Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 286 of 376 (540276)
12-23-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Nuggin
12-23-2009 2:25 AM


I don't know what he's on but it's strong stuff!
Nuggin writes:
Now you are being dishonest. You are trying to change this conversation from hate crime legislation to "Why should we bother punishing anyone at all?"
.....Huh?!
Nuggin writes:
If you disagree with the legal system in which criminals are punished for their crimes, please just leave the forum. There's no way to carry on a rational discussion with you.
.....Double huh?!
Nuggin writes:
How is the law going to determine if a man killed his wife? Just because he murdered a woman who he happened to be married to, doesn't mean that he's specifically targeting his own wife.
.....Triple huh?!!
Nuggin writes:
We live in a society in which we have laws and punishments for breaking those laws. End of story.
.....Quadruple huh?!!
Nuggin writes:
You are FREE to continue to dislike minorities. However, if you continue to break the law to harass, assault, murder, etc a minority group which has been the subject of systematic harassment in the past, you are going to be subject to steep penalties.
I suggest you stop breaking the law.
....................WTF?!
.............................................................................
I've come to the conclusion that you're 12. Or a troll. Probably both. You don't deserve any more of my time.

"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 283 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 2:25 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 10:31 AM Legend has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 287 of 376 (540287)
12-23-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Legend
12-23-2009 8:45 AM


Re: I don't know what he's on but it's strong stuff!
I've come to the conclusion that you're 12. Or a troll. Probably both. You don't deserve any more of my time.
I see I was right.
Look, this is a discussion for adults and a serious topic which we are addressing in America.
You riding in and trying to derail everything with your crap about how there's no justice for anyone is not helpful.
We punish criminals for crimes. That's a fact. That's NOT up for debate.
So, if you've "decided" I'm not worth your time - GOOD.
I'm going to stick with the topic, you can take your crackpot concepts elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Legend, posted 12-23-2009 8:45 AM Legend has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 288 of 376 (540291)
12-23-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Legend
12-23-2009 8:27 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Leg writes:
Straggler writes:
So according to you "intent to defraud" as used legally actually means motive?
It is the Motive of the Arson act, yes.
Then why is it called "with intent to defraud"?
So your argument is that the legal use of "intent" actually means the legal term "motive". "Intent to defraud" actually means "motivated to defraud". Are you serious? What do you think "intent to supply" means? By your logic that means "motivated to supply". Yes?
Can you not see that doing something with a wider aim (i.e. doing it with the intent to defraud or supply) is conceptualy different to doing something because you happen to think or feel a certain way about something (i.e. motivated by greed)? Are these two concepts identical in your head?
Straggler writes:
And is thus, by your definition, constitutes a "thought crime"?
I'd say it's borderline, as there's no recognised belief or ideology based on defrauding, as far as I know.
So you are saying all crimes where intent is a significant factor meet your criteria for being "thought crimes" to the extent of being "borderline". Wow! No wonder you are getting so upset. Half the laws we have are "thought crimes" in your world. Is possession with intent to supply also a thought crime? Is it "borderline"?
Leg writes:
Therefore the intent to defraud cannot be assumed based on the perpetrator's beliefs but has to be evidenced based on specific actions
And the intent we are talking about here is being evidenced in exactly that way. What makes you think it isn't? Other than some stories about individual police officers applying the law stupidly and failing to get a conviction? Should all laws that have been applied badly at any point be recinded?
Leg writes:
You're getting hung-up on words instead of meaning.
So when legal documents say "intends" or "intent" they don't mean "intends" or "intent" (e.g. to defraud or supply) they mean motive? As far as you are concerned anyway.
Straggler writes:
The part where you changed "arson with intent to defraud" to "arson" that has the motive to defraud.
You mean the part where I explained the legal meaning of the terms used in that sentence.
So you are saying that the legal terms "intent to defraud" and "intent to supply" actually mean "motivated to defraud" and "motivated to supply" respectively? What?
Leg writes:
What is the Act, the Intent and the Motive here?
The motive is greed. The intent is to make the insurance claim. The act is murder. In your definitions where does greed come in if not as motive?
Leg writes:
How many times do we have to go through this?
Until you start making sense? Or, more likely, we run out of thread.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Legend, posted 12-23-2009 8:27 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Legend, posted 12-24-2009 4:56 AM Straggler has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 289 of 376 (540318)
12-23-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Straggler
12-23-2009 2:17 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Either intent is a thought crime or it isn't. Which is it? And are you applying your thinking on intent based crimes consistently? Or are only those laws you don't like "thought crimes"?
I don't know what an "intent-based crime" is. Are you distinguishing between something like manslaughter (unintended death due to negligence) versus cold-blooded murder?
If I go and and paint the word "DIE" in pigs blood all over a Synagogue based in the heart of the local Jewish community this is blatantly not same as graffitiing "Fuzzy Rabbit" on the side of a random derelict house. But you want the law to treat them identically in terms of intended effect. I think this would be negligent.
No I don't treat them identically because one can reasonably be construed as a threat and the other as simple vandalism.
Once you get people willing to murder on the basis of prejudice or otherwise you are probably beyond any deterring effect of harsher punishment anyway. I am talking about lesser crimes designed to intimidate and subjugate localised sub-communities.
What constitutes subjugation? Where does the line begin and end?
Your morbid fascination with seriel killers and the like are not overly relevant to what we are talking about here.
I'm just giving a different perspective to help you see what I am seeing, because it appears to me that you're so deep in the forest that you can't see the forest for the trees. In other words, it appears to me that you can't see the whole situation clearly because you're looking too closely at minor details.
It's employing backwards thinking and setting a dangerous precedence to solve the greater problem of bigotry. And really all it ends up doing in reality is invents more reason to compartmentalize people.
How are we not equally protecting everyone? Once again I want to know which races or religions you think are better protected by law over any other? Please answer this question or stop implying that this is the case without stating it explicitly.
If one man brutally slays a women after raping her and receives 10-years with probation while another man brutally kills an Asian and receives life with no possibility for parole just because his crime was racially motivated, how in the hell was justice served to the raped and murdered woman and her family? How did she receive equal protection? She didn't. The system failed her because it's so much more important for politicians to appear like they give a fuck and pass extraneous laws.
Slashing a persons throat so can rob them is bad, but slashing their throat because you hate asians is extra bad. Uh, what?!?! How about, slashing people's throats is really bad, period?
The purpose of the bill is to make the crime "worse" so that they can give the offender more jail time. I'm not against giving the piece of shit offender more jail time. I'm against making the non-crime of racial hatred as a motive more important than the actions of offender. That's ridiculous and insulting to every other victim of a similar crime.
People seem to categorize crime linearly. We all do that to some degree. It is somehow psychologically worse when seemingly senseless crimes occur. Killing children is especially heinous to us as a society. And it should sicken us to the core. Killing people because they are asian or gay should sicken us. I'm not contending that. But isn't the action itself that is not only more reprehensible but actually what is criminal? This bill places the cart before the horse and says that it is worse to hate someone for a specific reason - reasons that are, by the way, protected ordinarily.
Pretty soon it will be illegal altogether to merely dislike someone of another race, or gender, or sexual orientation at even the slightest hint of bias. Let the false accusations abound. A simple bar fight could land you in prison for 20-years.

"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 282 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2009 2:17 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 9:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 314 by Straggler, posted 12-28-2009 5:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 290 of 376 (540319)
12-23-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Nuggin
12-23-2009 2:38 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
quote:
No, it is placing a higher emphasis on race over other equally bad things. In essence it is worse to kill someone over race versus killing them to rob them.
That's because it is.
Really? And why is that?
If women are deemed to be a class of people which have faced ongoing systematic descrimination under the legal system then yes it is a worse crime.
I'm sure that is going to matter to the family members of a woman slain in a robbery, the utterly irrelevant "ongoing systematic discrimination" of women.
The current system is justice for white victims, not for black. You want to keep the current system because you don't have a problem with that balance.
What a reckless statement that has nothing to do with my objections. Under the hate-crime bill a white man attacked by Black Panthers would be protected. Who cares? Anyone attacked by anyone else is already protected. If we were still living in times when blacks were rampantly discriminated against, what makes you think that they would ever see a trial in which to utilize such a bill? The corrupt police would just make them go away before it ever saw a trial.
I'm sorry that seeing groups get equal justice offends your sense of status, but that's what is going to happen.
That's the problem, Nuggin. They aren't receiving equal justice. One murder or assault may be deemed worse on the pretense of racial motivation.
Yes, if over the next 50 years "pasta cooks" suddenly become the subject of random acts of violence
Pasta cooks, blacks, jews, latino's, anglo's, asian, women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, transgendered, clowns, fat people, skinny people, etc, etc, etc are already protected against all crimes. seriously, did I even need to state the obvious?
And those crimes AREN'T being prosecuted at the same rate or to the same extent as crimes which target the groups in power.
How could you possibly know that??? Are you omniscient and omnipresent?
You have YET to offer a BETTER solution than the one proposed.
The solution to what? Crime? Racism?
You are just trying to oppose the ONLY solution on the table because you happen to be a group which is in power and feel it is "unfair" to your group that some other group will get equal treatment.
What "group" do I belong to? I believe in individual rights, not group rights. By definition, I believe all people regardless of anything should receive the same treatment as every one else.
The legal system is complicated. You want to pretend it is not.
Yes the legal system is complicated. So pray tell why you want to make it more complicated by giving special status and abrogating equal protection?
The fact is that certain groups DO NOT GET JUSTICE while other groups do.
This is endemic of the problem, Nuggin. Until you can see people as individuals and stop compartmentalizing people in to neatly filled groups, you will continue to perpetuate the very thing you claim you want to eradicate.
I'd advice you to stop committing hate crimes if you think the penalties are unfair.
The irony is delicious. Is everyone reading this? This is exactly how it starts. You have just summarized my argument for me through your character assassination of me. Nuggin here charges me with "hate crimes" because if I don't support the premise of hate crimes, then I must be taking part in them -- post hoc ergo propter hoc. This is the kind of subjective drivel that is going to get people thrown in Nuggin's gulags one day.
Thanks for proving my point.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"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 284 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 2:38 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 9:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 291 of 376 (540325)
12-23-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2009 7:41 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Really? And why is that?
Because "robbed" is not a condition of birth.
I'm sure that is going to matter to the family members of a woman slain in a robbery
And you have a better suggestion as to how to make that family feel better? Perhaps a law the requires the use of a time machine to go back in time to prevent the crime. Oh wait, that's fantasy.
Here in reality these are the facts: Once the crime is committed we can't UNcommit it. Therefore we have a system that does TWO things:
1) Punish those deemed responsible.
2) Deter others from committing similar crimes.
Which of these two things are you opposed to? So far it seems to be both.
What a reckless statement that has nothing to do with my objections. ... Anyone attacked by anyone else is already protected.
No. They aren't. THAT'S the point you are having a great deal of trouble with.
If you are gay and you get jumped, you are LESS LIKELY to get justice than if you were a white woman who was assaulted.
In your fantasy world everything is equal. Unfortunately for minorities, they can't visit your fantasy world.
If we were still living in times when blacks were rampantly discriminated against, what makes you think that they would ever see a trial in which to utilize such a bill? The corrupt police would just make them go away before it ever saw a trial.
Because if it is a federal statute officers from outside of the community can be brought in to investigate and the criminal can be tried in a fair court.
That's the problem, Nuggin. They aren't receiving equal justice. One murder or assault may be deemed worse on the pretense of racial motivation.
Again, your fantasy world doesn't mesh with reality.
I understand your desire to maintain your dominance. Your pic says it all.
The fact of the matter is that this law is going to be used to bring criminals to justice who would otherwise not face justice.
are already protected against all crimes. seriously, did I even need to state the obvious?
Again with the fantasy land. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PLACES IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE ARE VICTIMS OF CRIME AND GET NO JUSTICE WHATSOEVER?
Yes or no?
If you can't acknowledge that fact, there's really no reason for you to be here. You're not dealing with reality.
How could you possibly know that??? Are you omniscient and omnipresent?
Are you serious? Do you REALLY believe that justice is equal in America right now? REALLY? That's ACTUALLY what you are claiming?
OR are you simply being dishonest because you don't like where this thread is taking you?
You KNOW (or you SHOULD know) that the legal system is FAR more likely to arrest and convict a black man than a white man. And FAR more likely to give stricter sentencing, including the death penalty, to a black man over a white man -- FOR THE SAME CRIMES.
The problem is SO bad that one governor had to suspend ALL executions as a result of a report demonstrating the statistics.
The solution to what? Crime? Racism?...
I believe all people regardless of anything should receive the same treatment as every one else.
And that has never happened and continues to not happen. So, what's your solution? More fantasy land?
No. Give us a REAL solution that REALLY levels the playing field so that a gay man in Wyoming gets the SAME treatment as a gay man in San Francisco. And a Black man in Georgia gets the same justice as a black man in Maryland.
You seem to think you have it all figured out. Put up or shut up.
This is endemic of the problem, Nuggin. Until you can see people as individuals and stop compartmentalizing people in to neatly filled groups, you will continue to perpetuate the very thing you claim you want to eradicate.
And your alleged blindness to groups is extremely convenient given that you are a member of the group with the all the benefits.
"Oh, no, there's no racism here. That _MAN_ was lynched, but not because he was a member of a group. It's because he's an individual. The KKK is just a group of individuals who target other individuals based on their individuality."
Give me a break.
Nuggin here charges me with "hate crimes" because if I don't support the premise of hate crimes, then I must be taking part in them
First of all, I think it's pretty damn outrageous that a man who presents himself as HITLER is complaining about character assassination while simultaneously complaining how unfair it is that he may be subject to additional penalties for criminal behavior.
If you don't want to be subject to these laws, DON'T commit these crimes. That's the BASIS of our legal system. We DON'T want people to do X, we create a law that say: "Don't do X or you will be punished".
You have been bitching and moaning for a week now about how unfair that is and we're supposed to assume that DON'T want people to do X?
Please. Obviously you have some personal stake in the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 7:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 11:18 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 292 of 376 (540326)
12-23-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2009 7:03 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
If one man brutally slays a women after raping her and receives 10-years with probation while another man brutally kills an Asian and receives life with no possibility for parole just because his crime was racially motivated, how in the hell was justice served to the raped and murdered woman and her family? How did she receive equal protection? She didn't. The system failed her because it's so much more important for politicians to appear like they give a fuck and pass extraneous laws.
FAIL. AGAIN. FOR the SAME reasons.
If you are going to keep making this argument, can you be honest enough to show how silly you are being.
Instead of 10 years, why not have the rapist get a gift certificate to Barnes and Noble?
You are falsely comparing these two crimes as though one criminal receiving a longer sentence some how negatively impacts the sentence another criminal receives.
Either 10 years IS or IS NOT sufficient. Whether or not someone else was convicted of a similar crime and sentenced to more or less time is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the first case.
If 10 years IS NOT sufficient and the OTHER rapists ALSO gets 10 years, then NEITHER victim has gotten justice.
If 10 years IS sufficient and the other rapist gets MORE than 10 years, the victim of the first rapist STILL GOT JUSTICE.
This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had to explain this to you. I don't know how I can make it MORE simple.
Either you are capable of understanding this simple idea or you aren't. If you aren't, please stop posting as there is no way you'll ever be able to keep up with the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 7:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 293 of 376 (540333)
12-23-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Nuggin
12-23-2009 9:31 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Because "robbed" is not a condition of birth.
Neither is hatred for people of other races or different sexual orientations.
Here in reality these are the facts: Once the crime is committed we can't UNcommit it.
Please show me where I suggested otherwise.
Therefore we have a system that does TWO things:
1) Punish those deemed responsible.
2) Deter others from committing similar crimes.
Which of these two things are you opposed to? So far it seems to be both.
Actually, it would seem that you do seeing as how you want to make one form of assault worse than another.
quote:
What a reckless statement that has nothing to do with my objections. ... Anyone attacked by anyone else is already protected.
No. They aren't! THAT'S the point you are having a great deal of trouble with.
If you are gay and you get jumped, you are LESS LIKELY to get justice than if you were a white woman who was assaulted.
But passing a hate-crime bill is somehow going to stop activist judges or crooked cops???
In your fantasy world everything is equal. Unfortunately for minorities, they can't visit your fantasy world.
No, everything is not always equal. But there are few places on earth where they are far more equal than other places. All we can do is keep trying to improve. Consequently this form of improvising is a huge step backwards as it not only won't fix the problem but actually exacerbate it.
quote:
If we were still living in times when blacks were rampantly discriminated against, what makes you think that they would ever see a trial in which to utilize such a bill? The corrupt police would just make them go away before it ever saw a trial.
Because if it is a federal statute officers from outside of the community can be brought in to investigate and the criminal can be tried in a fair court.
For heaven's sake. It's already a law, federal or otherwise, that you can't murder or assault people because of their race. A new bill isn't going to fix what is broken about the system, but it is sure to break what wasn't broken about it.
I understand your desire to maintain your dominance. Your pic says it all.
My pic? What pic?
The fact of the matter is that this law is going to be used to bring criminals to justice who would otherwise not face justice.
It's going to do nothing of the sort. If the Bill of Rights isn't going to stop corrupt cops then what in the hell makes you think all of a sudden they're going to perk up to this? Besides, this law applies to the prosecution of crimes not the deterrence of crimes. If you can't even get Billy Bob cop in Hickville to do the right thing for his constituents, the minority who deserves justice will never see the inside of a courtroom in which to plead the case.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PLACES IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE ARE VICTIMS OF CRIME AND GET NO JUSTICE WHATSOEVER?
Yes, I'm sure there still exists rural areas that rely on a good 'ole boy network... Now please explain how this bill is somehow going to put an end to that?
Do you REALLY believe that justice is equal in America right now? REALLY?
Compared to 95% of all nations? Absolutely! Is it perfect? No, but there is no place on earth that is. Anything more would be a fantasy on your part.
You KNOW (or you SHOULD know) that the legal system is FAR more likely to arrest and convict a black man than a white man. And FAR more likely to give stricter sentencing, including the death penalty, to a black man over a white man -- FOR THE SAME CRIMES.
Maybe you haven't heard yet but the President of the United States of America is black, a minority that accounts for only 12-13% of the total population. That means the majority of people who voted him in were not the same race as he. If the racism in America were nearly as pervasive as you seem to think it is, it would be an absolute impossibility. We don't live in the days of the Ku Klux Klan roaming the landscape lynching black people.
And you talk about me living in a fantasy world? Wake up, buddy. The 21st century awaits.
The problem is SO bad that one governor had to suspend ALL executions as a result of a report demonstrating the statistics.
West Virginia is a little slow with progress
Give us a REAL solution that REALLY levels the playing field so that a gay man in Wyoming gets the SAME treatment as a gay man in San Francisco. And a Black man in Georgia gets the same justice as a black man in Maryland.
Exposure, exposure, exposure. You can't change people's mentality through legislation. Do you honestly think that Neo-Nazi's are just going to dissolve in to oblivion because of this bill? All it will do is reinforce their hatred. The only way you can affect change is getting the word out. People have to change from within, not from external pressure.
And your alleged blindness to groups is extremely convenient given that you are a member of the group with the all the benefits.
What group? You don't know me!
"Oh, no, there's no racism here. That _MAN_ was lynched, but not because he was a member of a group. It's because he's an individual. The KKK is just a group of individuals who target other individuals based on their individuality."
You completely misrepresented what I said, either by accident or by design. I mean that my beliefs entail individual rights. Instead of looking at a collective, which only serves to further segregate people, instead I look at their individual rights.
First of all, I think it's pretty damn outrageous that a man who presents himself as HITLER is complaining about character assassination while simultaneously complaining how unfair it is that he may be subject to additional penalties for criminal behavior.
What?!?! It's mocking Hitler! Oh... "My pic." Got it. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
If you don't want to be subject to these laws, DON'T commit these crimes.
While we're at it we should also cite the Patriot Act by saying if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry whether or not your freedom of privacy should exist. Same mentality.
You have been bitching and moaning for a week now about how unfair that is and we're supposed to assume that DON'T want people to do X?
You've managed to conveniently skip over all of my arguments for not wanting such a bill and then completely fabricated your own theory on why I don't want them. I told you why I think they're bullshit and what is at stake from the very beginning of the thread. If at any time you need remediation, please review them. There's no need to slander me with baseless accusations.
Please. Obviously you have some personal stake in the matter.
Yes, it's called freedom.

"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 291 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 9:31 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2009 12:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 298 by Legend, posted 12-24-2009 5:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 308 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2009 1:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 294 of 376 (540335)
12-24-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-27-2009 8:42 PM


sanity check
Sorry to interrupt while you are kicking ass, I tend to agree with much of what you say. But are we still talking about the same thing we were when the thread started? I have been reading very carefully, and I have seen a lot of neat documentation of laws in California and the UK. I don't think I like those laws, because, like you, I don't think they will do a damn bit of good. But are they even what we are supposed to be arguing about?
It's already a law, federal or otherwise, that you can't murder or assault people because of their race.
Is it really a bad idea to further criminalize murder and assault at the federal level when there is a good excuse to do so in the Bill of Rights?
What I am thinking of specifically is the murder of some civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Mississippi, the subject of the fictionalized Mississippi Burning. Because the state courts refused to try the suspects for murder, they were instead tried by the Federal government for depriving the deceased of their civil rights. Sentences ranged from 3 to 10 years. On the other hand, actual crimes criminalized as murder by the Feds, such as in the course of interstate dope-running, result in much longer sentences, more appropriate to the crime. Isn't this just filling in that gap?
In other words, isn't the Federal law just a way to treat civil-rights-based murders the same way other Federal capital crimes are treated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-27-2009 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2009 4:29 AM Iblis has not replied
 Message 299 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2009 10:03 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 295 of 376 (540336)
12-24-2009 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2009 11:18 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Neither is hatred for people of other races or different sexual orientations.
Are you being deliberately dense? We aren't talking about the criminals, we are talking about the victims.
Actually, it would seem that you do seeing as how you want to make one form of assault worse than another.
OMFG! Again with this mistake. Write this down. If a crime has a punishment and a 2nd crime has a different punishment it doesn't mean that the first crime no longer has a punishment.
Seriously! That's what the 6th time I've had to explain that to you?!
For heaven's sake. It's already a law, federal or otherwise, that you can't murder or assault people because of their race. A new bill isn't going to fix what is broken about the system, but it is sure to break what wasn't broken about it.
Okay, now I KNOW you are being deliberately dense.
If you murder someone in New Hampshire, that is a state crime, it is investigated by local police. It is tried in a local court.
If you commit a FEDERAL offense, your LOCAL police and LOCAL court are NOT the ones who investigate and try the case.
Yes, I'm sure there still exists rural areas that rely on a good 'ole boy network... Now please explain how this bill is somehow going to put an end to that?
OMFG. It's a FEDERAL STATUTE! F.E.D.E.R.A.L.
You can't change people's mentality through legislation.
No one is trying to. They are trying to change people's ACTIONS.
We don't live in the days of the Ku Klux Klan roaming the landscape lynching black people.
While we're at it we should also cite the Patriot Act by saying if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry whether or not your freedom of privacy should exist. Same mentality.
Again with the deliberately dense stuff.
Do you recognize that this is adding elements to ALREADY CRIMINAL ACTS?
You ARE doing something wrong. You SHOULD be worried.
Your quip about the patriot act is talking about people who AREN'T doing something wrong and therefore are complacent about the government tapping their phones or whatever.
If the patriot act said "Blowing people up with a bomb carries an ADDITIONAL punishment above and beyond murder" then we'd be on the same page.
Yes, it's called freedom.
The freedom to commit crimes without punishment. Very patriotic of you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 11:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2009 10:42 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 296 of 376 (540345)
12-24-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Iblis
12-24-2009 12:02 AM


Re: sanity check
Is it really a bad idea to further criminalize murder and assault at the federal level when there is a good excuse to do so in the Bill of Rights?
What I am thinking of specifically is the murder of some civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Mississippi, the subject of the fictionalized Mississippi Burning. Because the state courts refused to try the suspects for murder, they were instead tried by the Federal government for depriving the deceased of their civil rights. Sentences ranged from 3 to 10 years. On the other hand, actual crimes criminalized as murder by the Feds, such as in the course of interstate dope-running, result in much longer sentences, more appropriate to the crime. Isn't this just filling in that gap?
In other words, isn't the Federal law just a way to treat civil-rights-based murders the same way other Federal capital crimes are treated?
Thank you! I've made this point to him about 10 times now. He STILL doesn't get it.
I don't think he's familiar enough with the concept of Federal vs State. Add that to his crazy idea that all sentencing retroactively effects earlier sentences for similar crimes and you've got one SERIOUSLY confused guy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 12:02 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 297 of 376 (540349)
12-24-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Straggler
12-23-2009 10:43 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Straggler writes:
Then why is it called "with intent to defraud"?
I tell you what, let's call it "in order to defraud". He "committed arson in order to defraud". There, better now?
Straggler writes:
So your argument is that the legal use of "intent" actually means the legal term "motive".
My argument is that the "intent to defraud" isn't the general Intent behind the Act, as defined by Criminal Law.
Straggler writes:
What do you think "intent to supply" means? By your logic that means "motivated to supply". Yes?
The Act is "possession of drugs", the "intent to supply" is what's known as a 'specific' intent, i.e. that the accused intented to achieve something else besides the Act itself. It's conceptually akin to Motive as it represents the reason why the accused acted that way. So yes, one can argue that "intent to supply" means "motivated to supply".
When someone kills their spouse to get the insurance money, the general Intent is to kill their spouse. The Motive is to get the insurance money. You could say that the specific Intent was to get the insurance money but that's just calling the courgette a 'zuchinni'. They are essentially the same thing. You're just getting hung-up on words.
But we're really digressing. Intent to supply and Intent to defraud aren't hate-crimes, which is what we're debating here.
Straggler writes:
And the intent we are talking about here is being evidenced in exactly that way. What makes you think it isn't?
I don't know of any incidents that were criminally prosecuted because the accused allegedly called the victim a fraudulent epithet , do you?
I don't know of any incidents that were criminally prosecuted because of sheer conjecture that the accused was targeting fraud-vulnerable victims, do you?
If and when we start hearing of such incidents then you can start claiming that "intent to defraud" is evidenced in the same way as hate-crime. Until then.....
Legend writes:
"He killed wis wife because he wanted to cash in on the life insurance"
"He killed wis wife as he intended to cash in on the life insurance"
What is the Act, the Intent and the Motive here?
Straggler writes:
The motive is greed. The intent is to make the insurance claim. The act is murder.
Wrong. In both cases the Act is the killing of the wife. The Intent is the deliberation to kill the wife. The presence of Intent classifies this Act as Murder. The Motive is the appropriation of the insurance money.
Why don't you come back once you understand what Motive and Intent are?

"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 288 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2009 10:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2009 2:13 AM Legend has not replied
 Message 313 by Straggler, posted 12-27-2009 8:57 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 298 of 376 (540352)
12-24-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2009 11:18 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Hyro writes:
Maybe you haven't heard yet but the President of the United States of America is black, a minority that accounts for only 12-13% of the total population. That means the majority of people who voted him in were not the same race as he. If the racism in America were nearly as pervasive as you seem to think it is, it would be an absolute impossibility. We don't live in the days of the Ku Klux Klan roaming the landscape lynching black people.
Exactly. I think that's exactly the point that Onifre has been making too. The arguments used by some proponents of such laws seem to come straight out of the 50s. In another thread about positive discrimination, a poster was painting a picture of the poor black kid who can't get on the internet to look for work because the White Man has all the computers! I mean, FFS, do these people really believe this? Do they live in a bubble? The world has moved on since then, it's time to wake up and smell the freshly brewed tea (or coffee if you're American).
Hyro writes:
Exposure, exposure, exposure. You can't change people's mentality through legislation. Do you honestly think that Neo-Nazi's are just going to dissolve in to oblivion because of this bill? All it will do is reinforce their hatred. The only way you can affect change is getting the word out. People have to change from within, not from external pressure.
Bingo! Because strict legislation against drugs or weapons (in the UK) has really worked. Not. You'd have thought that people would have caught up with the fact that, as you say, laws don't change mentalities.
Nuggin writes:
I understand your desire to maintain your dominance. Your pic says it all.
Hyro writes:
My pic? What pic?
I think he's talking about your Hitler-satire avatar. He thinks that you're a Nazi. He doesn't understand humour. Or much else, for that matter.

"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 293 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 11:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 376 (540443)
12-25-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Iblis
12-24-2009 12:02 AM


Re: sanity check
are we still talking about the same thing we were when the thread started?
No, unfortunately those not in favor of the hate-crime bill have been slandered by innuendo.
Is it really a bad idea to further criminalize murder and assault at the federal level when there is a good excuse to do so in the Bill of Rights?
It already is federally illegal to assault or murder and has been since the whole thing began. That's how federal agencies, like the FBI, arrest people for murder. This is about federalizing crimes of assault or murder with the motive of hate-crime.
Because the state courts refused to try the suspects for murder, they were instead tried by the Federal government for depriving the deceased of their civil rights. Sentences ranged from 3 to 10 years. On the other hand, actual crimes criminalized as murder by the Feds, such as in the course of interstate dope-running, result in much longer sentences, more appropriate to the crime. Isn't this just filling in that gap?
The atrocious activist judge's of the South's ugly past would not fix the problem. If state and local judiciaries were found to be fixing trials and not giving equal protection, that would certainly call for the disbarment of these judiciaries by federal authorities.
That, however, has nothing to do with the current discussion whatsoever. It's a strawman erected by people like Nuggin who are conflating separate issues.
In other words, isn't the Federal law just a way to treat civil-rights-based murders the same way other Federal capital crimes are treated?
What is the difference between capital murder and killing someone over race with malice aforethought? Not much, really. If you are convicted of capital murder it just means you could be given the death penalty. The same crime committed where the death penalty is abolished would simply be 1st degree homicide.
The point is that it is already criminal. You can't murder someone over race. That is and has been illegal. That some judiciaries might give harsher sentences to blacks and less sentences to white is in the realm of weapon's grade bullshit that certainly needs to be stopped, but is a completely separate issue from the current discussion. It is a strawman deliberately poised to derail a perfectly valid discussion.

"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 294 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 12:02 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 376 (540449)
12-25-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Nuggin
12-24-2009 12:06 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
I don't know what to tell you that might allow you to see this from a different perspective, the perspective of setting a very dangerous precedence. You just don't see it and I can't reach you, so...
I'll even change my offensive avatar for you.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"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 295 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2009 12:06 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2009 12:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 312 by xongsmith, posted 12-26-2009 12:56 PM Hyroglyphx 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