I've already addressed that situation and honestly in the instance of murder, their is little variance available for punishment.

My scenario is one in which the punishment render would have greater variance. So why don't you address my post instead of just rewording one of situations and claiming people will view it as a hate crime. People viewing something as a hate crime doesn't make it so. A hate crime must be proved in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion.

Even if hate crimes legislation didn't exist, people would view the crimes committed against GLAAD's headquarters as being motivated by hatred, even if surrounding buildings were vandalized. That does not negate the importance of hate crime legislation when the target is expressly picked out due to prejudice.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 5:48:47 PM

Quote :

"People viewing something as a hate crime doesn't make it so"

I never claimed it did...I claimed, correctly, that plenty of people will automatically assume it is a hate crime if they say one race killing another, or something like that...regardless of other facts and details...thats the court of public opinion for you, and its very relevant... sound bytes and sensationalist news stories shape the average persons' opinions more than the final court decision and reasoning

10/9/2009 5:51:03 PM

And what you have just posted has absolutely nothing to do with codifying hate crimes and their respective punishments.

Neither does the court of public opinion hand out verdicts of guilt or innocence, nor does it have the authority to punish. Only a court of law can do so.

10/9/2009 5:53:27 PM

You're quite mistaken if you don't think the court of public opinion has the ability/authority to punish, just because the punishment isn't the same one handed down by a court of law...that continues to be my point...most peoples' opinions are shaped by CoPO, not a legal verdict that comes out after most people have already made up their minds

And no, I'm not speaking on the legal codification or penalties of hate crimes...I'm simply mentioning an often overlooked, yet very important aspect of this entire concept

10/9/2009 6:02:19 PM

And your point has nothing to do with hate crime legislation. Even without that legislation being on the books, people would still hold those opinions.

10/9/2009 6:11:04 PM

Quote :

"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?"

Since according to you the only point of punishment is the punishment itself, then no. The crime is exactly the same. One person sprays "Die Niggas" and the others draw a picture of a dick. Both damage or destroy the same amount of property. What's the difference? It's the same crime, the same affront to our society and judicial system and should be punished in the same manner.

Keep in mind if it was really just punk kids, their sentencing will be mitigated by their punk kid status. I have no problem with this. Punk kids deserve a chance to change into productive adults.

10/9/2009 7:47:38 PM

1) GLAAD is an LGBT organization

2) The crimes are not the same. One has the element of intimidation directed at a specific community

10/9/2009 8:10:17 PM

so if someone robs me on the street, is it a hate crime because they had some sort of bias towards me when choosing me as a victim of the crime? i would assume most people make decisions when committing crimes about who they are committing them against

10/9/2009 8:41:50 PM

The only thing I have to add to this thread is that maybe some of you guys ought to talk to some of your gay friends. Ask them if they've ever felt threatened or concerned about their safety because of their sexual orientation. I'll bet a lot of them have noticed it or seen it for themselves. I think a lot of straight people have trouble relating to feeling threatened over something like this, and therefore believe that there's no need for it.

10/9/2009 11:03:05 PM

^I'm not denying that gay people might feel concerned or fearful of being possible targets, but honestly, the chances of you getting beaten for being gay, especially if you don't live around a bunch of rednecks, are pretty slim. I can't imagine that many gay people fearing for their life on a daily basis because of it. But, honestly, it's irrelevant to the point anyway.

I don't differentiate between killing someone for no reason and killing them for a stupid reason. Disco Stu was 100% right...premeditated murder covers any possible reason they could have conjured to kill the person. The reason doesn't matter. All that matters is that they made a calculated decision to kill a person...that's it. There was intent. They'll be punished harshly.

You want to punish people more harshly for causing mild fear among the greater population. The reality is that you don't have a right to not be afraid. If you want to be afraid, read the news. There are plenty of things, that are likely to actually happen, that you should be afraid of. You don't get legal recourse when you aren't an actual victim of the crime, though. It's so incredibly stupid to try to factor the motivation of the crime into the sentence. How is beating a person because they're gay worthy of a greater punishment than beating someone because you felt like beating someone and they were the first person you saw? Those two crimes are equally as vile...do you understand that?

10/9/2009 11:32:53 PM

I hope you realize this covers more than murder.

Please, answer my hypothetical from earlier on this page.

10/10/2009 12:12:41 AM

Quote :

"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?"

Yes, but only because the perpetrators in the second situation are kids, and presumably, minors. Let's say they aren't, though. They're adults. No, I don't think the perpetrators in the first scenario should be punished more harshly than in the second scenario. The crime is that you've damaged someone's property with disparaging graffiti. It doesn't matter if the graffiti said "nigger," "faggot," or "asshole." The crime is vandalism. Whatever your reason for doing it, it was a stupid reason, and doesn't deserve consideration.

Quote :

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

I attribute that to a well intentioned desire to protect minorities from persecution. Unfortunately, I don't think these laws are an effective way to do that. No one is going to not beat up a gay person, if they were going to anyway, because of hate crime laws. I still don't see how beating a person because they're gay is worse than beating them for no reason at all. In the first situation, the external effect is fear among gays in the community. In the second situation, the external effect is fear among everyone in the community, because anyone could be the random person.

Maybe I can simplify it. Do you believe a person being gay is a valid reason to kill them? If not, how do you differentiate between killing someone for no reason at all and killing someone for an invalid reason? Isn't killing someone for no reason, with intent to do so, pretty much the worst thing you can do? At least if the person killed someone for being gay, they could have contrived in their sick mind that the person chose to be gay, and was doing so specifically to spit in the face of their beliefs...that's more of a justification than no reason at all. I'm trying to make the point that "random" crime is as bad as it gets, in my view...nothing can be worse than that. "Hate crime" should be treated in the exact same way.

Murder, vandalism, theft, arson, I really don't care. The same principle applies regardless of crime.

10/10/2009 12:40:07 AM

Quote :

"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?"

so what boundaries are there on groups that can have hate crimes perpetrated against them and if there are boundaries why? isn't that another form of segregation?

if instead of GLAAD's headquarters it was a police station and they wrote slurs about police, is that a hate crime against police? if one group of people wrote slurs on GLAAD's headquarters and one wrote slurs on a police station why should the crimes be of different magnitude, they both have the same intent? what about any other group? teachers? congresspeople? zookeepers?

furthermore, if a group writes the same slurs on another random building, is that a hate crime even if none of the victims are of the group reside under hate crime legislation?

10/10/2009 8:33:04 AM

Quote :

"Neither does the court of public opinion hand out verdicts of guilt or innocence, nor does it have the authority to punish. Only a court of law can do so."

Tell that to the Duke lacrosse players. Oh, and their parents who were fired from their jobs for simply being the parent of a Duke lacrosse player

10/10/2009 2:39:23 PM

another thing to add: these kinds of laws could backfire by further fueling the hatred of people who are bigoted, because they could see it as retribution or reverse discrimination. i'm not saying they're justified in feeling that way, but they probably do, so hate crime penalties could be counterproductive in actually changing people's prejudices. maybe education would be more effective.

10/10/2009 7:55:07 PM

to be fair, have you seen our educational system recently?

10/10/2009 8:16:39 PM

Quote :

" Tell that to the Duke lacrosse players. Oh, and their parents who were fired from their jobs for simply being the parent of a Duke lacrosse player"

So we should get rid of all crimes because of the court of public opinion?

10/11/2009 2:00:13 PM

no, but we should fucking understand that the court of public opinion has consequences

10/11/2009 4:52:13 PM

and entirely inconsequential to the discussion.

10/11/2009 5:41:39 PM

not at all when you say "the court of public opinion can issue no punishment."

10/11/2009 5:44:54 PM

You can't be this obtuse.

10/11/2009 6:05:49 PM

neither can you

10/11/2009 6:14:13 PM

Quote :

"another thing to add: these kinds of laws could backfire by further fueling the hatred of people who are bigoted, because they could see it as retribution or reverse discrimination. i'm not saying they're justified in feeling that way, but they probably do, so hate crime penalties could be counterproductive in actually changing people's prejudices. maybe education would be more effective. "

Exactly I think a lot of the protests, demands, and working agenda of groups like the NAACP are actually backfiring by increasing racial tension and working against the goals of equality.

10/11/2009 6:50:12 PM

Quote :

" 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?"

10/11/2009 9:35:26 PM

what if someone vandalizes the Raleigh GOP headquarters and writes "i hate republican fags." should that person face stiffer penalties than if he had just broken a window across the street?

10/11/2009 10:17:43 PM

no

10/11/2009 10:26:59 PM

why don't you answer my question instead of attempting obfuscation.

10/11/2009 10:28:55 PM

why don't you answer my question? Should republicans not be protected while gays are?

10/11/2009 10:36:13 PM

Answer the question.

10/11/2009 10:45:14 PM

Answer the question

10/11/2009 10:52:21 PM

^, ^^ The reason why Soap Box sucks and is pointless

10/11/2009 10:58:15 PM

Aaron, you won't answer the question because you are incapable of doing so. You lack the ability to give an honest answer.

It's painfully evident that you do not have the mental capacity to actually debate a point, which is why your entire argument structure is based upon creating Strawman arguments, incorrectly claiming valid arguments are strawman arguments, or obfuscation and ignoring the point against yours.

I will wait for someone who can intelligently post to answer my question; because you are obviously incapable of doing so. I don't even know why I waste my time with you.

10/11/2009 11:34:51 PM

hate crime laws are stupid... and the people who commit these so-called "hate crimes" are even dumber.

signed,
a social liberal

ps - creating a thread title such as this in an attempt to troll conservatives on this board is no different than glen beck or rush limbot spewing their tripe.

10/11/2009 11:40:06 PM

Nutsmackr. *I* already did answer your question and d357r0y3r did a good job of extrapolating the points I have already been making. Your response to me:

Quote :

" 1) GLAAD is an LGBT organization 2) The crimes are not the same. One has the element of intimidation directed at a specific community"

1)How is the relevant?
2)"Elements of intimidation directed as specific communities" are also not relevant. How do you define a "specific community" in the law to make these crimes more harsh? How can you truly know the motivation of a person when they commit a crime? What if it's only 20% motivated by hatred for gays and 80% motivated by being pissed off because they lost their job?

That's my problem with this. A white person commits a crime against a black person. There is no way to know for sure that it really was a "hate crime". The white guy has a confederate flag bumper sticker. Well, shit, that must have been a hate crime. I worry that people would convict on even less (just the fact that it's a white person attacking a black person).

Say a black person mugs a white person while wearing a popular rap shirt that says "down with whitey"? Is that a hate crime? When a judge or jury gets to decide exactly what was going on in the perpetrator's psyche and exactly what their motivation was, that's once again adjudicating hate. thoughtcrime bullshit.

10/12/2009 8:44:02 AM

I'm against most hate-crime laws personally, including this one, but I'm not about to compare a flaming bag of poop on a door-step to a flaming cross on the lawn. Some crimes are exponetially more damaging to a community when they are racially motivated.

To argue against that fact is ridiculous and not necessary when trying to argue against hate-crime laws.

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2009 9:05:58 AM

Scaring people with non-violent acts should not be considered crimes themselves. As much I as I understand where you're coming from with the flaming cross thing, as long as it's non-violent I support the burning of crosses as protected freedom of expression.

Granted, planting a flaming cross on someone else's lawn probably breaks a whole host of laws, not to mention city codes and such.

"damaging to a community" is more undefinable thoughtcrime bullshit. Define the community. Define the damage. Everyone has a different tolerances even within the same community.

10/12/2009 9:26:49 AM

Quote :

"Scaring people with non-violent acts should not be considered crimes themselves"

Really? Are you sure you don't want to reconsider the ramifications of this statement?

10/12/2009 9:39:26 AM

I bolded it didn't I?

Take for instance the giant abortion displays they love to put on the brickyard every now and again. Should these be considered crimes?

10/12/2009 9:53:06 AM

Burning a cross in someone's yard is the same thing as announcing your intent to harm someone. How should that not be illegal?

Or should it also be legal to threaten to beatup/kill someone?

10/12/2009 10:48:29 AM

If it's in someone elses yard, yeah...that's a crime. You could burn a cross in your own yard I guess, and it shouldn't be a crime. Maybe someone just wanted to light a cross on fire, and didn't know that the act had been racially motivated in the past. The thing should be actually punished is the thing that hurts someone else or damages someone's property. Causing people to feel threatened is not necessarily a crime. If I'm black and I see that my neighbors all drive pick up trucks with confederate flags in their back window, I might feel threatened...but those neighbors haven't actually committed a crime. Now, if you actually voice your intent to carry out a crime, that's something else entirely, and law enforcement can step in to prevent you from completing the act.

10/12/2009 11:11:19 AM

For the love of fuck, obviously I was referring to burning a cross in someone elses yard.

10/12/2009 11:18:11 AM

I don't think it should be illegal specifically or be punished more harshly because it is a burning cross. I think it should be illegal for any of the thousands of reasons you're not allowed to do shit on other people's property. This should be a very illegal act and harshly punished, but not because it's going to hurt someone's feelings or make them feel intimidated.

I think saying "burning cross" = "announcing your intent to harm" is a gray area that I would prefer not to have people deciding when it comes to handing out convictions and sentencing.

How do you know exactly that the person who did it is intending to harm the property owner? You're making an inference based on bias, and you can't really know what the person's motivation was. Again, this is my problem with adjudicating based on motivation.

Once again for the record, I am not for people burning crosses on other people's property.

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2009 11:20:36 AM

Christ. A burning cross is not a "grey area". It's a clear, distinct message. Do you think that people can make any threat they want, so long as it's not in the form of language? Howabout I start mailing your mom hand-drawn pictures of me having my way with her eye-socket?

10/12/2009 11:42:10 AM

What is the clear distinct message that a burning cross has?

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0103/np010331.htm

One or more feminists have used it as an anti-religious display, granted, they did a lot more than burning crosses. Again, you don't know for sure (though I admit it is likely) that the person who put it up has a specific intent to harm a specific person on that property. You shouldn't be able to charge someone with generally threatening or intimidating a "community" of people.

Look, I know that in not-so-recent history it has been used a symbol of racist hatred and has been used to intimidate black people. But if some crazy fucker decides to use it not because he hates black people but because he knows it will get his message across, I don't think it's fair to automatically charge him with a crime "just because it was a burning cross".

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2009 12:00:37 PM

a burning cross in the front yard of some black family doesn't indicate a clear and distinct message to you?

are you high? what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 2:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2009 2:58:21 PM

I give up. Label whatever you want a hate crime. If someone looks at you wrong, call it a hate crime because your skin is a different color. That will lead us to equality.

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : sigh]

10/12/2009 3:29:54 PM

hey, i'm not a proponent of hate crime legislation.

but that doesn't preclude me from being able to recognize when a crime is committed in order to intimidate a certain segment of the population. e.g., burning crosses on a black person's lawn

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2009 4:36:40 PM

Quote :

"a burning cross in the front yard of some black family doesn't indicate a clear and distinct message to you?"

Does a burning cross in the front yard of some white family indicate a clear and distinct message to you? Do you think the person that puts a burning cross in the yard of a white family deserves to be punished less than the person that puts a burning cross in the front yard of a black family?

You aren't grasping the concept of equal protection under the law. It's not enough, for some of you, to punish people for the crime they committed. You have to punish a criminal for some perceived "harm" to the community that the victim is apart of, even though the community itself has not actually been harmed in any way. You want to dismantle the rule of law in order to "get back" at people that are intolerant of some individual's immutable characteristics. But, by doing so, you've only undermined the notion of equality that you rightly seek to advance.

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2009 4:45:24 PM

who is "you"?

me? because you don't know me, guy.

as i've already stated, i'm not a proponent of hate crime legislation. But i can fucking recognize when a crime has racial or sexual motivation. doesn't mean i think it should be punished differently. jesus fucking christ, everything has to be black and white in the soapbox, huh?

10/12/2009 4:54:01 PM

My mistake, then. "You" is anyone that supports hate crime legislation on the basis that a specified crime against a certain race of person deserves a greater punishment than the same crime against a person not of that race.

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2009 5:48:17 PM