Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, pogi said: You are conflating hate crimes with terrorism. They are not the same. If they were, then haters should be prosecuted as terrorists and not simply haters. I think they're very much the same. The only difference is scope (society vs a segment of society). Quote Hate crimes laws can have many unintended consequences like giving extra punishment to ordinary criminals who use racial slurs and trash talk while committing a crime. Suddenly we are prosecuting against our first amendment rights. People are punished more severely because of what they think instead of what they do. Hate crimes can be interpreted how ever they want, giving unfair treatment of one class over another. For example: Read the whole article in LA Times, it is good. If that were true, we'd be locking people up simply for using racial slurs. That's not happening. Edited January 25, 2018 by Gray
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, Gray said: I think they're very much the same. The only difference is scope (society vs a segment of society). Then why create a whole segment of race crimes if it is just terrorism? Why not just try them as terrorists? The are by definition different and that definition is not based on "society vs a segment of society". I already posted the difference in a reply to you earlier. 6 minutes ago, Gray said: If that were true, we'd be locking people up simply for using racial slurs. That's not happening. Umm, yes it is. If you use a racial slur while beating someone up...hate crime.
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 Just now, pogi said: Then why create a whole segment of race crimes if it is just terrorism? Why not just try them as terrorists? The are by definition different and that definition is not based on "society vs a segment of society". I already posted the difference in a reply to you earlier. Great idea. I think the KKK should be called out as a terrorist group. We wouldn't allow ISIS to operate in the US, the KKK is no different. Just now, pogi said: Umm, yes it is. If you use a racial slur while beating someone up...hate crime. And if you just use a racial slur and don't beat anyone up, what happens then?
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 30 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If we had a problem with people wanting to kill all fat people it would become a protected class quickly. Disabled people are a protected class, I didn't know that wanting to kill disabled people was a problem! White people are protected too. For some reason, I don't feel like I should be any more protected then fat people. 39 minutes ago, The Nehor said: And no, that is not what I am arguing. Yes you are! You are reinforcing that argument in this post stating that there are a "bunch of people who need extra protection." You think that white people need more protection then fat people. Now, if you are white, fat, and Mormon...oh my...triple protection! If anybody looks at you wrong...life in prison!
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, Gray said: Great idea. I think the KKK should be called out as a terrorist group. We wouldn't allow ISIS to operate in the US, the KKK is no different. "I hate fatsos"...smack! "Terrorist!!!" 15 minutes ago, Gray said: And if you just use a racial slur and don't beat anyone up, what happens then? Exactly! Nothing...as it should be. Our first amendment rights should be protected, even when beating someone up.
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 47 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Hate crime laws allow more leeway on sentencing to factor in how much more damaging those crimes can be to society and how the perpetrator is more likely to be a continuing risk. All crimes based in hate are damaging to society. Why should some classes be more protected? That is not constitutional, we should all have the same rights...all men are created equal.
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, pogi said: "I hate fatsos"...smack! "Terrorist!!!" Exactly! Nothing...as it should be. Our first amendment rights should be protected, even when beating someone up. I find the hand-wringing about hate crime being a kind of thought crime to be pretty silly. Get back to me when you start arguing against legal distinctions between 1st and 2nd degree murder, which also involves the perpetrator's thoughts and words. Then I might take your objections based on first amendment rights seriously. Edited January 25, 2018 by Gray
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, pogi said: All crimes based in hate are damaging to society. Why should some classes be more protected? That is not constitutional, we should all have the same rights...all men are created equal. What classes do you think are getting special treatment?
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, pogi said: Disabled people are a protected class, I didn't know that wanting to kill disabled people was a problem! White people are protected too. For some reason, I don't feel like I should be any more protected then fat people. Yes you are! You are reinforcing that argument in this post stating that there are a "bunch of people who need extra protection." You think that white people need more protection then fat people. Now, if you are white, fat, and Mormon...oh my...triple protection! If anybody looks at you wrong...life in prison! You realize there are other crimes other than murder right that can be tied to discrimination and hate? Plus the Nazis like killing cripples and since we seem to be having a resurgence of them might as well be prepared. You do know they do not stack either right? It does not have to do with the person targeted but the reason they were targeted.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 16 minutes ago, pogi said: All crimes based in hate are damaging to society. Why should some classes be more protected? That is not constitutional, we should all have the same rights...all men are created equal. Because those classes are generally the ones targeted and allowing terrorism of a protected class is bad. You end up with things like the KKK or gays getting dragged to death behind pick up trucks. All men (and women) are not created equal in this world. I respect the sentiment but not the statement itself. Equality before the law is an admirable concept and it fits here. All people who target groups to spread fear and deny that group their rights are equally guilty of hate crimes. See.....equality.
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Gray said: I find the hand-wringing about hate crime being a kind of thought crime to be pretty silly. Get back to me when you start arguing against legal distinctions between 1st and 2nd degree murder, which also involves the perpetrator's thoughts and words. Then I might take your objections based on first amendment rights seriously. What is silly is the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder. Same problem of punishing for thoughts. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/10/05/end-distinction-first-second-degree-murder/91648328/ Things were so much simpler in Moses's time! Edited January 25, 2018 by pogi
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: What classes do you think are getting special treatment? The ones that are protected over other classes. Edited January 25, 2018 by pogi
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You realize there are other crimes other than murder right that can be tied to discrimination and hate? Plus the Nazis like killing cripples and since we seem to be having a resurgence of them might as well be prepared. You do know they do not stack either right? It does not have to do with the person targeted but the reason they were targeted. I was just following your example... I used the example of beating up fat kids, you were the one who made it about murdering fat kids 30 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You do know they do not stack either right? It does not have to do with the person targeted but the reason they were targeted. You do know that it DOES have to do with who the victim is, right? Do I really need to use the fat kid vs black kid example again? The moral of the lesson is, if you are going to hate someone, make sure they are the same color as you, the same ethnicity, same religion, same sex, same age, same weight, etc. etc. etc.
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Because those classes are generally the ones targeted and allowing terrorism of a protected class is bad. Are whites "generally" targeted by blacks throughout history? Should whites be a protected class against blacks? Really? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-whites-hate-crimes-20170106-story.html We should all be protected equally. Edited January 25, 2018 by pogi
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, but if you believe all black people should die and then act on that and kill one isn’t that an indicator you might do it again? It probably is but I don't know if it's legal to punish someone for something they might do. Besides that, hate crime laws are supposedly about punishing for the terrorism of the crime to the greater community and to stop people from committing crimes in the first place. Hate crime laws focused on keeping people from breaking the same law later don't make a lot of sense. If a crime is serious enough to get someone life (or multiple decades) in jail, then it likely would have been serious enough to do that without adding hate crime onto the charges. And for those crimes that aren't serious enough to keep someone in jail long enough to keep them from repeating the crime, hate crime laws don't change that. Someone might be in jail for 7 years instead of 3, but if they want to do the same thing once they get out, the extra four years in jail isn't going to stop them. (Studies actually show that extended prison time is more likely to increase someone's criminality than curb it). So again, we're left asking, what's the point of hate crime legislation and does it accomplish it's objectives? Quote Do we apply this distinction to conventional terrorists? Okay, they killed some Americans and think America must be destroyed but we cannot hold them for their beliefs and have to treat the incident like any other identical incident and not factor in that they are likely to do it again because of their beliefs? I really have no idea how terrorism laws work in the U.S. It's unconstitutional to hold someone because of their beliefs, but if the person isn't a U.S. citizen, for example, I don't know if the constitution applies to them. I'm not sure how all of that works.
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: If that were true, we'd be locking people up simply for using racial slurs. That's not happening. Racial slurs alone have been used to charge and convict someone of a hate crime though. There have been cases where the only reason someone was charged with a hate crime was because of the language they used while committing it. I think that's what he's speaking of.
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: What case are you referring to? I would add that the criminal justice system often screws up on all fronts, not just how they handle hate crime. I quoted it earlier in the thread; it was actually a quote from the Butler interview- MARTIN: Are people ever prosecuted for assaults against a member of the majority? Whites, Caucasians, European-Americans, if you will, if they are motivated by animus toward that group? BUTLER: You know, Michel, that happens quite frequently, actually. There was a recent case in which some African-American boys were alleged to have gone after a young white boy and they were prosecuted for a hate crime. There are kinds of weird permutations. In New York recently, there was a case in which a group of lesbians beat up a gay man and they were charged with a hate crime based on sexual orientation because the guy was gay, even though they were also gay. So there are some weird kind of configurations, but the law is, as long as the prosecution can prove intent to discriminate against that group, doesn't matter what group the defendant is in.
bluebell Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: Because it is part of their intent in regards to their violent crime. Anyone can hold any crazy belief they want without fear of punishment. It might be, but it also might not be. I don't know that hate crime legislation is very good at all at punishing for intent. It seems like it fails a lot of the time. I think that's one reason that I'm not completely on the bandwagon with hate crime laws. If someone beats up another person for being a nerd, they get five years in prison. If that same person beats up another person for being gay, they get ten years. Same crime, same intent (to harm someone they feel is inferior to them), same perpetrator, but not the same punishment. The man's intent isn't what makes the crime worse, not really. The terrorism of that kind of a crime is pretty much equal no matter who's getting beat up unless the person was purposefully going out and looking for gay people to beat up (which is very rarely the case with people charged with hate crimes). It's the person he harmed that is the only difference. Hate crime legislation seems to give lip service to punishing intent but instead more often provides unequal protection under the law because it is based on who was harmed more so than based on the intent of the person doing the harming. But like i said earlier, our legal system is rife with these kinds of weaknesses and emotional-statement-laws that don't accomplish their objectives but make people feel better because they 'did something'. In a lot of ways it is what it is and we just have to work with it.
rodheadlee Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 So can Sailors be in this protected class? No hate crimes against sailors! Where do we draw the line on hate crimes? This is a serious question who gets to decide what class of person is protected? 1
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 3 hours ago, pogi said: I was just following your example... I used the example of beating up fat kids, you were the one who made it about murdering fat kids You do know that it DOES have to do with who the victim is, right? Do I really need to use the fat kid vs black kid example again? The moral of the lesson is, if you are going to hate someone, make sure they are the same color as you, the same ethnicity, same religion, same sex, same age, same weight, etc. etc. etc. No! No! No! You do not get it. If I kill a black person for a mundane reason (he annoys me, he stole my life savings in a Ponzi scheme, he got me fired, etc.) that is not a hate crime. I clearly hate the guy but it is not a hate crime and these laws would not come into play. If I hate black people in general and kill one for that reason it is a hate crime. Someone killing someone of a different race or ethnicity or religion is not automatically a hate crime. It has to be shown to be one in court.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 3 hours ago, pogi said: What is silly is the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder. Same problem of punishing for thoughts. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/10/05/end-distinction-first-second-degree-murder/91648328/ Things were so much simpler in Moses's time! Oh wow, okay, go live in Iran. I think you will enjoy their justice system much more. It is more consistent and dogmatic and fixed. Horrifying but it gets rid of a lot of the ambiguity you seem to think is irrelevant.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 3 hours ago, pogi said: The ones that are protected over other classes. Are you worried someone might get punished more for beating someone else up than they would for beating you up? This is about protecting society as a whole. If rights are diminished it weakens them for all of us because who knows who will be in charge and diminishing rights next?
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Racial slurs alone have been used to charge and convict someone of a hate crime though. There have been cases where the only reason someone was charged with a hate crime was because of the language they used while committing it. I think that's what he's speaking of. And rightly so. If I attack a Muslim in the street and throw slurs it is a pretty good bet I am either racist or Islamophobic and cannot be trusted not to do it again.
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, bluebell said: It probably is but I don't know if it's legal to punish someone for something they might do. Besides that, hate crime laws are supposedly about punishing for the terrorism of the crime to the greater community and to stop people from committing crimes in the first place. Hate crime laws focused on keeping people from breaking the same law later don't make a lot of sense. If a crime is serious enough to get someone life (or multiple decades) in jail, then it likely would have been serious enough to do that without adding hate crime onto the charges. And for those crimes that aren't serious enough to keep someone in jail long enough to keep them from repeating the crime, hate crime laws don't change that. Someone might be in jail for 7 years instead of 3, but if they want to do the same thing once they get out, the extra four years in jail isn't going to stop them. (Studies actually show that extended prison time is more likely to increase someone's criminality than curb it). So again, we're left asking, what's the point of hate crime legislation and does it accomplish it's objectives? I really have no idea how terrorism laws work in the U.S. It's unconstitutional to hold someone because of their beliefs, but if the person isn't a U.S. citizen, for example, I don't know if the constitution applies to them. I'm not sure how all of that works. Yes, but the person with seven years in jail is more likely to be older afterwards and thus less of a physical threat. I am joking......mostly. 1
pogi Posted January 25, 2018 Author Posted January 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No! No! No! You do not get it. If I kill a black person for a mundane reason (he annoys me, he stole my life savings in a Ponzi scheme, he got me fired, etc.) that is not a hate crime. I clearly hate the guy but it is not a hate crime and these laws would not come into play. If I hate black people in general and kill one for that reason it is a hate crime. And if I hate fat people in general and kill one for that reason it is NOT a hate crime. It is you who does not get it. It is more about who the victim is and less about the reason. If it was only about the reason, we would all be protected equally. 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Someone killing someone of a different race or ethnicity or religion is not automatically a hate crime. It has to be shown to be one in court. I never said otherwise.
Recommended Posts