pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. That was a joke about the Moses thing. I don't want dogmatic fixed laws, I want fair and constitutional ones.
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 15 minutes ago, pogi said: That was a joke about the Moses thing. I don't want dogmatic fixed laws, I want fair and constitutional ones. You say you do not want fixed laws but all this does is open the variability to take additional considerations into account. You seem to want flexibility but not on this one issue that has historically destroyed societies.
bluebell Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 50 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. I don’t know if that’s true enough to be useful though. Sure, if some guy randomly attacks a Muslim in the street while hurling slurs, that’s one thing But some guy getting into a fight over a parking space with a Muslim that starts hurling slurs is a different thing altogether (though both men would likely be charge with a hate crime if someone else witnessed the slurs). I don’t know that we could say with any degree of accuracy though that the presence of slurs is an indication in and of itself that either man will attack that racial group again in the future.
Calm Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, pogi said: The ones that are protected over other classes. If I understand the reasoning... If you have 10 out of 100 people who are targeted for 90% of the crimes, it makes sense to put more resources into creating a safer environment for them than it does to spread resources equally across the board because resources are limited. If 6 cops are assigned to the 10% and 4 cops to the 90%, obviously the 90% is getting less coverage, but that is still 4 cops for 1 crimeas opposed to 6 for 9. Hate crimes, imo, is trying to the same thing with the deterrent of greater punishment., come down harder on the reason (hate) certain groups get targeted for crimes at a higher frequency. Not sure it works, haven't looked into it. If resources for protections for everyone were unlimited, such things would be unnecessary. Edited January 26, 2018 by Calm
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 I think we are talking past each other and I actually do not feel that strongly on this issue so I am going to back out. Sorry if I went a little nuts. 1
USU78 Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 22 hours ago, Gray said: Don't be soft on crime. Argument by assertion then.
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 13 hours ago, Calm said: If I understand the reasoning... If you have 10 out of 100 people who are targeted for 90% of the crimes, it makes sense to put more resources into creating a safer environment for them than it does to spread resources equally across the board because resources are limited. If 6 cops are assigned to the 10% and 4 cops to the 90%, obviously the 90% is getting less coverage, but that is still 4 cops for 1 crimeas opposed to 6 for 9. Hate crimes, imo, is trying to the same thing with the deterrent of greater punishment., come down harder on the reason (hate) certain groups get targeted for crimes at a higher frequency. Not sure it works, haven't looked into it. If resources for protections for everyone were unlimited, such things would be unnecessary. For me it is not about resources at all. I am not arguing that all classes should be protected equally under hate crime laws, I am arguing against hate crime laws all together. Hate is not a crime. The crime itself is what is punishable under the constitution, the motivation (hate) is not. As one anti-hate crime person put it in an issue of Time, who happens to be homosexual: Quote Hate-crimes laws feel great to enact, but they criminalize something vital in a democracy: the right to be wrong. Let's say you chop off my arm because I'm gay. I would hope you go to prison for a long time, but should your sentence be even longer just because I sleep with guys and you disapprove? Don't people have a First Amendment right to disapprove? When did the U.S. government get into the business of criminalizing people's thoughts? ...Even if a violent criminal knows that a tough hate-crimes law exists, wouldn't that knowledge just keep him from saying "Faggot" while he chopped my arm off? I suppose that after the crime, I might take some solace in knowing that the criminal didn't utter that word as he maimed me. But I think I would care a lot more about my arm than about any thoughts crossing the attacker's mind as he committed the crime. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1849412,00.html While this doesn't address the unconstitutionality of punishing for the motive of hate, it does address some of the other problems associated with it: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6710&context=jclc Another good article addressing more problems: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1557&context=faculty_scholarship
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: You say you do not want fixed laws but all this does is open the variability to take additional considerations into account. Right, those "additional considerations" a.k.a. hate, are protected under the constitution.
RevTestament Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 16 hours ago, bluebell said: I don’t know if that’s true enough to be useful though. Sure, if some guy randomly attacks a Muslim in the street while hurling slurs, that’s one thing But some guy getting into a fight over a parking space with a Muslim that starts hurling slurs is a different thing altogether (though both men would likely be charge with a hate crime if someone else witnessed the slurs). I don’t know that we could say with any degree of accuracy though that the presence of slurs is an indication in and of itself that either man will attack that racial group again in the future. Being Muslim is not a race. How about if a Muslim attacks a European Christian while crying Allahu Akbar while repeatedly stabbing him? Does that count as a hate crime?
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, pogi said: Right, those "additional considerations" a.k.a. hate, are protected under the constitution. I have read it several times and have never read of such a protection. Must be on there somewhere in those sections I can never find that I keep hearing about that guarantee government health care, declare the nation to be Christian, and prohibit flag-burning.
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Being Muslim is not a race. How about if a Muslim attacks a European Christian while crying Allahu Akbar while repeatedly stabbing him? Does that count as a hate crime? Yes.
bluebell Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Being Muslim is not a race. How about if a Muslim attacks a European Christian while crying Allahu Akbar while repeatedly stabbing him? Does that count as a hate crime? Yeah, I realized after I wrote that but was too lazy to go back and fixed it because I was pretty sure Nehor knew what I meant. And yes, that would count as a hate crime.
bluebell Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: I have read it several times and have never read of such a protection. Must be on there somewhere in those sections I can never find that I keep hearing about that guarantee government health care, declare the nation to be Christian, and prohibit flag-burning. Are you arguing that hating someone is against the constitution and therefore illegal? Pogi is just saying that the constitution makes it legal to hate other people.
RevTestament Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Yes. 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yeah, I realized after I wrote that but was too lazy to go back and fixed it because I was pretty sure Nehor knew what I meant. And yes, that would count as a hate crime. And how do you prove it? The Muslim will say he was honoring his religion and his god - it had nothing to do with hating the individual he stabbed.
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 Just now, RevTestament said: And how do you prove it? The Muslim will say he was honoring his religion and his god - it had nothing to do with hating the individual he stabbed. And if I stab someone to death viciously and afterwards claim I am a doctor and was performing surgery to save him how do you prove I do not believe it? Some things are so obvious the burden of proof shifts to the other side.
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I have read it several times and have never read of such a protection. Must be on there somewhere in those sections I can never find that I keep hearing about that guarantee government health care, declare the nation to be Christian, and prohibit flag-burning. Quote Together with the other First Amendment guarantees–of free speech, a free press, and the rights to assemble and petition–the Religion Clauses were designed to safeguard the freedom of conscience and belief that those immigrants had sought. They embody an idea that was once considered radical: Free people are entitled to free and diverse thoughts, which government ought neither to constrain nor to direct. ~ Sandra Day O'Connor Flag burning is also protected under the same Amendment...so is "declaring the nation to be Christian". People can declare whatever they want...it doesn't make it so. Government healthcare, on the other hand absolutely is not protected, you are right.
bluebell Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 6 minutes ago, RevTestament said: And how do you prove it? The Muslim will say he was honoring his religion and his god - it had nothing to do with hating the individual he stabbed. As far as the law is concerned, it doesn't matter what what the Muslim says. Killing someone because of their religion is a hate crime in most states.
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) What if you kill someone while eating a carrot crying out how you hate vegetables, but perhaps even unbeknownst to you the person you are killing with your stabbing knife is in a vegetative state? Sounds like terrorism to me. Edited January 26, 2018 by stemelbow
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What if you kill someone while eating a carrot crying out how you hate vegetables, but perhaps even unbeknownst to you the person you are killing with your stabbing knife is in a vegetative state? Sounds like terrorism to me.
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 22 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! Way simpler. Just get two witnesses and start gathering rocks!
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 22 hours ago, pogi said: The ones that are protected over other classes. Which ones would those be?
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 21 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. Yes, that's evidence for a hate crime. But racial slurs alone don't have a criminal punishment attached, unless combined with something else
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 15 hours ago, USU78 said: Argument by assertion then. Sounds like a fancy argument for lettin' criminals off easy.
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Which ones would those be? Are you playing games? If all classes were protected equally, why would the law specifically state which classes are protected. By listing certain classes, that automatically excluded classes not listed under the law. Class of race - protected Class of vocation - not protected
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 minute ago, pogi said: Are you playing games? If all classes were protected equally, why would the law specifically state which classes are protected. By listing certain classes, that automatically excluded classes not listed under the law. Class of race - protected Class of vocation - not protected Not playing games. Okay, since race is protected, who exactly is being left out of hate crime law protection? Are there carpenters out there without any ethnicity?
Recommended Posts