|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 20, 2007 4:48:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 25, 2007 7:15:56 GMT -5
This needs to stop -
We need more crime prevention measures - rather than dealing with crime after the fact.
That said - I'm against hate crime legislation. Legislating illegal thought scares me.
If I assault a person - I should be punished. Does it matter the color of his skin or his sexual orientation?
If I assault a white guy do I get less jail time? straight guy?
Not just no, but NO, NO, NO, NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 26, 2007 2:23:04 GMT -5
How does one differentiate between a bar fight and a racially motivated beat-down? Should those things be treated the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 26, 2007 2:52:40 GMT -5
hate crimes should be punished more because they intend to terrorize an entire group of people. It's an attack against an entire group and community and is more dangerous and wide-spread in its effect. It's a serious problem that requires added disincentive for prohibition. If one guy gets beaten and killed because he had sex with his wife, the nature of the problem is different if one guy gets beaten because he's black in a neighbourhood of blacks. One's more serious, dangerous to society. If a guy got beaten because he's white, that would also be a serious hate crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 26, 2007 3:07:34 GMT -5
I think I agree. I think there needs to be SOME sort of differentiation between violent acts and what their motivation is.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstaterebel on Nov 28, 2007 6:33:09 GMT -5
Kizz - the bar fight - it makes no difference what the motive is. Assault is Assault.
I agree with both you and Techno - racially/sexual orientation motivated crimes feel worse to us - but a government punishing thought - no matter how much we disagree with it - is
just plain wrong. How far of a leap is it for the gov't to outlaw communist thought, liberal thought, conservative thought.
How far of a leap is it to outlaw the next KKK march somewhere?
As much as we like to deny the Klan its permit, or punish those who are not as enlightened in terms or sexuality or race - the criminalzing of thought is a slippery slope and too much of a risk.
To prove a hate crime, the prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the accused was thinking. Its punishing thought rather than the act.
Florida has the death penalty - thats the punishment for murder. Does it really matter if it was racially motivated or not. Equality doctorines tells us that it doesn't. Equal protection doctorines tells us it doesn't matter. If the ultimate goal is equality - we need to stop treating people differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 28, 2007 21:54:19 GMT -5
Well, in a bar fight, often both (or several of) the parties involved were both pulling punches. In a beating, it's usually only one person pulling the punches. So--I guess you have a point. Man--it's so hard to look at that way, but it's really PROBABLY the only right way to look at it..... UGH!!
|
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 28, 2007 22:43:09 GMT -5
Kizz - the bar fight - it makes no difference what the motive is. Assault is Assault. I agree with both you and Techno - racially/sexual orientation motivated crimes feel worse to us - but a government punishing thought - no matter how much we disagree with it - is just plain wrong. How far of a leap is it for the gov't to outlaw communist thought, liberal thought, conservative thought. How far of a leap is it to outlaw the next KKK march somewhere? As much as we like to deny the Klan its permit, or punish those who are not as enlightened in terms or sexuality or race - the criminalzing of thought is a slippery slope and too much of a risk. To prove a hate crime, the prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the accused was thinking. Its punishing thought rather than the act. Florida has the death penalty - thats the punishment for murder. Does it really matter if it was racially motivated or not. Equality doctorines tells us that it doesn't. Equal protection doctorines tells us it doesn't matter. If the ultimate goal is equality - we need to stop treating people differently. RSR - Generally on this issue I would be in your corner, but I fear that we need hate crimes legislation not to patrol thought, but to prevent terrorism. If you don't like a certain class of individual, fine. If you take actions against an individual because of their particular persuasion, then you need additional punishment. Not to punish thought, but to quell the fears that crime sparked in a community. The government has a responsibility to provide for the common defense and if that includes hate crimes, then so be it. I will agree that one life is just as valuable as another, but as long as we have the death penalty as a 'symbol of justice', then I'm willing to continue catering to the 'victim's' need for justice instead of the objective need for justice. |
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 29, 2007 2:21:47 GMT -5
Let's say a bar fight happens. If someone yells a racist word during the fight, like in the middle of it and the police came, couldn't that fight be treated as a hate crime? Would it be fair? If it STARTED with racist words, that's one thing, but if it happened in the middle of the fight, should they have the right to call it a hate crime?
|
|
