Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 196

Thread: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

  1. #131
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    It's not right to make up legislation for what MIGHT or COULD happen.
    Argue all you like about THAT...but at the very least, you now appear to grasp the fact that HCE's are based upon recognition of additional harm, not upon any form of policing thought.

    As for what MIGHT happen, the potential for additional harm is not some random speculation, but a well documented historical pattern. For example, when *law enforcement personnel* in the segregated south were themselves participating in hate crimes (this was before they were called such), it sent a clear message that it was OK to murder black people (after all...the COPS are doing it, so who the hell would one report such murders to?)

    Thankfully, that level of complicity has been cut back, due in no small part to specific legislation aimed at securing and protecting equality under the law.

    But that's the kind of history that is recognized implicitly in HCE laws.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  2. #132
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    It's not right to make up legislation for what MIGHT or COULD happen.
    You mean like drunk driving laws?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    [COLOR="#FF0000"]If you have to ask such a question, I highly doubt you'd understand the answers I've already given./COLOR]
    Oh I know, because you are just so much more intelligent and right. LOL! Give me a break!!! Your "answers" are your opinions on the matter.


    The additional harm from hate crimes is that failure to respond effectively to them sends the message that the law doesn't apply equally to everyone...that it's either OK -- or less bad -- to victimize some groups of people rather than others.
    No, hate crime legislation makes victims of equally horrific crimes sends the message that they don't matter as much as a minority, especially when their family member's killer does not get the same time as someone with a "racially-motivated" crime. Like I said, the outcome is the SAME. A family and community have been victimized. They don't get over it any easier than anyone else.

    I'll give it another try, but I must remind you that *whether or not you understand my explanation, it is still the case that HCE's are based upon recognition of additional harm, not upon punishing thought.*
    Oh come down off your high horse!!! Quit patronizing me. You sound like a chauvinist. To me, it is punishing thought and things that POTENTIALLY could happen, and you STILL cannot explain how it isn't.

    The additional harm in question, if and when a government is perceived to be too lenient upon criminals who have committed crimes specifically motivated by animus against a protected class, is that both the targeted group -- and the general population -- will come away with the impression that the protections of the law don't REALLY apply to everyone, or at the very least don't apply equally to them. Once you grasp the fact that allegiance to a government and its laws is NOT a given (people have to be trained into accepting laws), the significance of this should be obvious.
    This is very similar to what you already stated. You're just saying it in a different way, and I already addressed it above.



    For the upteenth time; the basis of HCE's is not privileging one motive over another...it is recognizing the additional harm of some motives over others. This principle, by the way, is quite common. As some other posters have pointed out, the penalties for ACTUALLY killing someone are heavier than for ATTEMPTING to kill them, in part because obviously the harm is greater when you ACTUALLY kill someone.
    It is making assumptions, nothing more. You cannot punish someone for what others MIGHT do. Don't YOU understand that? Your last sentence is absolutely ridiculous.





    Actually, I WOULD support including AGE as a protected class. There are three heavy practical challenges to making that an effectively policy change. First, it would be extremely difficult to marshal the kind of evidence one would need to demonstrate age-based animus.
    Ridiculous!! I don't support ANY of those things. I was using those as an example of the madness. Punish people for the CRIME. We already have levels of crime, manslaughter, second-degree and capital murder. We don't need to muck up the system with more inane laws.

    Second, as I already described with regards to attaching a gender-based HCE to a rape conviction, it would be similarly difficult to demonstrate that a rape was motivated by specific animus towards women (as contrasted against simply imposing sexual violence upon someone, and only being attracted to women).
    How so? If a man has a history of rape, and he rapes and kills a woman. According to your own logic, that is a hate crime. He has targeted a specific minority, has a past history of showing his hate towards this group (whether or not it is based upon sexual feelings is irrelevant to the fact that he is targeting a minority). Also, the women in the community will experience fear, and there may potentially be copycats, riots or whatever. Your explanation here is totally weak.

    Third, children have no consistent and reliable political voice. They are treated -- legally and politically -- as though they are nothing but extensions of their parents or guardians. The political organization and weight of "parents' rights" advocacy groups continues to easily outmatch the advocacy groups which organize on behalf of children.
    No, children are considered individuals and human-beings of their own right, not an extension of their parents. Children do not have political rights because they are generally incapable of such things.



    HCE's are not based upon whether or not the offense in question MAY terrorize someone (or many someone's). HCE's are based upon demonstrating SPECIFIC, TARGETED harm which has historically already been shown to have a chilling effect on specific communities.
    Murders and killings affect every community that they occur in; it doesn't matter what the race, gender or age of the victim was.


    EXACTLY. And YES, I would support HCE's in such cases. The challenge, once again is not in gaining MY support for such an HCE, but rather the legal challenge of demonstrating through a heavy evidentiary burden that the rapist or attacker not only bore such a specific animus, but that this animus was the basis of their criminal act (and NOT just the desire to impose sexual violence upon someone who happened to match their favored profile of victim).
    Why? Why not just prosecute them to the full extent of the law without mucking up the system with all of this? I will agree that if someone has a police record of targeting a specific minority group and then kills a group of them, you MAY be able to prosecute for a hate crime, but to me, that is still making assumptions about what somebody was thinking about at the time of the murder, and that could NOT be proven. You can assume that because of his history, but that is all. It is still only an assumption.


    OK, I get that you think that...AND YOU ARE INCORRECT. FACTUALLY WRONG. Not liking HCE's is one thing. Rationalizing your dislike of HCE's on the basis of reinforcing patent falsehoods about HCE's is quite another.
    And this is what YOU say. You are doing the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum, but you have the advantage that there is ALREADY existing hate crime legislation, which makes it EASY for you to say I'm incorrect. I disagree. I think this set of laws is incorrect, unless there extreme and extenuating circumstances. That means that convictions for hate crimes are pretty low, and they are very low. Why is that? Because you cannot prove what someone is thinking at the time they committed their crime. Our laws are NOT supposed to look into other things this particular criminal has done in his past, because he is on trial for the current crime. Don't you see how this is a slippery slope?

    What if somebody assaulted a minority in the past, but it had nothing to do with racial motivations. Then, years later, this same person gets into a bar room brawl with a person who just happens to be of the same minority group, is the evidence to convict someone of a "hate" crime?

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    LOL! Criminals are punished, in part, in order to protect the public from what they might or could do. Are you with me yet? Or do I need to take it down a couple grade levels?
    Yes, they have committed a crime and shown that they are dangerous, but they are being punished for the crime. Sentencing is when they decide the length of time the person will do because of the level of their crime. If you were right, there would be no such thing as parole because any person released could be a potential danger to the community. There is no way to know for sure. Nobody is punished because of what they MIGHT do. They are punished because they have committed a crime.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You mean like drunk driving laws?
    No, drunk driving laws are not based upon minority status. They are applied equally to everyone.

  6. #136
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    No, drunk driving laws are not based upon minority status. They are applied equally to everyone.
    That is not what you said., You said legislation should not be made based on what "might or could" happen. Drunk driving laws are based on what might or could happen when some one drives drunk.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    That is not what you said., You said legislation should not be made based on what "might or could" happen. Drunk driving laws are based on what might or could happen when some one drives drunk.
    Perhaps, but it is much different, and I think you know that. Nobody is applying a specific motive to this crime, other than having too much to drink. It is applied equally across the board. It is not "assuming" there is a particular motive involved. It is simply a punishment for driving drunk which is dangerous. However, punishing someone for a hate crime is assuming there could be racial tensions or riots or a frightened community.

  8. #138
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Perhaps, but it is much different, and I think you know that. Nobody is applying a specific motive to this crime, other than having too much to drink. It is applied equally across the board. It is not "assuming" there is a particular motive involved. It is simply a punishment for driving drunk which is dangerous. However, punishing someone for a hate crime is assuming there could be racial tensions or riots or a frightened community.
    Againm that is not what you said. What you said is that "It's not right to make up legislation for what MIGHT or COULD happen." So, based on that, do you also oppose drunk driving laws?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    So basically, I guess it's okay to punish somebody, not only for the crime they committed, but society's possible reaction to that crime and because of what they were [I]possibly[/I ]thinking about when they committed the crime? Sorry, but I don't think that's right or fair and pretty much impossible to prove.

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Againm that is not what you said. What you said is that "It's not right to make up legislation for what MIGHT or COULD happen." So, based on that, do you also oppose drunk driving laws?
    If that is what you want to focus on, fine. I've made a lot of different points as to why I oppose hate crime legislation. Driving drunk is a completely different subject, and it has been PROVEN that driving drunk impairs your ability and reflexes. Whereas, you cannot predict what society's reaction will be to a specific crime.

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •