I honestly don't understand the purpose of hate crime legislation.

Let's say you punish murder X and hate crime murder X+1...why would it be a bad thing to just punish both X+1?

10/9/2009 12:45:32 PM

because only fags are worthy of that kind of punishment. duh

10/9/2009 12:46:02 PM

Because minorities are targets of crimes in certain areas?

Did your teacher just skip 1896-1954 in U.S. History?

10/9/2009 12:51:04 PM

what about areas where majorities are the targets of crime? Or are they not important?

10/9/2009 12:56:54 PM

And why would charging anyone responsible for the murder of minorities in those certain areas with murder be a bad thing?

Why would prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law, including the death penalty, be a bad thing?

10/9/2009 12:57:01 PM

God, that reason does not really make sense.

I think a better reason is that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes. Why? Because they are essentially assaults on entire groups of people that are expressed as attacks on individuals.

Now, this shouldn't really stike anyone as odd. We already agree that motivation should impact the punishment of a crime. If you kill someone in the heat of passion (2nd degree murder), you get a lighter sentence than if you killed someone in cold blood (1st degree murder).

Why should this be different? If you kill someone because you don't like them, you should get a lighter sentence than if you killed someone because you don't like their race or sexuality.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2009 12:58:25 PM

Quote :

"I think a better reason is that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes. Why? Because they are essentially assaults on entire groups of people that are expressed as attacks on individuals."

And, again, if you punish all crimes, then WHY THE FUCK DOES THIS MATTER? Everyone knows that everyone will be punished, NO MATTER WHAT. Problem solved.

As for the distinction made between motivations, remember, though, that we are still punishing the act of MURDER, not the motivation. The motivation is used as evidence, but it is not the crime. Except in the hate crime legislation. Are you going to go out and imprison everyone who hates blacks, even if they never commit a crime against them?

10/9/2009 12:59:32 PM

^^premeditation and intent != motive.

What I mean is that killing someone in the heat of passion should be punished the same whether it was because you didn't like the color of their skin or because they just boned your wife.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 1:00:29 PM

AND FOR THAT MATTER WHY ISN'T THERE A WHITE ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION :MAD:

10/9/2009 1:02:51 PM

troll troll troll your boat...

10/9/2009 1:03:11 PM

Disco_stu,

Okay, lets try this. Why should premediation and intent matter for the punishment of a crime?

10/9/2009 1:05:09 PM

Okay, let's discuss this:

why should premeditation alone be a crime.

10/9/2009 1:05:49 PM

it is?

10/9/2009 1:11:30 PM

It isn't.

Hate crime is a crime enhancement, not a crime itself.

10/9/2009 1:12:10 PM

i know, thats why aaron's comparison seems off the mark.

10/9/2009 1:12:47 PM

no, the comparison in this case is apt. because the person is being punished for his motivation for the crime as well, namely that he hates black people. in the other cases, there isn't an increase in the punishment for the motivation. Rather, there's a decrease. "Oh, you didn't mean to kill him? well, we'll reduce your sentence." In the hate crimes bullshit, it's an additional punishment.

10/9/2009 1:18:03 PM

but premedetation is still not a crime in itself. So I'm not sure how what you just said makes your original question more sensical.

How about we answer the question I initially asked (which I asked before you tried to create this alternative scenario).

Why should a murder with premediation and intnent be punished more severely than a crime of passion?

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2009 1:26:22 PM

As opposed to a crime of passion, pre-meditated action shows rational thought involved in the planning and committing of the crime. You know the consequences and disregard them.

Crimes of passion are snap judgments where the consequences aren't rationally considered and basically boil down to lack of control.

The former shows a complete disregard for our judicial system and our society in general. The latter is the result of being human and being able to control emotions. I think it's reasonable to punish people who disregard the laws that keep our society under control more than the people who wigged out on the scene (pre-meditation). I think it's reasonable to punish people who commit crimes accidentally even less (intent). I think motivation has no bearing on how they should be punished. Typically if they have motivation then intent or pre-meditation will follow so covering the punishment through those 2 facets covers you for motivation anyway.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 1:50:43 PM

how many times can you contradict yourself in that post?

10/9/2009 2:06:02 PM

Uhhh, zero? Unless you want to stop being a douche and actually respond.

10/9/2009 2:13:29 PM

Quote :

"I think it's reasonable to punish people who disregard the laws that keep our society under control more than the people who wigged out on the scene (pre-meditation)."

Quote :

"I think it's reasonable to punish people who commit crimes accidentally even less (intent). "

Quote :

"I think motivation has no bearing on how they should be punished."

10/9/2009 2:19:22 PM

he failed to add something after the word "motivation" which is clear in what he is saying. Namely that once a person has said "fuck the law, I'm gonna do this," then why they chose to do so shouldn't matter. Which is clearly the case in almost all "hate crimes."

10/9/2009 2:26:04 PM

Christ almighty, you cannot be more wrong.

Think about it this way. Should a person who breaks and enters into an establishment for the intent to burglarize it, even if they don't burglarize it, be charged with a different crime than someone who breaks and enters without that intent?

10/9/2009 2:34:14 PM

No, I did not mistype.

Motivation is the why. Pre-mediation is not the why. Pre-meditation is the planning and disregard for our laws. Yes, people whom are pre-meditated will always have motivation. That's my point. Punishing additionally for motivation is dumb when we already punish more for pre-mediation in those cases.

I don't think I need to explain intent. I'm certain that even God and nutsmackr don't think we should punish someone who accidentally kills a minority more.

^how do you break and enter without intent? The reason why you committed that crime was irrelevant.

A person who breaks and enters without stealing anything should be charged with breaking and entering and trespass. A person who does the same thing and steals something should be charged with breaking and entering, trespass, and burglary. Why is this so fucking difficult?

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 2:39:15 PM

Quote :

"^how do you break and enter without intent? The reason why you committed that crime was irrelevant"

Reading comprehension is fundamental. Breaking and entering without the intent to burglarize.

Under the law, dating back centuries, the crime of breaking and entering with the intent to burglarize has always been a felony, even if the individual did not burglarize.

Breaking and entering without that intent has always been a misdemeanor.

Intent has been a fundamental aspect of the law dating back centuries.

10/9/2009 2:47:23 PM

Mercy killing is separated from murder soley by motivation. Should we treat them the same?

10/9/2009 2:50:25 PM

Quote :

"Mercy killing is separated from murder soley by motivation. Should we treat them the same?"

Citation needed. I can find nothing in North Carolina General Statutes that even defines Mercy Killing. I honestly don't have a problem with Mercy Killing if the "victim" requests it. Then what does the motivation of the person performing the act have to do with it? If the victim doesn't request it, then it is murder.

Quote :

"Breaking and entering without that intent has always been a misdemeanor. "

This distinction is to punish people who intended to burglarize but were prevented. What you need to understand is that intent != motivation. Should this person be punished more if he intended to rob the person because he was black?

Think about attempted murder. It's not a successful murder, but we still charge for it anyway. They intended to murder the person, but failed. Of course we should punish this, and more harshly than someone not intending to murder. But again, motive is not the same as intent.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 3:00:26 PM

"Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?"

10/9/2009 3:07:49 PM

hehe, I was going to post a picture of Sideshow Bob or something.

10/9/2009 3:12:43 PM

Keep your contradictions coming.

10/9/2009 3:19:56 PM

Quote :

"We hate fags more than we support troops"

still waiting for the link to this quote

10/9/2009 3:30:42 PM

nutsmackr..what is the purpose of punishing crimes?

If you agree that it is to both A) punish the perpetrator and to B)dissuade other people from committing those crimes, what is the point of punishing hate crimes differently?

Regarding A), is it just spite? You're a bigot, so we're going to punish you more!
Regarding B), is it saying that you want to dissuade people for murdering for greed less than racial bigotry? Why would you want to dissuade anyone for murdering for *any reason* less than any other reason?

10/9/2009 3:40:42 PM

Christ, are you a continual loop of ignoring what has already been stated?

10/9/2009 3:54:35 PM

Enlighten my retarded self then. Let's pretend I have no clue what you're talking about. Just answer the following:

1)Do you agree that one of the purposes of punishing crimes is to dissuade others from committing said crimes?

2)If "Yes", then what is the purpose of dissuading people for committing murder less for *any reason* than any other reason?

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM. Reason : of]

10/9/2009 4:01:25 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=578477

i think the fact that both of these threads have flourished simultaneously shows how stupid it is for hate crimes legislation to be included in a defense bill, and how stupid this kind of legislative tactic is in general. (it was not immediately obvious that the 2 threads were about the same subject - i thought this thread was going to be about "don't ask don't tell.")

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : yeah i know there's another one about that too]

10/9/2009 4:10:03 PM

Punishment is not to disuade the commital of crimes by others. Punishment is to punish the offender and hopefully reform them. If the sole purpose was to disuade others, punishments would be more than what would be considered appropriate for the crime committed.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 4:10:30 PM

Reading comprehension, eh?

I said that it was ONE of the purposes, not the "sole purpose". In fact, I listed out both punishment and dissuasion in one of my posts that you obviously aren't reading.

I guess if I wanted to follow your tactics, I would stop here, not read anything else you had to offer and say...

Christ, do you know how to read?

...
However, using your definition, what are you trying to dissuade the perpetrator of a hate crime from doing again? Hating? If it were just murder, then that's already covered. THAT is what I and apparently many others have a problem with. I believe it is an inalienable right to hate anyone or any group for whatever reason you please.

To punish me for hating or attempt to dissuade me from hating is thoughtcrime and totally bullshit.

10/9/2009 4:22:40 PM

There are multiple reasons for punishing crimes. One is retribution - correction for the wrong done to someone else. Another is incapacitation - incarcerating/executing someone so they won't be able to commit the crime again. Rehabilitation is another reason, and it's exactly what it sounds like - the goal is to rehabilitate the criminal. Finally, deterrence - making an example out of the criminal, hoping that other people that would otherwise consider committing the crime will be deterred from doing so. Punishments generally fall under one or more of those categories.

And it was just announced that we can leave work early today, so peace out.

10/9/2009 4:31:16 PM

Quote :

"However, using your definition, what are you trying to dissuade the perpetrator of a hate crime from doing again? Hating? If it were just murder, then that's already covered. THAT is what I and apparently many others have a problem with. I believe it is an inalienable right to hate anyone or any group for whatever reason you please. To punish me for hating or attempt to dissuade me from hating is thoughtcrime and totally bullshit."

It is to punish the individual. You are free to hate anyone for whatever reasons you like, however, as soon as your hatred is no longer a thought and is enacted through physical action, it is no longer a thought crime. It is a real physical crime.

10/9/2009 4:52:43 PM

Indeed. And it is a crime for which we already have an appropriate system of punishment. But the instant you punish me *more* because the crime is motivated by hate, you are punishing me for the hate itself.

10/9/2009 4:57:32 PM

No, it is punishing you for acting on that hate.

10/9/2009 4:59:02 PM

Ok, two murders exactly identical except one was because of hate and the other because of greed.

In case A, I am punished X because I acted on greed.
In case B, I am punished X+Y because I acted on hate.

If the only difference is hate, then you are adding Y because of hate. Ergo, you are punishing me Y for the hate.

10/9/2009 5:02:49 PM

No, you are still being punished for the act. If there was no act, there would be no punishment.

But let's look at a more reasonable situation.

Say someone vandalizes GLAAD's headquarters through destruction of property, slur ridden graffiti, etc. Do you think the perpetrators of such action should face stiffer penalties rather than some kids out fucking up random shit?

In my mind and the eyes of many, the first action is far more heinous than the latter and deserving of a harsher penalty.

10/9/2009 5:18:55 PM

what if you take out the slur ridden graffiti

and add in broken windows of neighboring buildings as well

ie, kids acting stupid without any regard to their victims (' property)

somebody would still automatically claim the GLAAD vandalism is hate crime, instead of noticing that other places were targeted and vandalized

which comes back to the problematic definition of what a hate crime is to begin with...and how you can prove the crime was motivated by hate of a group

10/9/2009 5:30:46 PM

Jesus Christ, you have just rewrote what I describe in my prior post as not being a hate crime.

The elements that turns it into a hate crime (the slurs and solely targeting GLAAD's headquarters) has been taken out.

10/9/2009 5:40:32 PM

FWIW, proving something isn't a hate crime is reportedly not trivial, and the victim's race/religion/orientation differing from the perp's doesn't automatically result in conviction of a hate crime.

10/9/2009 5:41:35 PM

Quote :

"Boehner, speaking at his weekly press conference Thursday, said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill was "an abuse of power" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to punish offenders for what they thought — and not what they did. He accused the speaker of pursuing her social agenda "on the backs" of the troops."

You are blowing this out of proportion to fit your own agenda. The point is you can't sneak something like this to a bill. This is a separate issue from the defense bill and should in no way be a part of it.

10/9/2009 5:43:32 PM

^^^like i said, the simple fact that GLAAD's headquarters was vandalized is going to bring a bunch of people out calling it a hate crime, completely ignorant that other buildings were vandalized as well...you chose to ignore that aspect of my post, just like you completely dismissed disco_stu's last post and chose to completely change the analogy

^^no but you instantly have people jumping to that conclusion "omg a black dude killed a white dude, must be a hate crime"..."omg a white dude killed a black dude, must be a hate crime"

people ignorantly will jump to that conclusion

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 5:43:49 PM

Quote :

"FWIW, proving something is a hate crime is reportedly not trivial, and the victim's race/religion/orientation differing from the perp's doesn't automatically result in conviction of a hate crime."

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 5:45:35 PM

Quote :

"Ok, two murders exactly identical except one was because of hate and the other because of greed. In case A, I am punished X because I acted on greed. In case B, I am punished X+Y because I acted on hate. If the only difference is hate, then you are adding Y because of hate. Ergo, you are punishing me Y for the hate."

10/9/2009 5:46:44 PM