I am curious why you choose now to complain. Also why you think this is a moral issue but the thread is based on the idea that apostles and prophets do not agree.

It's also helpful to read up on the various issues with equal protection/hate crime, pro or con. It's not so facile. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I see a lot of inconsistencies in your explanation. First and foremost is that the three victims suffer the exact same loss, but only one of them is privileged. The crime is perpetrated by an individual against an individual, not a community of evil-doers against a community of victims. This is not equal protection. If you live in an area with a lot of whacked out druggies, you do live in fear. Doesn’t make sense.

You seriously don't see the difference between someone being killed that happens to be Mormon and someone who is killed BECAUSE they are Mormon?  

 

If 10 members of the church happen to get killed in a month for various reasons, would you be in fear of your safety when you walked to church?

However, if someone had already killed 10 members of the church in one month as they walked to church because he identified them as members and killed them specifically for that reason alone and no other, would you be nervous to walk to church knowing you might very well be his next target?

The first example the people gets charged with murder for the various crimes.

The second person gets charged with murder for the various crimes AS WELL AS getting charged with terrorizing the Mormon community.  Should that person not get an enhanced penalty for not only the murders but for the terrorism that his actions created?  Do you deserve to be terrorized simply because you are a member of the church?  

If you can't see the difference, then perhaps you just don't want to see the difference.  Nehor has explained the concept this enhanced law is based on very clearly.  Not just a murder is committed, but a crime of terrorism to a particular group has been committed. 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, california boy said:

You seriously don't see the difference between someone being killed that happens to be Mormon and someone who is killed BECAUSE they are Mormon?  

 

If 10 members of the church happen to get killed in a month for various reasons, would you be in fear of your safety when you walked to church?

However, if someone had already killed 10 members of the church in one month as they walked to church because he identified them as members and killed them specifically for that reason alone and no other, would you be nervous to walk to church knowing you might very well be his next target?

The first example the people gets charged with murder for the various crimes.

The second person gets charged with murder for the various crimes AS WELL AS getting charged with terrorizing the Mormon community.  Should that person not get an enhanced penalty for not only the murders but for the terrorism that his actions created?  Do you deserve to be terrorized simply because you are a member of the church?  

If you can't see the difference, then perhaps you just don't want to see the difference.  Nehor has explained the concept this enhanced law is based on very clearly.  Not just a murder is committed, but a crime of terrorism to a particular group has been committed. 

Thanks for your opinion. As I said, it's not so facile. If the sentence for mass murder is death should the death be more painful and final if it is a hate crime, or if life in prison without parole, what difference would another 25 years make? What is the deterrent? Questioning the efficacy or justice of hate crime legislation does not make one bigoted or hateful, if that is where you are headed. People can hold to either position in good faith.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Act of war versus crime> Different laws and standards apply. Apples vs oranges.

By this logic, if a guy doesn't like Puerto Ricans and burns down someone's house, then law enforcement should burn down his neighborhood.

Questioning the validity and efficacy of hate crime legislation does not mean one devalues minorities if that is where you are heading.

An act of war? By a group of Saudis yet we invaded Afghanistan? And we never declared war for......reasons?

Yeah......no. We hunted down a mostly stateless entity and claimed we were declaring war on an emotion (terror) because it sounded good to some people.

You are not questioning. You are denying the value and the grounds you are using are based on a very simplistic understanding of how judicial punishment works.

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for your opinion. As I said, it's not so facile. If the sentence for mass murder is death should the death be more painful and final if it is a hate crime, or if life in prison without parole, what difference would another 25 years make? What is the deterrent? Questioning the efficacy or justice of hate crime legislation does not make one bigoted or hateful, if that is where you are headed. People can hold to either position in good faith.

True, but their arguments can also be very flawed. Focusing on murder diminishes the value as it is usually punished harshly no matter what. Reframe to attacking ten Mormons on the way to church and the perp getting a few months in prison and some anger counseling. With it being a hate crime the sentence would be increased.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for your opinion. As I said, it's not so facile. If the sentence for mass murder is death should the death be more painful and final if it is a hate crime, or if life in prison without parole, what difference would another 25 years make? What is the deterrent? Questioning the efficacy or justice of hate crime legislation does not make one bigoted or hateful, if that is where you are headed. People can hold to either position in good faith.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that another crime other than murder was committed, terrorizing a targeted group.  Should that just go as unpunished?

This is no different when multiple crimes have been committed.  Each crime is judged and punishment is given based on the findings of the jury.  Just because someone commits murder does not mean that the other crimes they may have committed are ignored.  And just like other crimes, a hate crime has to be proven in court separate from the murder charge.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

What does any of this have to do with the fact that another crime other than murder was committed, terrorizing a targeted group.  Should that just go as unpunished?

This is no different when multiple crimes have been committed.  Each crime is judged and punishment is given based on the findings of the jury.  Just because someone commits murder does not mean that the other crimes they may have committed are ignored.  And just like other crimes, a hate crime has to be proven in court separate from the murder charge.

The way terrorizing a group is being argued, seems to only apply if the targeted group knows or has reason to suspect it is being targeted. 

So take the arson scenarios, 4 homes in one community are burned by arson. There is no apparent connection between the four; thus the whole community has reason to fear the arsonist(s), not just a group within the whole.

However, your scenario of ten people murdered while each doing the same thing - walking to church - would be a basis for the apparent targeted group within a community to believe they are being targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

What does any of this have to do with the fact that another crime other than murder was committed, terrorizing a targeted group.  Should that just go as unpunished?

This is no different when multiple crimes have been committed.  Each crime is judged and punishment is given based on the findings of the jury.  Just because someone commits murder does not mean that the other crimes they may have committed are ignored.  And just like other crimes, a hate crime has to be proven in court separate from the murder charge.

You've lost me. Not interested in continuing down yet another rabbit hole with you.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

An act of war? By a group of Saudis yet we invaded Afghanistan? And we never declared war for......reasons?

Yeah......no. We hunted down a mostly stateless entity and claimed we were declaring war on an emotion (terror) because it sounded good to some people.

You are not questioning. You are denying the value and the grounds you are using are based on a very simplistic understanding of how judicial punishment works.

True, but their arguments can also be very flawed. Focusing on murder diminishes the value as it is usually punished harshly no matter what. Reframe to attacking ten Mormons on the way to church and the perp getting a few months in prison and some anger counseling. With it being a hate crime the sentence would be increased.

Not here to argue Afghanistan and extremist Muslim terrorism. I have repeatedly said this is not a facile issue and people of good faith are on both sides.

I first used the example of arson.

Reframe to attacking 10 school kids on the way to school or 10 picnickers on the way to a picnic just because. Extra sentence? Attacking someone=hate. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/25/2019 at 10:19 AM, The Nehor said:

 If I am targeting gay people, black people, Catholics, or whatever with violent attacks then it becomes impersonal. The community becomes an unsafe place for people fitting that description. Then if it is not just me but a lot of people feel that way then people can justifiably be afraid for their safety in their community. It becomes a form of terrorism, an effort to control and limit the lives of a group with the threat of violence.

Please give me multiple examples where is all this violence happening in Utah that would justify your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not here to argue Afghanistan and extremist Muslim terrorism. I have repeatedly said this is not a facile issue and people of good faith are on both sides.

I first used the example of arson.

Reframe to attacking 10 school kids on the way to school or 10 picnickers on the way to a picnic just because. Extra sentence? Attacking someone=hate. 

If you generalize the word hate enough sure but then you are definitely being facile. Hate crime legislation is targeting a specific kind of hate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2019 at 8:54 AM, poptart said:

Religion in general is hemorrhaging members esp. Men.

Yeah but that in the long term will cause big problems.  Few things bind people together like religion.  It brings community and stronger social ties especially in times of stress, danger, ect.  Perhaps this is all part of the what is supposed to be.  Before Christ comes there will be wars, famine, disasters,  people fighting and killing each other.  As religion loses people, they become more disconnected. Some people may say that religion plays a role in the increased polarization of society. Perhaps to an extent but society is becoming more polarized as  people turn away from religion. Not just in the US but also in places like Europe where people have largely left religion for a while now.  Secular societies do fine when things are good.  Not so sure they will do well when the society starts getting torn apart.  People will return to religion when things get bad.  They will have to because in the end, all governments fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you generalize the word hate enough sure but then you are definitely being facile. Hate crime legislation is targeting a specific kind of hate.

That’s the problem I see..a specific kind, hence unequal protection. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Vaya con Dios.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yeah but that in the long term will cause big problems.  Few things bind people together like religion.  It brings community and stronger social ties especially in times of stress, danger, ect.  Perhaps this is all part of the what is supposed to be.  Before Christ comes there will be wars, famine, disasters,  people fighting and killing each other.  As religion loses people, they become more disconnected. Some people may say that religion plays a role in the increased polarization of society. Perhaps to an extent but society is becoming more polarized as  people turn away from religion. Not just in the US but also in places like Europe where people have largely left religion for a while now.  Secular societies do fine when things are good.  Not so sure they will do well when the society starts getting torn apart.  People will return to religion when things get bad.  They will have to because in the end, all governments fail. 

Uhhh, people would argue East Asian societies up until late aren't religious, know lots of folks here stateside would call places like Japan quite secular yet they're doing better than we are, their passport beat out Germany as being the most powerful as did Singapore.  Also, i'm sure those who went through the 30 years war said the same thing, people here stateside have said the same thing for how long now?  Why is it every time something doesn't go the way a Christian themed religion wants it's always the same old song and dance, Jesus is going to come back and make everything alright!  Checkmate athiests! 
Why can't your kind take a good long hard look in the mirror and realize a big reason why your religion is in decline is because of the entitled, hypocritical garbage you have in your ranks who have less in common with Jesus and more in common with the Pharisees?  If you want to see the change you have to be the change, no god under the canopy of heaven or on earth will help you until you help yourselves and take responsibility for your actions.  Personal responsibility, integrity, accountability, until people start seeing a lot more of that your decline will most likely continue.  No god is going to come out of the heavens, life will continue and that will be that, quit being so entitled and come up with something better.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...