Who here think that hate crimes are bogus?

[will641]

Okay let me just start off before anyone jumps to any conclusions, that I am not a racist, or anti gay or anti semetic or anything like that, i just have a problem with hate crimes. My main problem is that it is very hypocritical. Civil rights groups always ask for one thing...EQUAL rights. Do you see where I am going with this? It is not equal to punish a man 2x because he is a racist or homophobic or whatever. If a murder is racially motivated, so what? He is still going to get tried for murder. An even bigger tendency is for the minority to lie about the incident. I mean how easy is it to just he beat me up because I was gay/black/mexican. I think if they are found to be lying they should be punished, just like false sexual harassment. Not only is it damaging to a persons reputation, its damaging to the cause itself!

Feel free to challenge me or add to the argument! I realize this isn't the best constructed argument, I just did kind a rough draft, so there are holes in it.

[AHiltz]

Racism is wrong on so many levels. Someone does and others mimic. So, if you have some douche assaulting and or killing others becuase of their race, then you have a very big issue on your hands. One thing leads to another and then you have racial cleansing/holocosts on your hands.

So what I'm saying here is racism is something that needs to be removed. Making harsher penalties for it can act as a deterent, which can hopefully lead to removal.

[jackvance]

Totally agreed with OP.

[lolzzz_321]

OP = spoonitnows dad

[will641]

here is a list of points against hate crime laws courtesy wikipedia. say what you want about wikipedia, most of the time they are pretty good.

* Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.
* Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).
* Penalties that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.
* It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.
* Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.
* Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier, was that all these efforts to make the world a less racist one, really have a reverse effect. What most liberals and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, make everything racial. IMO, they just as racist as any other person, except they don't commit violent crimes.

Political correctness is the worst thing ever!

[euphoricism]

Thats an incredibly naive viewpoint.

It is not equal to punish a man 2x because he is a racist or homophobic or whatever. If a murder is racially motivated, so what?

You're wrong. You don't get 2x the sentence for a racially motivated murder. It may be slightly harsher, and at its harshest tn can be considered an aggravating factor that would turn a sentence of life in prison for first degree murder to a sentence of death.

Second, it's perfectly just. If you kill a man for absolutely no other reason than he's black/gay/jewish you should indeed get a harsher sentence than if you had a "reason". Americans frown upon random violence. Hate crime statutes are meant to deter random violence against minorities, and allow them to attempt to live without fear.

An even bigger tendency is for the minority to lie about the incident.

Do you have any empirical evidence to back this assertion that minorities lie about being victimized in crimes or are you just being a racist prick?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I 100% agree also.

[euphoricism]

here is a list of points against hate crime laws courtesy wikipedia. say what you want about wikipedia, most of the time they are pretty good.

* Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.
* Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).
* Penalties that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.
* It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.
* Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.
* Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier, was that all these efforts to make the world a less racist one, really have a reverse effect. What most liberals and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, make everything racial. IMO, they just as racist as any other person, except they don't commit violent crimes.

Political correctness is the worst thing ever!

That list was obviously not written by anyone with any sort of legal training. Anyone who has taken an intro course to criminal law can shred that to pieces.

* Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.

Of course they should.
1) A man's child is raped. He kills the rapist with a 9mm pistol to the head.
2) A gay man is jumped outside of a bar, beaten to death.

Clearly these crimes should be treated differently, not just because of the motives for the murder, but because of the future dangerousness of the offender. A man who kills his child's rapist is not considered anywhere near as big of a future threat to society as a man who randomly kills a gay man outside of a bar. Hence, they will receive different sentences.

* Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).

This is just horseshit. Technically, its the commision of the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy. It's basically saying "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

Penalties that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.

This is a repitition of #1 in different wording, and applied to vandalism and assault. So lets look at vandalism. Spraypainting "FAG" on a persons house and spraypainting "CRIPS4LYFE" are inherently different things. If you don't see this, I don't think you can be helped.

Further, words intended to provoke fights or retaliation are NOT protected by the first amendment to the constitution.

It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.

How, exactly, do hate-crime laws bring the law into disrepute? This isn't even logical, nor is there any evidence brought forth to back the statement up, besides "groups will apply to have their critics silenced" which is further a nonsensical statement. Apply to who? For a permit? What?

Also an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.

More slippery slope bull, and I dont even see how this has to do with hate crime statutes. What exactly do religious practices have to do with anything? Further still, how are they being regulated by the government?

Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.

And for our grand finale, the victim doesnt decide if a hate crime occured or if a person is going to be charged with a hate crime. That is up to the prosecutor, and is decided upon by the jury. The victim (and I like the verbiage included of "self-declared victim" like I mean come on, minorities are always lying) has nothing to do with it.

[Galapogos]

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

[will641]

I realize the 2x thing was not exact by any means, but its there to make a point that you do get a much harsher punishment.

An even bigger tendency is for the minority to lie about the incident.

Do you have any empirical evidence to back this assertion that minorities lie about being victimized in crimes or are you just being a racist prick?

I didn't word that well. I was implying that there are so many false rape cases , so many false sexual harassment law suits, that how do we know there aren't a lot of false hate crime cases. However, be honest, do you think that if you got into a fight with a civil rights activist, not because of he was black, he would say, "no this crime of assault was not racially motivated." Odds are, you will probably think I am racist for saying that and odds are, IMO, that he would say it was motivated based on religion/race/orientation. And, quite frankly if you think that is naive, I think you should take a look in the mirror.

The list from wikipedia wasn't meant solely for legal purposes, it is mainly there for a moral argument.

Second, it's perfectly just. If you kill a man for absolutely no other reason than he's black/gay/jewish you should indeed get a harsher sentence than if you had a "reason". Americans frown upon random violence. Hate crime statutes are meant to deter random violence against minorities, and allow them to attempt to live without fear.

First of all, I am not saying they are just in killing them, and I am not saying the manner in which they do it is right, I just don't think their motive should make a difference.

E.G. Say I hate adulterers with all my heart, and I kill a coworker because I found out they were cheating on their spouse. I decide to kill that coworker because of it. No other reason. Adulterers are minorities in their own right, should we make it so they can live their life without fear and punish me more because I hate adulterers?

My point is, where do you draw the line? What if I kill an emo kid because I hate emo kids? Is that a hate crime too?

[grnydrowave2]

Racism is wrong on so many levels. Someone does and others mimic. So, if you have some douche assaulting and or killing others becuase of their race, then you have a very big issue on your hands. One thing leads to another and then you have racial cleansing/holocosts on your hands.

So what I'm saying here is racism is something that needs to be removed. Making harsher penalties for it can act as a deterent, which can hopefully lead to removal.

Yes, lets punish people for their values and belief systems. This is the 21st century folks, so I think it's about time we instated that thought police I've heard so much about.

And as long as we're "removing" people who don't think like us, why stop at racism? There are so many more dangerous things people believe in. I think if we can round up all the racists, pro-choicers, muslims, Bush supporters, vegans, and homosexuals, then lock them up (or better yet, "remove" them), we can gradually take them out of our gene pool, which will lead to a safer, more prosperous future. After all, we don't want another holocaust on our hands.

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

This I agree with 100%

[martindcx1e]

It is not equal to punish a man 2x because he is a racist or homophobic or whatever. If a murder is racially motivated, so what? He is still going to get tried for murder.

Like euph touched on earlier, one's motive(s) for murder or other crimes is important and should affect their sentencing. A person who commits crimes based on differences of beliefs/race/etc. is obviously a larger threat to society than a person who commits a crime based on something more "understandable" like revenge. Take 2 scenarios:

1) A woman murders a man because she found out that he raped her child.
2) A black man murders a white man because he hates white people.

The racist murderer is obviously more of a threat to society than the "revenge" murderer unless somehow lots and lots of people start raping that woman's child.

[will641]

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. The reason they are fucked up is because of decades of corrupt leaders and horrible dictators, as well as religious radicals.

[Jack Sawyer]

Racism is wrong on so many levels. Someone does and others mimic. So, if you have some douche assaulting and or killing others becuase of their race, then you have a very big issue on your hands. One thing leads to another and then you have racial cleansing/holocosts on your hands.

So what I'm saying here is racism is something that needs to be removed. Making harsher penalties for it can act as a deterent, which can hopefully lead to removal.

Yes, lets punish people for their values and belief systems. This is the 21st century folks, so I think it's about time we instated that thought police I've heard so much about.

And as long as we're "removing" people who don't think like us, why stop at racism? There are so many more dangerous things people believe in. I think if we can round up all the racists, pro-choicers, muslims, Bush supporters, vegans, and homosexuals, then lock them up (or better yet, "remove" them), we can gradually take them out of our gene pool, which will lead to a safer, more prosperous future. After all, we don't want another holocaust on our hands.

Are you levelling?

[euphoricism]

E.G. Say I hate adulterers with all my heart, and I kill a coworker because I found out they were cheating on their spouse. I decide to kill that coworker because of it. No other reason. Adulterers are minorities in their own right, should we make it so they can live their life without fear and punish me more because I hate adulterers?

My point is, where do you draw the line? What if I kill an emo kid because I hate emo kids? Is that a hate crime too?

I dont even know what to say to that. The killing of an Adulterer is not even remotely comparable to the killings through the decades by groups such as the KKK.

The harsher penalties for hate crimes are because they tend to cause retaliation. By penalizing race crimes harder, the hope is that people won't commit race crimes. Then we wont have race riots which involve the destruction of property, the loss of innocent lives, etc etc.

You say you want murder to be murder and thats that. To ignore the motivations of the offender. Thats patently absurd. If you ignore the motive of a criminal act, you're ignoring arguably the most important part of it. In fact without mens rea (latin for "the evil mind") there IS NO CRIME.

Hate crimes occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. (from wiki)

[chardrian]

what the world needs now is love sweet love.

oh not just for some, but for everyone.

[euphoricism]

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. The reason they are fucked up is because of decades of corrupt leaders and horrible dictators, as well as religious radicals.

"Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. " isn't even a complete sentence. Nor does it even make sense.

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. The reason they are fucked up is because of decades of corrupt leaders and horrible dictators, as well as religious radicals.

Rasicm is a direct byproduct of hatred and fear of the unknown

[euphoricism]

Shit, you got me. I guess we don't need hate crime statutes at all.. just read todays article in the Maine Today to see

BANGOR - The Bangor chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has canceled this year's Kwanzaa celebration after a 75-year-old man allegedly threatened to shoot chapter members.

"It has been very scary," said chapter President Joseph Perry of Searsport.

Kendrick Sawyer was named early this month in a civil complaint filed by the hate crimes division of the state attorney general's office.

According to court documents, Sawyer apparently made statements to his doctor at the Togus VA Medical Center that he was "going to shoot any and all black persons that he saw attending a meeting of the NAACP at a church in Bangor."

e made similar statements to a Department of Veterans Affairs police officer, who described the encounter with Sawyer as "chilling."

Sawyer, who has no known criminal record, was quoted as saying he did not like blacks and Hispanics and that "Maine should be a 'white' state."

Because clearly, there are absolutely no racially motivated crimes committed anymore. You win.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I dont even know what to say to that. The killing of an Adulterer is not even remotely comparable to the killings through the decades by groups such as the KKK.

Truthfully, I think this is a judgement based on moral perception and I honestly don't see why the murder of a gay man is any different than an adulterer getting murdered. Call me racist but people tend to overrate their own morality.

[will641]

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. The reason they are fucked up is because of decades of corrupt leaders and horrible dictators, as well as religious radicals.

"Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. " isn't even a complete sentence. Nor does it even make sense.

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.

That was a mistake on my part. I was writing one thing stopped in the middle of the sentence, went back and changed it, and forgot to complete the sentence .

"Hatred is a byproduct of those countries being fucked up. Countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. [

[Jack Sawyer]

I dont even know what to say to that. The killing of an Adulterer is not even remotely comparable to the killings through the decades by groups such as the KKK.

Truthfully, I think this is a judgement based on moral perception and I honestly don't see why the murder of a gay man is any different than an adulterer getting murdered. Call me racist but people tend to overrate their own morality.

Hmmm, choice? You choose to commit adultery.
You can't, however, choose the color of your skin (or your sexuality. gays are born, apparently)

[martindcx1e]

I dont even know what to say to that. The killing of an Adulterer is not even remotely comparable to the killings through the decades by groups such as the KKK.

Truthfully, I think this is a judgement based on moral perception and I honestly don't see why the murder of a gay man is any different than an adulterer getting murdered. Call me racist but people tend to overrate their own morality.

Hmmm, choice? You choose to commit adultery.
You can't, however, choose the color of your skin (or your sexuality. gays are born, apparently)

The person choosing or not choosing to believe in something/be a certain race/live a certain lifestyle/etc. doesn't change the fact that the crime was commited against them because the offender disagreed with them. I agree with Iowa in that if someone murders someone because they are an adulterer it is no different from someone murdering someone because they are gay. They did so because of their disagreement with the person's beliefs/race/lifestyle/etc. Each offender is as much of a threat to society as the other.

[will641]

Because clearly, there are absolutely no racially motivated crimes committed anymore. You win.

First, I never said there is no such thing as a racially motivate crime. You are spinning it completely. Second, people make death threats to groups and individuals all the time. This case is somehow unique? The man who made the threat will be punished. He is a sick son of a bitch.

Clearly, you want everything to be racial. I do not. That is the difference.

I also want to clear up some erroneous implications that you (euphoricism) have made throughout this thread.
1. I am not racist
2. I never said there is no such thing as a racially motivated crime. What I said, was that it is wrong to treat those cases differently than any other case. Saying that does not make me a racist, because part of the definition of the damn word is discrimination based on race. Hate crimes are fighting fire with fire.
3. I am not sympathetic with the atrocious acts that people make. I find it just as sick when those Wyoming people tortured that gay man as I do any other torture.

[martindcx1e]

I dont even know what to say to that. The killing of an Adulterer is not even remotely comparable to the killings through the decades by groups such as the KKK.

The killings of the KKK and the killing in will's example are done for the same reasons no?

Because clearly, there are absolutely no racially motivated crimes committed anymore. You win.

First, I never said there is no such thing as a racially motivate crime. You are spinning it completely.

Agreed. That was unfair.

[euphoricism]

First, I never said there is no such thing as a racially motivate crime. You are spinning it completely. Second, people make death threats to groups and individuals all the time. This case is somehow unique? The man who made the threat will be punished. He is a sick son of a bitch.

You cant have it both ways. You're right, this man will be punished for a HATE CRIME, which you seem to think shouldn't exist.

[Galapogos]

I don't think it's wrong for someone to be charged harsher. TBH crime is crime and I don't really care if someone murders someone with intent gets an unfair sentence.

Plus look at a lot of those countries that are fucked up right now. Hatred amongst the different groups of people residing there is a major reason they are so messed up.

I could be speaking out of ignorance though, just throwing that out there.

Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. The reason they are fucked up is because of decades of corrupt leaders and horrible dictators, as well as religious radicals.

"Hatred is a byproduct of why those countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. " isn't even a complete sentence. Nor does it even make sense.

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.

That was a mistake on my part. I was writing one thing stopped in the middle of the sentence, went back and changed it, and forgot to complete the sentence .

"Hatred is a byproduct of those countries being fucked up. Countries such as Venezuala, Libya, Sierra Leone, basically every country in the Middle East, etc. [

If hatred is merely a byproduct of the way those countries are run then why does it exist in the US?

Plus is that a fact you've read or are you making an assumption? Not being rude (gotta tread carefully in these kinds of threads), simply asking if you can cite a specific source for this.

[euphoricism]

If youre not going to punish this man for a hate crime (because hate crimes have been abolished), what are you going to punish him for?

[salsa4ever]

If youre not going to punish this man for a hate crime (because hate crimes have been abolished), what are you going to punish him for?

the crime itself. the actus reus of putting a gun against his head, pulling the trigger and now he's dead.

[euphoricism]

You're really saying we shouldn't arrest the guy when he says "I'm going to kill all the niggers at the NAACP kwanzaa meeting"

Christ.

[swiggidy]

what the world needs now is love sweet love.

oh not just for some, but for everyone.

QFT

[will641]

last time i checked making death threats is a crime. I don't know what the exact charge is called, but I do know it's a crime.

If hatred is merely a byproduct of the way those countries are run then why does it exist in the US?

Plus is that a fact you've read or are you making an assumption? Not being rude (gotta tread carefully in these kinds of threads), simply asking if you can cite a specific source for this.

this was a response to what you said. my interpretation of what you were talking about was the general negativity present in those countries, and not hate crimes per say.

So, the answer to your question is am making an opinion based on what I see in the news. And, once again, my statements are being spun. Did I ever say people don't hate in the U.S.? Of course people hate here, people hate everywhere. And you know what? That is abso-fucking-lutely legal.

[will641]

You're really saying we shouldn't arrest the guy when he says "I'm going to kill all the niggers at the NAACP kwanzaa meeting"

Christ.

Well euph., once again he never said that Sawyer shouldn't be punished for making that threat. Maybe it's just me, but every time you make a conjecture, you take something myself or someone else says and turns into something that conveys us as a bigot.

Just out of curiosity, do you think 9/11 was a government, more specifically Bush, conspiracy? And do you side with Al Gore about global warming?

[euphoricism]

No, No, and No. Good try, though.

Now your turn:

An even bigger tendency is for the minority to lie about the incident.

Do you have any empirical evidence to back this assertion that minorities lie about being victimized in crimes or are you just being a racist prick?

You never answered that.

[euphoricism]

Well euph., once again he never said that Sawyer shouldn't be punished for making that threat. Maybe it's just me, but every time you make a conjecture, you take something myself or someone else says and turns into something that conveys us as a bigot.

Eupho: "what are you going to punish him for?"
Salsa: "the crime itself. the actus reus of putting a gun against his head, pulling the trigger and now he's dead."

So um, thats exactly what he said. Not punished for the threat, punished for the actual act itself.

So yup, it's just you.

[will641]

I didn't word that well. I was implying that there are so many false rape cases , so many false sexual harassment law suits, that how do we know there aren't a lot of false hate crime cases. However, be honest, do you think that if you got into a fight with a civil rights activist, not because of he was black, he would say, "no this crime of assault was not racially motivated." Odds are, you will probably think I am racist for saying that and odds are, IMO, that he would say it was motivated based on religion/race/orientation. And, quite frankly if you think that is naive, I think you should take a look in the mirror.

I answered that question a long time, but here it is again. And yes, I do have a specific instance of this. About 20 years ago with the Tawana Brawley case involved with the (im being sarcastic here) honorable Al Sharpton. If you are not familiar with the case, here is a brief expaination, but feel free to check it out if you dont believe me.

Brawley with the help and Al Sharpton and a couple others, accused 6 white male officers of abducting her, raping her, making ethnic slurs on her, etc. This case was proven to be a complete hoax.

and in regards to the punishable man, as I said, its a crime to make death threats!

So yup, I answered both of those points.

[euphoricism]

explain to me, exactly, how one might create a "false hate crime"

He didnt really right Fag, he wrong f4g? That wasnt "nigger" it was "NAGGER"... He didnt beat up a black guy, it was just a white guy with face paint on..

I mean, dude, its pretty clear you haven't got a clue what actually happens in the legal proceedings of a hate crime. Again, its the PROSECUTION that decides if it was a hate crime, NOT THE VICTIM.

[will641]

read it again.

[euphoricism]

No.

(as in, No, that doesnt fit, not no I didnt read it again. They weren't charged with a hate crime. Failgasm.)

[flomo]

i hate crime

[will641]

No.

(as in, No, that doesnt fit, not no I didnt read it again. They weren't charged with a hate crime. Failgasm.)

Is your brain running sir, or are you just predetermined to disagree with everything I say? I get the feeling you are just predetermined to disagree with me.

How the fuck is that not a hate crime? Just because it "allegedly happened" before a hate crime existed doesn't mean it's not a hate crime by its definition. You asked how do you create a "false hate crime", and I answered you.

[euphoricism]

Its not a hate crime because NO ONE WAS CHARGED WITH A HATE CRIME.

I mean, I can think of four or five cases just from my intro law class that would fit, and you go with one that never even saw a courtroom.

[euphoricism]

And I'd love to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

Look, heres where you're screwing this up.

"hate crime" has a legal definition. Just like "insanity" (it doesn't mean mentally insane) It is not a hate crime simply because Al Sharpton or some other fuckstick says it was all about race. A hate crime has to be charged by the prosecution, and decided upon by the jury. The victim doesn't get to say "charge him with a hate crime because he raped me because I was black!". It just doesn't work like that. Thats media postulating bullshit propogated by Sharpton and the like.

I certainly won't argue with you that certain minority groups use their minority status to gain attention in the media. They do, and they're fuckwads. Sharpton being the fuckwad of all fuckwads.

But thats an entirely different argument than whether hate crime statutes should be removed.

This is going nowhere, so cheers, goodnight

[will641]

Its not a hate crime because NO ONE WAS CHARGED WITH A HATE CRIME.

I mean, I can think of four or five cases just from my intro law class that would fit, and you go with one that never even saw a courtroom.

Are you fucking kidding me? I mean are you fucking kidding me? You asked for a specific instance in which a hate crime can be created and i gave you one. And now you are arguing that no one was charged blah blah blah. That is an instance of how it can be created. You are arguing nothing here.

[will641]

Here is where you are screwing up:

My whole purpose in this thread was to make it a moral argument, and you are turning it into a legal one. Just like abortion is a moral topic, not a legal topic. Just like euthanasia is a moral topic, not a legal topic. Although it leads to legal proceedings (i.e. making it law), it is rooted in moral basis. That's all I'm going to say. I think we have both said all of our points.

[euphoricism]

No you didn't. You gave me an example of how someone falsifies a rape accusation against 6 white police officers and then goes on TV and says it was about race.

You need to read the legal definition of hate crime, because that does not fit it.

[will641]

No you didn't. You gave me an example of how someone falsifies a rape accusation against 6 white police officers and then goes on TV and says it was about race.

You need to read the legal definition of hate crime, because that does not fit it.

How is that not a hate crime if the crime was committed (allegedly) because she was black!? How does that not fit?

You are just aimlessly saying I am wrong. Do you know the definition of a hate crime? Merrian-Webster defines it as such:

any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)

By that definition it is a mother fucking hate crime.

[salsa4ever]

"hate crime" has a legal definition... A hate crime has to be charged by the prosecution, and decided upon by the jury...

I certainly won't argue with you that certain minority groups use their minority status to gain attention in the media...

But thats an entirely different argument than whether hate crime statutes should be removed...

I agree with the above.

The fundamental problem is that any crime that is easy to allege, and hard to disprove should always be instituted with great caution. Rape laws are an example, but there at least you have DNA and forensic evidence. And the alternative of having no laws against rape is just too unpalatable. So the OP asks "are the allegations made actually well founded, or is it just a throwaway line by victims of any crime where they are in a minority of some sort, used to stir people's emotions and manipulate people into taking their side?" We're not talking just in a legal sense here, because any law is susceptible to false charges and miscarriage of justice, but more generally in society, media, politics, and law.

Now whether hate crime statutes should be removed... the the heart of the question is this: "how do the policy objectives of deterrence and retribution stack up against the potential for abuse, intimidation, and miscarriage of justice?"

A problem with hate crime (law) is it's so difficult to enforce objectively. You've mentioned the jury. Do you we really want to have the decision of whether someone's hatred was unacceptable by law put into a jury's hands? The average juror does not study law. I know this sounds bad, but the average juror is easily manipulated, not very capable of analytical thought, and emotionally charged when it comes to so called "moral issues". I mean, the majority of American voters voted bush into power twice!

On the surface these laws don't discriminate, but in practice they don't apply equally to all races, ethnic groups and religions. I mean I don't have stats to prove it but common sense would suggest that hate crimes against Pagans, Satanists, and Sex Workers aren't going to receive the same punishment as hate against Christians, Jews and Blacks. Now there's nothing we can do about institutionalized marginalization of some groups in preference of others. What we can do is minimize the scope for this by having as few laws as possible that are prone to uneven application. Laws like adultery fit this category.

The third problem I've already mentioned. It's easy to allege and hard to disprove. Sometimes, we put up with it because the alternative (not having the law) is worse, eg rape. But we already have ways of punishing crimes when they are committed. We punish attempts. We punish the making of real and sensible threats. We don't *absolutely* need to punish hatred.

On the other side of the scales is the positive aspect of deterring people from inciting hatred and sending out a message that society will not tolerate systematic hatred towards groups of people as a vigilante form of punishment for being a member of such groups.

I don't think the pros outweigh the cons. But that's a subjective assessment.

[gabe]

tons of shit is bogus, all countries suck except for the small ones

[will641]

tons of shit is bogus, all countries suck except for the small ones

gabe, as much as i respect and envy you game, that makes no sense.

[mixchange]

I think we forget what it was like to have Lynchings and a strong KKK in america.

Im glad hate crimes are legally defined. Many of my "darkie" friends were harassed, almost driven off the road after 9-11 for no reason.

yes, these ppl could be punished for "reckless driving"... but they need to be punished worse than just that to protect the people who are CONSTANTLY getting MINOR hate crimes against them in 'times of turmoil' -- e.g. post 911, or any time we are fighting a 'similar cultural background' enemy.

[biondino]

I am not a racist

Yes you are. You're pretty much the dictionary definition of one. Hell, as you say, it's legal to hate - hate away, we're not going to change your mind.

Ask yourself why laws dealing with hate crime were created (and yes, the laws are the only concrete things we have to go on here. You keep mentioning "morals" but it's as impossible to argue about whose "morals" are correct as it is to persuade a Chrsitian that lack of evidence of god disproves their faith). Even if you believe you're not a racist you've got to admit there's a hell of a lot of it out there. Or are ALL black people lying about it? How about those Jews, and that holocaust they keep talking about? Bet you don't believe that, either.

I think if they are found to be lying they should be punished, just like false sexual harassment.

They are, it's called perjury.

do you think that if you got into a fight with a civil rights activist, not because of he was black, he would say, "no this crime of assault was not racially motivated." Odds are, you will probably think I am racist for saying that and odds are, IMO, that he would say it was motivated based on religion/race/orientation.

You strike me as the kind of guy who would probably be brawling with a civil rights activist in the first place because of your perceived injustice. However, since most people who fight for civil rights have consciences and morals (let's use your favourite word here), I would not expect them to play the race card unless it was merited. Most people aren't as sick as you on that front.

Adulterers are minorities in their own right, should we make it so they can live their life without fear and punish me more because I hate adulterers?

You know what, I think adulterers should live their lives without fear, except perhaps of their spouse finding out.

But to answer your facile and plain wrong comment - adulterers are not a minority, it's false to classify them as one. They are people from every walk of life who make a decision to commit acts that almost always have the power to hurt others. Try defining black people that way.

Oh - one more thing. I don't know the first thing about the sample "hate crime" that you quoted, but if you're saying that because this incident was picked up by individuals with their own self-promoting agenda and later proved to be false, then equating this with hate crime legislation being wrong is actually verging on the evil.


Cliff notes: you are a racist, your arguments are vastly flawed and mostly plain wrong, and both you and I would be happier if you stopped feeling like some injured righteous person and accept that in a world of bigotry, you're just one of billions.

[gabe]

tons of shit is bogus, all countries suck except for the small ones

gabe, as much as i respect and envy you game, that makes no sense.

had a typo, but yea, shit is bogus

[IowaSkinsFan]

This thread is awesome btw.

I have to say it'd be really cool if boost chimes in.

[salsa4ever]

I am not a racist

Yes you are. You're pretty much the dictionary definition of one. Hell, as you say, it's legal to hate - hate away, we're not going to change your mind.

Ask yourself why laws dealing with hate crime were created (and yes, the laws are the only concrete things we have to go on here. You keep mentioning "morals" but it's as impossible to argue about whose "morals" are correct as it is to persuade a Chrsitian that lack of evidence of god disproves their faith). Even if you believe you're not a racist you've got to admit there's a hell of a lot of it out there. Or are ALL black people lying about it? How about those Jews, and that holocaust they keep talking about? Bet you don't believe that, either.

I think if they are found to be lying they should be punished, just like false sexual harassment.

They are, it's called perjury.

do you think that if you got into a fight with a civil rights activist, not because of he was black, he would say, "no this crime of assault was not racially motivated." Odds are, you will probably think I am racist for saying that and odds are, IMO, that he would say it was motivated based on religion/race/orientation.

You strike me as the kind of guy who would probably be brawling with a civil rights activist in the first place because of your perceived injustice. However, since most people who fight for civil rights have consciences and morals (let's use your favourite word here), I would not expect them to play the race card unless it was merited. Most people aren't as sick as you on that front.

Adulterers are minorities in their own right, should we make it so they can live their life without fear and punish me more because I hate adulterers?

You know what, I think adulterers should live their lives without fear, except perhaps of their spouse finding out.

But to answer your facile and plain wrong comment - adulterers are not a minority, it's false to classify them as one. They are people from every walk of life who make a decision to commit acts that almost always have the power to hurt others. Try defining black people that way.

Oh - one more thing. I don't know the first thing about the sample "hate crime" that you quoted, but if you're saying that because this incident was picked up by individuals with their own self-promoting agenda and later proved to be false, then equating this with hate crime legislation being wrong is actually verging on the evil.


Cliff notes: you are a racist, your arguments are vastly flawed and mostly plain wrong, and both you and I would be happier if you stopped feeling like some injured righteous person and accept that in a world of bigotry, you're just one of billions.

wow, a cogent, balanced refutation of a flawed argument by FTR's officer of morality. I don't often get to say this, but Bravo Biondino!

[biondino]

Lol I wish I didn't have that reputation. I guess it could be worse...

[gabe]

i hate crime

ha just saw this

[IowaSkinsFan]

i hate crime

ha just saw this

i lol'd, thanks for pointing it out I didn't see that earlier.

[spoonitnow]

OP = spoonitnows dad

I laughed at Triptanes' comment.

But I voted neutral. I don't think it should be illegal to be racist or homophobic or to have any other prejudice, even if it becomes motivation for a crime. While I myself am very much repulsed by these types of prejudices, I think that it boils down to making it illegal to have a certain type of opinion or belief, which is something I can't agree with.

[will641]

I am not a racist

Yes you are. You're pretty much the dictionary definition of one. Hell, as you say, it's legal to hate - hate away, we're not going to change your mind.

Ask yourself why laws dealing with hate crime were created (and yes, the laws are the only concrete things we have to go on here. You keep mentioning "morals" but it's as impossible to argue about whose "morals" are correct as it is to persuade a Chrsitian that lack of evidence of god disproves their faith). Even if you believe you're not a racist you've got to admit there's a hell of a lot of it out there. Or are ALL black people lying about it? How about those Jews, and that holocaust they keep talking about? Bet you don't believe that, either.

I think if they are found to be lying they should be punished, just like false sexual harassment.

They are, it's called perjury.

do you think that if you got into a fight with a civil rights activist, not because of he was black, he would say, "no this crime of assault was not racially motivated." Odds are, you will probably think I am racist for saying that and odds are, IMO, that he would say it was motivated based on religion/race/orientation.

You strike me as the kind of guy who would probably be brawling with a civil rights activist in the first place because of your perceived injustice. However, since most people who fight for civil rights have consciences and morals (let's use your favourite word here), I would not expect them to play the race card unless it was merited. Most people aren't as sick as you on that front.

Adulterers are minorities in their own right, should we make it so they can live their life without fear and punish me more because I hate adulterers?

You know what, I think adulterers should live their lives without fear, except perhaps of their spouse finding out.

But to answer your facile and plain wrong comment - adulterers are not a minority, it's false to classify them as one. They are people from every walk of life who make a decision to commit acts that almost always have the power to hurt others. Try defining black people that way.

Oh - one more thing. I don't know the first thing about the sample "hate crime" that you quoted, but if you're saying that because this incident was picked up by individuals with their own self-promoting agenda and later proved to be false, then equating this with hate crime legislation being wrong is actually verging on the evil.


Cliff notes: you are a racist, your arguments are vastly flawed and mostly plain wrong, and both you and I would be happier if you stopped feeling like some injured righteous person and accept that in a world of bigotry, you're just one of billions.

First of all, I am done defending whether or not I am a racist, because I know what a racist is, and all you (biondino particularly) who call me one, can suck my dick, because I know that I am not one. Further defending myself will just increase my chances of carpal tunnel.

You don't know shit about me, so don't judge me. You are the biggest fucking moron to comment out of anybody. Do you even know who Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are you second rate dip shit? Yeah they would never play the race card when it isn't merited. You are just an incredibly obtuse being clearly. You probably think that women never lie about rape and sexual harassment cases too.

Morals can't be argued? You are really that ignorant? That is how laws are founded, based on its immorality. Burglarizing is immoral, therefore it is against the law. I think everyone except burglars agree with that one. However, not everyone agrees with abortion laws, or hate crime laws.

You are probably too fucking stupid to to realize this, so I'll point it out for you. You are a racist if you do "good" things for the minorities as well because they are a certain race, which is what it seems to me that you are. My ideal is to not treat them differently, and if you call that racist (which you probably do because you are a fool), then you truly are a moron.

Um, can I get a quote where I said racism doesn't exist, and that black people made it up? Oh, can't find find one? Fuck you.

People like you make me sick. And I don't know what race you are, but before you turn my statement into Will hates black people, that wasn't what I meant. What I mean is fucking idiots like you with in I.Q. under 85.

Disagreeing with hate crime legislation is not wrong, it is not evil. Did you go to the most left wing college on this planet? It is a matter of opinion, whether or not you think people should get special punishments because they committed a crime based on gender/race/religion. I think it is hypocritical to do so. I

Adulterer's aren't minorities? Now here you really prove how fucking stupid and unimaginative you are. It's used as an analogy. Do you know what that is? Here is a link to it, because you are so god damn fucking moronic that you probably don't. I hope it serves you well.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/analogy

You are so fucking worthless and stupid, that you are lucky I gave you any attention at all, but that is all the attention you are going to get, because unlike euphoricism, you don't have anything halfway intelligent to say and are geared more towards P.C. bullshit and trying to smear me. So my final thoughts are: Fuck you, you stupid bitch.

[ProZachNation]

OP = spoonitnows dad

I laughed at Triptanes' comment.

But I voted neutral. I don't think it should be illegal to be racist or homophobic or to have any other prejudice, even if it becomes motivation for a crime. While I myself am very much repulsed by these types of prejudices, I think that it boils down to making it illegal to have a certain type of opinion or belief, which is something I can't agree with.

Its not making it illegal to have a certain set of beliefs its illegal to act on the illegal ones being motivated by the racism.

I think that for someone to be charged with a hate crime there has to be several factors. Was the crime committed solely because of persons race/sexual orientation etc, and if so does the person committing the crimes show remorse or show that he would still commit the crime and future crimes of that nature. If so then its a hate crime.

If I beat up a gay guy because we were drunk and he bumped into me and I called him a fag as I beat his ass thats not a hate crime, thats two people fighting.

I think a lot of hate crime stuff was made to stop skin heads and KKK and other militant groups that wanted to terrorize people.

[givememyleg]

First of all, I am done defending whether or not I am a racist, because I know what a racist is, and all you (biondino particularly) who call me one, can suck my dick,

i decided to stop reading your reply right about here. very intelligent.

[will641]

First of all, I am done defending whether or not I am a racist, because I know what a racist is, and all you (biondino particularly) who call me one, can suck my dick,

i decided to stop reading your reply right about here. very intelligent.

i realize you are being sarcastic, but i am sick of it, and sometimes you gotta put things the way they are, for better or worse.

[biondino]

Apart from the fact that most of your reply was ridiculous ad hominem bullshit brought on by a staggering inability to understand a word I said, I'll spell it out for you.

You don't know shit about me, so don't judge me

I can judge you all I like when you post race hate in a public forum.

Do you even know who Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are you second rate dip shit? Yeah they would never play the race card when it isn't merited.

Yes I do know who they are, but I don't know of the specific case you refer to. I'm not American (though I am white as the driven snow, you'd be the first person to be impressed at how Aryan I am). I also said they DID play the race card, so I don't know what the fuck you're on about.

Morals can't be argued? You are really that ignorant?

Uh no, I said there is no point arguing about morals (in particular with racists who deny they're racists, you can see the problem right there) because they're personal and usually instinctive. You could argue for a million years and not get anywhere, so I'm not going to try.

However, not everyone agrees with abortion laws, or hate crime laws

Woo we agree on something! Though you seem to thing morals and laws are the same so I fear our agreement is worthless.

You are a racist if you do "good" things for the minorities as well because they are a certain race

Technically you're not wrong, but you refuse to differentiate this kind of racism with abuse purely as a result of racial differences? One is done with positive intent (though I won't argue there are those who suffer from it, but as someone gains simultaneously it sounds like a value neutral trade-off to me) and one is the result of people who act on a hatred of black people because they're black.

Did you go to the most left wing college on this planet?

No, I don't need to swallow propaganda to make up my mind on these subjects.

Adulterer's aren't minorities? Now here you really prove how fucking stupid and unimaginative you are. It's used as an analogy.

No. It's a worthless analogy because the only thing adulterers and black people have is there are fewer of them than there are non-adulterers and white people. Adulterers are not hated because of a quality they cannot change or control such as the colour of their skin. So your analogy doesn't mean anything and weakens your credibility.

What I mean is fucking idiots like you with in I.Q. under 85.

LOL - 142 last time I checked. You?

you don't have anything halfway intelligent to say and are geared more towards P.C. bullshit and trying to smear me

You're doing a pretty good job of that yourself - it doesn't take a genius to see that just because you claim not to be a racist that pretty much everything you're saying proves otherwise. And PC? Huh? Means nothing to me. I'm just stating my beliefs, just like you are.

[givememyleg]

First of all, I am done defending whether or not I am a racist, because I know what a racist is, and all you (biondino particularly) who call me one, can suck my dick,

i decided to stop reading your reply right about here. very intelligent.

i realize you are being sarcastic, but i am sick of it, and sometimes you gotta put things the way they are, for better or worse.

who said i was being sarcastic? you sure put him in his place by telling him to put your cock in his mouth!!!!!!!

[Miffed22001]

how did i miss this post

[biondino]

Maybe Will has opinions on gays he'd like to share with the group.

[will641]

If will had just said "I hate blacks" I can disagree with him but there's no argument to be had. When he says that racial attacks shouldn't be criminalised, then yes, there's an argument to be had.

Oh, and making jokes at their expense IS discrimination, Miffy, maybe not the worst but it's a textbook example.

you are just completely prone to spout bullshit. I never said that they shouldn't be punished, i said they shouldnt be punished differently
than a regular assault, murder, or any kind of verbal threat.

and if you want my opinion on gays, i dont really care if someone is gay or not, as long as i dont have to see it in public, and they don't come on to me.

[IowaSkinsFan]