Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 376 (537882)
12-01-2009 1:19 PM


Strange bedfellows
I did some investigating and as if turns out the United States Commission on Civil Rights actually opposed the bill we are now debating, citing very similar arguments as my own.
I also found an unbiased source which covers both the pro's and con's, and damn near all of the concerns have been covered by all of the participants of this thread.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2009 2:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 65 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2009 2:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 97 by Rrhain, posted 12-03-2009 3:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 376 (537883)
12-01-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rrhain
12-01-2009 5:18 AM


Right. You do realize that the feds have had to be called in to prosecute crimes that the local authorities would not, yes? That the only reason that they were able to do so is because of the hate crimes statutes, yes? About 26 a year, according to the FBI.
Sources, specifics, what cases, etc.....
You're assuming that no investigation is done and that anybody would go to trial based on 10 minutes of unreliable witness testimony. Please.
Did I say 10 minutes worth of testimony, did I say unreliable witnesses...
Surely you're not hinting that hate crimes prosecutions are out of control, are you?
Not at all.
Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
Only when they're dressed like Peter Pan.
You're arguing against prosecuting criminals.
Having not heard the testimonies from the witnesses, not seen the case or the details of the fight ... how then do you know they are criminals?
Innocent til proven guilty, right?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 5:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rrhain, posted 12-03-2009 4:35 AM onifre has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 63 of 376 (537885)
12-01-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
I did some investigating and as if turns out the United States Commission on Civil Rights actually opposed the bill we are now debating, citing very similar arguments as my own.
I don't in principle doubt this, but after looking around myself I could not find this document published by the USCCR itself. Your link is coming from a conservative website which by itself does not mean anything but it would be better to substantiate this document as coming from its source.
In general though, this is plainly an argument from authority. Do you intend at any point to address the actually content of the rebuttals from people or just post links to organizations that most of us would have a good reputation of?
Similarly, I support the ACLU very strongly but I am absolutly aghast as their support for repealing campaign finance laws. I will defy them to the grave on that while supporting their mission in general.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 2:38 PM Jazzns has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 64 of 376 (537886)
12-01-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rrhain
12-01-2009 5:46 AM


The jury, just like they decide everything else about the case, including if you had intent to commit it.
The point is, why are you on trail for a hate crime to begin with? Who made that decision?
A mistake in calling it a hate crime can have grave repercussions in the community, add to the already present tension, etc. This is the real world scenario.
There is no gain from calling something a hate crime. What is the point?
The prosecution must convince the jury that the crime is a hate crime. If the prosecution doesn't think it can't, it won't introduce such evidence. But if they do think they can, the jury can still say that they haven't established their case.
What does it gain?
All the while this case is taking place, what are the ramifications of it in the community?
Yes, the prosecutor is the one who decides what charges will be tried (which is true for all trials), but it is the jury who decides if the prosecution has satisfied its burden. It can easily return a verdict that the defendant is guilty of the crime but not of a hate crime.
I understand this, but what you must also realize is that you are playing around with a word that has hardcore, real world, social repercussions that are not needed, nor do they help in any way.
If the person is found not guilty, yet the community is now further divided and more tension between the groups has occured, and more "hate" crimes follow ... would it be worth it?
Irrelevant. The media doesn't draw up the charges.
What world do you live in?
The cops don't define charges. The prosecution does.
What does the prosecution use as evidence for the trail?
Except that your fantasy has no connection to reality.
Except that this was an actual situation, like I explained to AZPaul3.
It would only be a hate crime if it could be established that your specific actions at the time were directed at the group
And who decides that?
The group gives their testimony to the cops and adds specifics to the case that may not have happened. A few other witnesses (eye witnesses which is shit - how many UFO's have people seen?) confirm the lie and now you are accused of a hate crime.
This is exactly what took place, so don't tell me what is fantasy or not.
These laws have been on the books for forty years. Where is this "dogs and cats sleeping together" mass hysteria you're so afraid of descending upon us?
Trails didn't have the media hype then that they do now. Also, minorities didn't live so integrated then as they do now.
The problem is liberals try to help out minorities so much, when in reality, minorities can't stand them, that's the funny part.
Most minorities are conservative, anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc., type of people, and can't stand the pussyfication of America that you guys try to do with your bullshit politically correct laws. That actually cause more harm than they do good!
But you can't stand to hear that maybe you're wrong, that 'racists' won't be punished worse. Its almost as though you guys feel you must carry the burden for years of discrimination ... please, get over it. There is no positive gain from this politically correct attitude. People don't need special laws to protect them. And these laws create more tension within the groups that they are trying to protect.
Fuck, white guilt must be a bitch, huh?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 5:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 2:51 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 12-01-2009 3:03 PM onifre has replied
 Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 12-02-2009 7:07 AM onifre has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 65 of 376 (537887)
12-01-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
More than just being an argument from authority, of perhaps questionable attribution, it is very narrow.
A very casual search turns up that other human rights organization in fact are quite happy with the legislation.
Page not found - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
If you look at the USCCR website you will find that their thrust seems to be much more about the catalogue of hate crimes and proper enforcement by the DoJ. This lends some support to the authenticity of the pdf you linked in that most of the concerns were relating to proper enforment and not the laundry list of Constitutional clams you have erroneously made in this thread.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 3:14 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 66 of 376 (537889)
12-01-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Jazzns
12-01-2009 2:07 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
I don't in principle doubt this, but after looking around myself I could not find this document published by the USCCR itself. Your link is coming from a conservative website which by itself does not mean anything but it would be better to substantiate this document as coming from its source.
I got it off the Wikipedia article pertaining to the Hate-Crime Prevention Bill Act. It looks legitimate to me, but if you could argue that it was fabricated I would certainly look at it.
In general though, this is plainly an argument from authority.
I posted it because the Civil Rights Commission of the United States did not support it, which I think is significant in my defense. I think that is significant being that these people support civil rights.
Do you intend at any point to address the actually content of the rebuttals from people or just post links to organizations that most of us would have a good reputation of?
I've raised all of their objections, not to mention more, and have given a rebuttal to all the claims presented to me thus far. We're on the portion of debate where it is a broken record.
What specifically would you like me to address that you believe I have not yet done?
Similarly, I support the ACLU very strongly but I am absolutly aghast as their support for repealing campaign finance laws. I will defy them to the grave on that while supporting their mission in general.
I don't understand the ACLU sometimes. Sometimes different districts argue with one another.
Are they in favor of limiting campaign funds or against the limitation of campaign funds? I'm a little divided on that issue myself. There are good arguments for both sides. That might be a good debate. I'd take part in a debate on that subject.
If you'd like to start a thread, I'd join.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2009 2:07 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2009 2:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 67 of 376 (537892)
12-01-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 2:38 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
I got it off the Wikipedia article pertaining to the Hate-Crime Prevention Bill Act. It looks legitimate to me, but if you could argue that it was fabricated I would certainly look at it.
It is probably not fabricated, its just not sourced from the USCCR which raises a very small red flag but raises it none the less. The more important thing to note is that the concern in the letter does not in fact mention some of your primary concerns which was constitutionality. They are more concerned with proper enforcement, federalization, double jeopardy, which is more in line with what the USCCR website portrays as part of its mission. It is quite likely that they actually support the spirit of the law but just not that particular manifestation. Like I mentioned before, other human rights group adamantly support the law.
What specifically would you like me to address that you believe I have not yet done?
I have a post waiting for a reply with some direct questions for you. You may have answered them already but I haven't seen it. If I missed it please just point me at the proper post.
Are they in favor of limiting campaign funds or against the limitation of campaign funds? I'm a little divided on that issue myself. There are good arguments for both sides. That might be a good debate. I'd take part in a debate on that subject.
If you'd like to start a thread, I'd join.
They want to remove limits b/c they argue it limits corporate free-speech. It is very depressing to me b/c I feel that after the SCOTUS trashes McCain/Feingold that we are going to have so much corporate influence in elections that we truly are going down the road of fascism. My $25 a month to my favorite canidate is going to be totally and utterly dwarfed by the billions corporations will be able to put into campaigns. This is above and beyond what they can do now by skirting some of the laws by there various PACs. Is that really free speech? Does money = speech? I don't think that is what our founders intended or what is rational to consider.
I don't know, its interesting but I don't think I'll start it. I may jump in if you do but it makes me too sad to get up in arms about. So little news about it and we are basically staring down the barrel of a gun right now with very little recourse.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 376 (537894)
12-01-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by onifre
12-01-2009 2:12 PM


Back-assward logic... er, Ass-backward logic
Its almost as though you guys feel you must carry the burden for years of discrimination ... please, get over it. There is no positive gain from this politically correct attitude. People don't need special laws to protect them. And these laws create more tension within the groups that they are trying to protect.
Very astute observation, Onifre. That's the unfortunate, unintended consequence of trying to right a past wrong by wronging others in the process.
It's almost like the people who push for political correctness aren't actually seeking equality but are seeking to punish one group for past sins, sins they were never themselves involved with. Sins of the father, kinda thing.
There's no doubt that sins have been committed against various groups of people for really ridiculous reasons. There is no doubt that "equality" in the past was at best hypocritical, and at worst criminal.
But going an extra step by giving certain groups extra status as compensation for past wrongs doesn't work. It only reinforces superficial differences instead of trying erase differences altogether.
I think you would agree that they only have the best of intentions in mind, but that they are going about it with backassward logic.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 2:12 PM onifre has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 69 of 376 (537899)
12-01-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by onifre
12-01-2009 2:12 PM


The problem is liberals try to help out minorities so much, when in reality, minorities can't stand them, that's the funny part.
Stereotype much?
Hate crime laws aren;t simply about helping specific minorities, Oni. This line of thinking demonstrates that either you have no read or have not processed the meaning of actual hate crime legislation. This isn't about giving blacks/hispanics/asians/whoever a boost. It's about recognizing the increased harm of a crime that targets a subset of society specifically as opposed to "normal" crime.
Hate crimes are only those crimes that target their victims due to their race, religion, color, national origin, (perceived) sexual orientation, or (perceived) gender. These crimes have a chilling effect on the entire subset - for example, if the KKK were to use harassment and intimidation to prevent blacks and Jews from voting. This is obviously and objectively far more damaging to society as a whole than simple charges of harassment would normally convey.
But hate crime laws aren't jsut for "minorities." The apply equally to every race, to every religion, etc. This isn't about "liberals" supporting a bunch of "minorities" who don't want the white man's help. That line of thought is itself absurdly racist and offensive.
Hate crime legislation is not about individuals, ro good feelings. It's about protecting society, plain and simple. Society cannot exist when free speech, the ability to vote, to attend school, or even to simply walk down the street is impaired - and the harm is increased more than cumulatively when an entire subset of the population is denied those rights.
When one child is prevented from going to school, harm is done. But when an entire subset, say, boys, or girls, or blacks, or Jews, are prevented from attending school, the harm is greater than the total number of children. The chilling effect of such hate crimes on society is far worse than ordinary harassment and violence.
To put it bluntly, Oni, this has nothing to do with whether you personally or any given minority group gets the "warm fuzzies." Even the risk of increasing racial tension by possibly identifying a person incorrectly as a racist is nothing compared to the harm done by intimidating an entire community, preventing entire subsets of society from exercising basic rights and participating. It has to do with ensuring that such disgusting practices as have happened in our past (and continue to happen) are punished more severely because the harm they do is also more severe.
Do you even comprehend what happens when a subset of society is denied the ability to participate on teh same level as everyone else? We went through this in the Civil Rights era, but you can still see the results more recently and sometimes still even today. It's still difficult for homosexuals to come out of the closet because of fear of violent reprisal, for example. It still results in mockery and derision and in some cases even violence. That subset of society is prevented from exercising their rights on the same level as everyone else. That chilling effect has long-reaching consequences for society as a whole, as segments are alienated from each other and resentment is bred. We are still, today dealing with the social after-effects of the pre-Civil Rights era! Entire subcultures are shaped by the sorts of hate crimes we're talking about here!
Whether a given group "feels good" about hate crime legislation or whether they feel that it's just "pussifying America" is compeltely irrelevant. We know the objective, factual results of crimes that target people because of their race, color, national origin, (perceived) gender, (perceived) sexual orientation, and religion. We know the effects because we're still living with them today, decades after most of the country thinks we "fixed" the problems, decades after we made those actions illegal.
It is blatantly obvious that, given the increased severity of the harm done to society by crimes of this nature that those crimes, when identified, should carry additional penalties.
Most minorities are conservative, anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc., type of people, and can't stand the pussyfication of America that you guys try to do with your bullshit politically correct laws.
Are you having fun continuing to stereotype entire segments of the population? Do you think attempting to pigeonhole entire subsets of society into "liberal" and "conservative" boxes helps your argument? Do you think honestly that appealing to popularity and emotion will win an argument here?
That actually cause more harm than they do good!
Unsupported assertion. Quantify the harm done by hate crime legislation, and prove that it is less than the harm caused by harsher penalties for hate crimes.
Otherwise you're just spouting personal opinions, not facts.
But you can't stand to hear that maybe you're wrong, that 'racists' won't be punished worse.
"Racists" are only one group who are likely to commit hate crimes, and they apply to more than just groups like the KKK. Once again your words demonstrate that you fail to recognize that hate crime legislation protects all subsets equally. A person who targets all white people or all men will suffer the same increased penalties as a person who targets all blacks or all gays.
Its almost as though you guys feel you must carry the burden for years of discrimination ... please, get over it.
I feel no such burden. You're the one making this about race, Oni. Not anyone else. I've listed the subsets covered by hate crime legislation how many times now?
There is no positive gain from this politically correct attitude.
This isn;t about "political correctness." It's nto about trying to make people "feel better." It's about protecting society, as I explained above.
People don't need special laws to protect them.
Individuals do not. Sometimes subgroups do. But society as a whole does require additional protection when a crime targets a specific subset of itself as opposed to random individuals. The effects on society from those crimes is significant and far-reaching, drastically beyond the effects on the individual victims.
When a gay person/black kid/whatever is beaten to death simply because of his/her race/gender/religion/whatever, other members of that subgroup are terrorized. In some cases this fear can result in an entire group withdrawing from integrated society - an effect we still see today. It can prevent subsets from going to school or voting - the effects of which we can still see today. It can prevent people from being able to express themselves honestly in public - a problem that still exists today.
These effects are far beyond the harm done to the individual victim. When a racist kills a black kid just because he's black, the kid is not the only victim. Every black person in the community is at that poitn avictim of terror, as the racist has attempted to terrorize that community.
When Matthew Sheppard was murdered, he wasn;t the only victim - the entire gay community was the victim of an attempt to terrorize them, to force them out of public view.
If someone attacks a Christian simply because of their faith, the entire Christian community is a victim of an attempt to terrorize them, to tell them that their community is not welcome in society at large.
Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with recognizing that hate crimes are those crimes which victimize more people than only the individual(s) attacked or harassed - and therefore should carry harsher penalties.
And these laws create more tension within the groups that they are trying to protect.
Says you.
Fuck, white guilt must be a bitch, huh?
Becasue all supporters of hate crime legislation are white, right? Because this is all about the fucking white man feeling all guilty like a pussy and trying to make up for the sins of his fathers?
Get over yourself. Hate crime legislation is not about race - that's just one of several subsets that these laws protect, and they don't only protect traditional minorities. They protect everyone. The white man is jsut as protected against being attacked by a group of Hispanic thugs as a Hispanic kid is protected against a bunch of white assholes trying to prevent him from attending school because they claim he's an "illegal."
It's nto about race, it;s not about political correctness, and you, Oni, are full of shit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 2:12 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 6:45 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 11:08 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 376 (537901)
12-01-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Jazzns
12-01-2009 2:17 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
More than just being an argument from authority, of perhaps questionable attribution, it is very narrow.
A very casual search turns up that other human rights organization in fact are quite happy with the legislation.
To each his own.
If you look at the USCCR website you will find that their thrust seems to be much more about the catalogue of hate crimes and proper enforcement by the DoJ. This lends some support to the authenticity of the pdf you linked in that most of the concerns were relating to proper enforment and not the laundry list of Constitutional clams you have erroneously made in this thread.
If you are calling the authenticity in to question, it is going to have to be more concrete than a hunch. Secondly, it dealt with most of the concepts I questioned: Double-Jeopardy, Equal Protection, it mentioned the law already covers murder, it mentioned that by the nature of some crimes victims not protected (like the elderly) are targeted specifically yet not protected, etc.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2009 2:17 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2009 6:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 71 of 376 (537922)
12-01-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
Lets assume it is legit...
Secondly, it dealt with most of the concepts I questioned: Double-Jeopardy, Equal Protection, it mentioned the law already covers murder, it mentioned that by the nature of some crimes victims not protected (like the elderly) are targeted specifically yet not protected, etc.
You are goign to have to point out where in this letter it talks about equal protection in the way even you have used it in this thread. This is primarily a concern about federalism, double jeopardy, and concerns based on a mischaracterization of the law.
For example:
Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of the victim. They are virtually always chosen "because of" their gender.
Which is a broad misrepresentation of what a hate-crime is. Perhaps they are concerned that the technical distinction is ambiguous which would be a legitimate gripe, but as it stands I don't see how they are providing a valid criticism of hate-crime laws in general.
I don't think this letter helps you in the way you think it does. I'll really look forward to you replying to my previous questions.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 3:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 72 of 376 (537923)
12-01-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rahvin
12-01-2009 3:03 PM


Stereotype much?
All the time, I make a living from it.
BUT.....
I'll get more serious in this post than in the one to Rrhain, since I apparently hit a nerve and I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else - except Rrhain.
Hate crimes are only those crimes that target their victims due to their race, religion, color, national origin, (perceived) sexual orientation, or (perceived) gender. These crimes have a chilling effect on the entire subset - for example, if the KKK were to use harassment and intimidation to prevent blacks and Jews from voting. This is obviously and objectively far more damaging to society as a whole than simple charges of harassment would normally convey.
And I get this. Trust me, I do applaude the efforts made by trying to reconcile years of discrimination.
Harassment of any kind, to any group, specifically because they are who they are should not be tolerated. I advocate for this whenever I argue for gay rights - look at my responses to Hyro in the other thread.
But justice can still be served without the euphemism of "hate" crime. A crime is crime, there is no need for the labelling, especially when the mislabelling can lead to further tension.
But hate crime laws aren't jsut for "minorities." The apply equally to every race, to every religion, etc. This isn't about "liberals" supporting a bunch of "minorities" who don't want the white man's help. That line of thought is itself absurdly racist and offensive.
Fair enough.
Society cannot exist when free speech, the ability to vote, to attend school, or even to simply walk down the street is impaired - and the harm is increased more than cumulatively when an entire subset of the population is denied those rights.
When one child is prevented from going to school, harm is done. But when an entire subset, say, boys, or girls, or blacks, or Jews, are prevented from attending school, the harm is greater than the total number of children. The chilling effect of such hate crimes on society is far worse than ordinary harassment and violence.
But you must agree, that we are long past the days of George Wallace, and continuing to set laws with this frame of mind prevents us from moving forward from that tainted past.
If there were areas where people were being prevented from going to school or voting specifically because of the color of their skin or the religion they practice, then I'd say you have a point. But this simply does not exist in todays society.
There needs to be a reform in the laws, we should removes the labels from crimes that associate it with our racist/bigoted/call it what you want, past. Your argument made sense when it was relevant, it is no longer the case, and we need to now be aware that they may work in a negative way, especially in our media-hyped society where small issues become national news.
Even the risk of increasing racial tension by possibly identifying a person incorrectly as a racist is nothing compared to the harm done by intimidating an entire community, preventing entire subsets of society from exercising basic rights and participating.
I agree, or I should say, I agree(d) with your argument when it was relevant. Where do you find intimdation of an entire community by another race these days? If you tried to tell a black guy to sit in the back of the bus these days you'd wake up in the hospital. That is the reality of it. that is one example. Try telling a Jewish person he can't attend public school, try telling a gay person he can't vote, etc....
These "groups" that you are speaking about can handle themselves and get the doors opened on their own, which they have!
I fail to see where your argument is relevant. Now, I agree that it used to be, but I don't feel it is anymore.
In fact, the only people that I see in our society that aren't allowed basic rights are gays in regards to marriage. Other than that, no one is denied ANY rights by any majority group. And trust me, not calling something a "hate" crime, and simply refering to it as a "crime," is NOT going to give rise to the America of the past.
I feel calling it a "hate" crime does however bring up those lingering feelings of the past. It brings to the mainstream images of slavery, segregation and intolerance - plus, it divides the communities where they take place. It does more harm than good.
Do you even comprehend what happens when a subset of society is denied the ability to participate on teh same level as everyone else?
You are talking to the child of immigrant parents. My parents felt that which you speak of first hand when they got to this country (early 50's, they are old school), so yes, I comprehend it quite well. I've been told of the stories from my dad of not being able to get work, or eat at a diner, of being harassed by cops because he didn't speak the language or because he didn't understand road signs - so I feel what you're saying, but this is not the reality that we live in anymore. Nor is it the reality that we should think we live in anymore, and advocate for laws that keep to this era.
We have moved on, all of us.
It's still difficult for homosexuals to come out of the closet because of fear of violent reprisal, for example. It still results in mockery and derision and in some cases even violence. v
And I agree, this is a sad state for our current America. But the answer, just as with the Civil Rights movement, is not through euphemisms. Its through action at the legislative level. Classifying something as a "hate" crime solves none of the things you are talking about. And misclassifying it can have very bad results. I just don't see the need for it anymore.
The fact is, even if you try and convict someone of a hate crime, all the problems still exist, nothing happened. You added a few more years to the sentence, that's all. So how did you solve any issue? Are you saying that harsher prison sentences resolve this issue, or makes us all get along better socially? Really? Because that kind of thinking (increase prison sentencing) has actually worked in the opposite direction in the war on drugs, so what are you saying the benefits are?
"pussifying America"
That is copywritten, btw.
It is blatantly obvious that, given the increased severity of the harm done to society by crimes of this nature that those crimes, when identified, should carry additional penalties.
It is a perceived increase in severity by a group of law makers had a reason then but are out of touch with the real world now.
They should not carry additional pusishment because it is not that big of epidemic now a days. And additional punishment does nothing to help the actual problems in our society, Rahvin.
The laws may exist, but the laws are benefiting, and in some cases, making matters worse.
Are you having fun continuing to stereotype entire segments of the population?
I'll admit, I kinda was.
Quantify the harm done by hate crime legislation, and prove that it is less than the harm caused by harsher penalties for hate crimes.
Wait, the law exists, right? So prove to me that the harsher punishment reduces "hate" crimes and then you'll have a case. Note however, that bigotry will exist regardless of how much you punish someone, just as drugs will exist even if you get 15 years for a bag of weed.
You of all people I thought would understand that punishing someone hasher alleviates nothing. So that's one thing, what is the benefit?
The other is common sense, and can be seen on TV whenever there is a race issue, or religious issue, or any issue that pins two social groups against each other; it's always going to be negative. So there is a clear, easy to see, negative side.
I feel no such burden. You're the one making this about race, Oni. Not anyone else. I've listed the subsets covered by hate crime legislation how many times now?
Realistically speaking, the laws may be for everyone but they signal out minorities.
I recognize your subset, and in reality, the only ones suffering in the manner that you are saying are gays in our culture, that's it. So lets get real, dude, and don't patronize me with "these laws protect white people too." I get that they would if there was ever a case in the HISTORY of America where this group was being pushed to the proverbial "back of the bus."
This may be your future, but certianly not your present, and definitely not your past.
When a gay person/black kid/whatever is beaten to death simply because of his/her race/gender/religion/whatever, other members of that subgroup are terrorized.
That is hyped up nonsense. It no more increases terror than crime in and of itself. If someone robs your neighbor the whole block now feels "terrorized." Is your argument just about how a specific crime makes an entire group "feel" afterwards? And how do you know how people "feel"...? How do you know this doesn't make them rise up and kick some ass on their own?
You speak of these groups as though they were weak, helpless individuals. Your arguments are usually sound, strong arguments - this one fails, Rahvin.
How could you possibly speak for the emotions of an entire community which your are completely disattached from?
In some cases this fear can result in an entire group withdrawing from integrated society - an effect we still see today. It can prevent subsets from going to school or voting - the effects of which we can still see today. It can prevent people from being able to express themselves honestly in public - a problem that still exists today.
Where, where is this happening? Be specific and we'll see if this isn't due to another reason. Except for gays, and atheists in politics (and we know the source of the problem for BOTH of these groups), where do you see this?
When a racist kills a black kid just because he's black, the kid is not the only victim. Every black person in the community is at that poitn avictim of terror, as the racist has attempted to terrorize that community.
Terror? Fear? From the black community? Get the fuck outta here, dude. I can tell you spend very little time in "the black community." When a black kid gets his ass kicked, the terror should be on the white people in the neighboring communities!
This is exactly my point - "others" speaking up for people who they are out of touch with. Have you asked the black community if they feel "terrorized"...?
This is the same type of argument that people brought up when someone like Imus or Michael Richards tried to make a joke and it didn't go well.
Everyone tries to speak up for everyone else. They try to establish what should and shouldn't be considered "funny," and claim that people got "offended" ... Who, who are these people? Who the fuck got offended? You know who, white liberals, that's who got offended. And, since their politically correct asses or on TV, they try to speak for everyone else.
Its the same as you or anyone else claiming that certain crimes make people "feel" like victims. That is PC bullshit.
Hyro lived in Miami a while back, maybe he remembers when a white police officer shot a black kid in the back while fleeing on a motorcycle. Ask him, or I can tell you, exactly what was the reaction from the black community? It wasn't feelings of terror, it wasn't fear for cops, it was balls to the walls aggression toward anything that had a badge - even a rent-a-cop.
No group is a "victim" anymore, that's the reality you have to open your eyes to. And by continuing to call them "victims" you reduce them to second class members of society who require special attention.
Hate crime legislation has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with recognizing that hate crimes are those crimes which victimize more people than only the individual(s) attacked or harassed - and therefore should carry harsher penalties.
Only in the eyes of those who are not intune with said "groups."
YOU see them as victims, they see themselves as more than capable of handling the situation on their own, even if that entails releasing a little terror of their own.
Becasue all supporters of hate crime legislation are white, right? Because this is all about the fucking white man feeling all guilty like a pussy and trying to make up for the sins of his fathers?
Here again I'll admit that I was being a douche to Rrhain, but come on, can you blame me?
The white man is jsut as protected against being attacked by a group of Hispanic thugs as a Hispanic kid is protected against a bunch of white assholes trying to prevent him from attending school because they claim he's an "illegal."
Of course they/we/everyone is protected, we are protect regardless of what you call it, but prosecuting it as a "hate" crime and continuing to re-live the days of the past, is not helping. Everyone is protected under the same laws, Rahvin. Isolated incidents don't make it the norm.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 12-01-2009 3:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 4:17 AM onifre has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 73 of 376 (537948)
12-02-2009 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by onifre
12-01-2009 6:45 PM


Spot on - post of the month for me
onifre writes:
Everyone tries to speak up for everyone else. They try to establish what should and shouldn't be considered "funny," and claim that people got "offended" ... Who, who are these people? Who the fuck got offended? You know who, white liberals, that's who got offended. And, since their politically correct asses or on TV, they try to speak for everyone else.
Its the same as you or anyone else claiming that certain crimes make people "feel" like victims. That is PC bullshit.
No group is a "victim" anymore, that's the reality you have to open your eyes to. And by continuing to call them "victims" you reduce them to second class members of society who require special attention.
A short, sharp explosion of reality checking. I take my hat off to you sir!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 6:45 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by onifre, posted 12-02-2009 1:00 PM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 376 (537955)
12-02-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Legend
12-01-2009 8:30 AM


Legend responds to me:
quote:
"Lying in wait" makes it murder one because of the *action* taken by the perpetrator to lie in wait before attacking the victim
Because of the state of mind "lying in wait" requires. You didn't just suddenly reach the conclusion to kill the person. Instead, you put a lot of thought into it, planned and schemed. You developed the required mens rea to perform the act.
Are you saying our entire system of justice is based on a fraud?
quote:
actions ==> intent
Incorrect. Once again, the legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind," not actions. Prosecution must show mens rea as well as actus reus. That's why we can have a result of "not guilty by reason of insanity." The person performed the act but did not have the state of mind capable of understanding what was going on.
quote:
Just because you hate someone doesn't mean that you intend to kill them.
Of course. But killing without intent is not the same thing as killing with intent. And since the legal definition of "intent" is "state of mind," your argument fails.
quote:
Intent can only be inferred by one's actions. This from the free dictionary
Did you not read your own source?
Intent is a mental attitude
What part of "mental attitude" are you having trouble with? The fact that you have to show it via indirect methods is immaterial. You're absolutely right that we cannot read your mind, but if you decide to tell us what's in your mind, then that's perfectly fine. The fact that we determine your state of mind via your actions is immaterial. What we're trying to establish is your state of mind.
You're behaving as if a hate crime simply assumes intent based upon the identification of the victim as a minority group member. It doesn't. The prosecution must prove the state of mind of the defendant in a hate crime in exactly the same way that the prosecution must prove the state of mind of the defendant in a capital murder case.
It's the same process. If it's valid to distinguish murder one from murder two, why is it suddenly invalid when used to distinguish simple assault from terrorism?
quote:
I'm asking again: SHOW ME the post and paragraph where I said or implied that those who commit acts of terrorism shouldn't be punished accordingly lest people who agree with the terrorists should take up the cause.
And I gave it to you. If you don't agree, that's fine. We can discuss it. But let's not pretend that I didn't give you chapter and verse. Did you or did you not write, "they indirectly propagate racism and increase racial tensions"?
Thus, we shouldn't prosecute people for terrorism lest other people take up the cause.
quote:
If you load a gun, break into your neighbours's house and shoot him while he sleeps, that's murder one.
Incorrect. We don't know if it's murder one or murder two until we determine your mens rea. Murder one requires specific thoughts (which must be shown by the prosecution). If we can't show what you were thinking, then it isn't murder one.
That's why "crimes of passion" are murder two, not murder one: You don't have the requisite "state of mind" that murder one requires. The legal system makes a distinction between killing someone in the heat of the moment and killing someone with a calculated mental state.
We have to prove your mental state in order to prove murder one.
So if it's OK with regard to murder, why is it suddenly a problem when it comes to terrorism?
quote:
No, I'm complaining that giving (or appearing to give) special treatment to people based on their race, ethnicity or sexuality causes resentment and social tensions.
And thus, we shouldn't prosecute terrorists out of fear that others will take their place. You're saying that because there are people out there who resent treating all people equally under the law, we shouldn't actually treat them equally lest these bigots decide to act upon their bigotry.
Need I remind you that hate crimes laws protect those in the majority just as much as those in the minority? Should we stop protecting the victims of terrorism because people have a mistaken understanding of the law? Victims of terrorism shouldn't be able to have full justice applied because bigots think it's an affront to decency to do so?
When did we start taking orders about what justice is from the ones who seek to deny it to their fellows?
quote:
Surely even you should be able to appreciate the resentment and sense of injustice this causes to victims and their families
Not at all. In fact, I find it ludicrous that there are people out there who don't understand the difference between a crime that was only oriented at a single person and one that was geared at terrorizing an entire class of people.
I swear I'm in an Eddie Izzard monologue:
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death — lunch- death, death, death -afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower..."
The crime committed against an individual is not the same as a crime that is committed against an individual as a symbol to the rest of the group. To deny that, to downplay the effect upon everybody else who was directly targeted but not physically attacked, is to deny justice.
So no, I don't understand any sense of resentment or injustice. Instead, I feel the exact opposite. I resent those that want to deny justice to those who are the victims of terrorism by waving it away as something smaller.
quote:
We should punish terrorists for what they've done, *not* for what they believe in.
And that's precisely what hate crimes laws do: Punish you for your actions. If we can show that your intent was not to simply commit a crime against an individual but rather against an entire class through the proxy of the particular individual in question, then you are guilty of a greater crime.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Legend, posted 12-01-2009 8:30 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Legend, posted 12-02-2009 1:59 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 75 of 376 (537965)
12-02-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by onifre
12-01-2009 2:12 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
The point is, why are you on trail for a hate crime to begin with? Who made that decision?
The perpetrator when they committed the crime. Why should the police be on the lookout for a killer just because they have a dead body?
quote:
A mistake in calling it a hate crime can have grave repercussions in the community, add to the already present tension, etc. This is the real world scenario.
By this logic, we should toss out the entire criminal code because it applies to all crimes: A mistake in calling any action a crime can have grave repercussions in the community, add to the already present tension, etc. This is the real world scenario.
If we accept the fact that mistakes will be made with regard to other crimes, why are you so upset about mistakes being made with regard to these crimes? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people but don't want anybody to think there might be a reason for it beyond just coincidence?
Prosecutorial discretion allows the DA to literally charge you for anything at all at his whim. And yet, you don't seem to be that upset over this. But since we let prosecutors have this freedom, we also have a check on it called "prosecutorial misconduct." And its standard of proof is pretty much the same as that for hate crime: You have to prove that the DA was out to get you for malicious reasons.
Our entire judicial system is based upon this. That's why it's the prosecution that draws up the charges, not the police or the judge or the jury. The person who has the responsibility of proving the case has to have the freedom to decide what it is he thinks he can prove.
Yes, mistakenly filed charges are a bad thing. But since I don't see you railing against the existence of murder laws on the basis that people are routinely unfairly charged with murder, I find it more than a bit disingenuous that you're complaining about the existence of anti-terrorism laws for the same reason.
Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
quote:
What does it gain?
Justice. It ensures that the punishment fits the crime.
quote:
All the while this case is taking place, what are the ramifications of it in the community?
So we should deny justice to victims of terrorism because bigots in the community might get their feelings hurt?
Do you make a habit of beating up gay people? Afraid that people might think it isn't just a coincidence? You gotta commit a crime first in order to have the charges enhanced by hate crimes legislation. Have you commited a crime?
quote:
I understand this, but what you must also realize is that you are playing around with a word that has hardcore, real world, social repercussions that are not needed, nor do they help in any way.
And thus, we should get rid of laws against murder because of the "hardcore, real world, social repercussions" that happen when people are wrongfully accused.
Why are you not protesting that? Why is your complaint only coming up when we are providing justice to certain classes of people? Are you worried that you're going to get tagged? Well, you'll only get tagged if you commit a crime. Have you committed a crime? Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
quote:
If the person is found not guilty, yet the community is now further divided and more tension between the groups has occured, and more "hate" crimes follow ... would it be worth it?
Yes. Since when do we take lessons on justice from bigots? Since when do we deny justice to an entire class of people simply because the bigots would get upset at having their criminal activities exposed?
You have to commit a crime first. Have you committed a crime?
quote:
What world do you live in?
The real world. Last time I checked, the paperwork that is turned in regarding the formal charges against a defendant are filed by the DA, not the New York Times.
It's why Polanski is only charged with "unlawful sex with a minor," rather than aggravated rape. To listen to some media talking heads describe it, his penalty should be life imprisonment (and I make no comment here about agreeing or disagreeing with that sentiment), but they don't get to draw up the charges. They only get to flap their yaps.
quote:
What does the prosecution use as evidence for the trail?
Evidence of the defendant's state of mind. It's not like they attempt to read the mind of the defendant. They have to provide documentable evidence. If we have a videotape of your assault that records your statements, the fact that you wrote various statements upon the body of the victim, other comments you make during interrogation, we can develop a case regarding your mens rea. We develop a larger context, not just a snapshot of twenty seconds worth of gutteral outbursts.
That you beat up someone who is gay is not sufficient. That you called him names while doing so in and of itself is not sufficient.
quote:
Except that this was an actual situation, like I explained to AZPaul3.
And thus, we shouldn't have charged OJ Simpson with murder. He was found not guilty and the poor man shouldn't have to suffer the ostracism of having all those people think he was guilty of murder.
WAAAAAH!
As soon as you start complaining about people being unfairly accused of murder, then I'll start believing your concerns about people being unfairly accused of terrorism.
You have to commit a crime first. Have you committed a crime?
quote:
And who decides that?
The jury. Just like they're the ones who decide if you are guilty of murder. If you're truly that upset over being tagged a terrorist, surely you must be even more petrified of being tagged a murderer. Hey, all you did was beat up some people...it's not like you killed anybody. Thus, anybody unjustly accused of murder must have an even worse burden about what people think and how they will react.
So let me know when you start that protest against laws prohibiting murder due to the "hardcore, real world, social repercussions" that result from mistaken charges of murder being brought up.
quote:
The group gives their testimony to the cops and adds specifics to the case that may not have happened.
Which the defense has the right to point out during trial. It's called "impeachment." It is then up to the jury to decide who to believe. Findings of facts are matters for the jury to decide, not the lawyers, the cops, or the judge.
quote:
This is exactly what took place, so don't tell me what is fantasy or not.
Are you describing an event that happened to you? Then you must have been charged and brought to trial. Were you found guilty?
Do you make a habit of beating up gay people?
quote:
Trails didn't have the media hype then that they do now.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that's just precious. People really do have this fantasy notion that nobody ever paid attention to gossip until now. As if Walter Winchell never existed. Nobody ever paid attention to the trials of Fatty Arbuckle, Leopold and Loeb, the Rosenbergs, and all the other "trials of the century" that have been hyped over the centuries.
quote:
The problem is liberals try to help out minorities so much, when in reality, minorities can't stand them, that's the funny part.
That has got to be one of the most bigoted statements I've heard in a long time.
As if it were "liberals" who were foisting hate crimes laws upon blacks who were actually fighting against it back in the 60s.
quote:
Its almost as though you guys feel you must carry the burden for years of discrimination ... please, get over it.
Ahem. You do realize that it is still legal in this country to torture gay people, yes? I think those who have suffered this torture might have a more appropriate response to you regarding your whine that they "get over it."
quote:
People don't need special laws to protect them.
And thus, we should do away with laws making distinctions between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and murder and the various degrees of same. To do so is "special laws."
When you start complaining about murder being a charge distinct from manslaughter, then I'll start believing you that you complaint is about "special laws" rather than some other reason.
quote:
And these laws create more tension within the groups that they are trying to protect.
"I'm sorry, Sir, but we can't actually prosecute your assailant because the bigot next door might get his feelings hurt."
When did we look to bigots for advice on justice?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 2:12 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024