• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thanksgiving beating victim says assault was hate crime

I just think its disgusting because a man brutally attacked a woman who did nothing to threaten or hurt the man or his family.
 
Hatuey said:
Hate crime exist for the same reason murder 1, murder 2 and manslaughter exist. It serves to qualify the type of crime which occurred. It's the reason we have armed robbery vs unarmed robbery. All things are not the same under the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

Hate crime is not the same thing as 1st,2nd, or 3rd degree murder. The 1st degree murder is premeditated murder.2nd degree murder is spur of the moment killing, 3rd degree murder is a death that resulted from negligence or indifference like drunk/intoxicated driver running over someone or a child who dies in the care of a negligent parent.

A hate crime basically means someone harmed someone of a protected classed,so your punishment will be more severe.Its no different than giving someone extra punishment because they killed famous celebrity, politician, policeman or rich ceo of a multibillion dollar corporation.A lot of murders occur because of hatred for another person.
 
jamesrage said:
Hate crime is not the same thing as 1st,2nd, or 3rd degree murder. The 1st degree murder is premeditated murder.2nd degree murder is spur of the moment killing, 3rd degree murder is a death that resulted from negligence or indifference like drunk/intoxicated driver running over someone or a child who dies in the care of a negligent parent.

A hate crime basically means someone harmed someone of a protected classed,so your punishment will be more severe.Its no different than giving someone extra punishment because they killed famous celebrity, politician, policeman or rich ceo of a multibillion dollar corporation.
Click to expand...

Right, but in the case of degrees of murder we're still referencing the state of mind of the killer.
 
tererun said:
Thanksgiving beating victim says assault was hate crime | wcsh6.com

In case you have not heard of this crazy, over thanksgiving a lesbian woman was beaten severely by the 18 year old brother of her lover during thanksgiving. Buit wait, this story gets even more insane. It occurs the brother had attacked her before with a pipe. On top of that their father is in jail for shooting the boy during some domestic dispute when he was 17. The boy has also threatened to finish the job he started after being released on bail. Yes, jail is a lovely place for this boy, and hopefully the FBI will follow up on the obvious hate crime that the state of Alabama is reluctant to file against him.

However, i have to ask the question of what the hell was going through the victim and her girlfriend's head? Obviously this family has some rather deep issues with abuse and other crap. First, why the hell did the victim even bother going when she knows the kid is pretty homicidal towards her? He hit her with a pipe before and beat her up. She says she thought the family was going to be nice to her, but she really put herself in the middle of a dangerous and hostile environment. It is for no reason at all because she seems to have a family of her own that cares for her. You know the family has an overly psychotic reputation of domestic abuse and violent acts, just stay away. Then what the hell is her girlfriend thinking? You don't drag someone you care about into psycho household with your homophobic brother who already tried to kill her.

Does this strike anyone else as completely stupid all around?
Click to expand...

yes
.......
 
i would be more disturbed by someone randomly attacking another person for no reason at all rather than out of "hate". at least with a "hate" crime there is some reason (no matter how invalid) behind it. It's the random psychos attacking people for no reason that should get harsher sentences.

in the long run, does it really matter why he committed the crime? punish him to the fullest extent of the law for the particular crime committed
 
A crime is a crime and should be punished as evenly as possible. Hate crime laws are thought crime punishments and I think that is a very dangerous road to go down.
 
spanky said:
A crime is a crime and should be punished as evenly as possible. Hate crime laws are thought crime punishments and I think that is a very dangerous road to go down.
Click to expand...

tis a slippery slope when you start punishing people for what they are thinking
 
It's not even that (to me) - it's that the crime is just as bad no matter what the reason.

What if he caved her face in while trying to steal from her?

To me the end result overrides why they might have done it - it should be approached the same way in many cases.
 
Aderleth said:
First a disclaimer: I do not have a strong opinion about hate crimes one way or another, but I do think that if they're going to be debated, it'd be a good idea for people to understand what they actually are and why they exists. Several things:

1) The severity of one's criminal punishment can vary greatly depending on the thought (i.e. intent) behind the crime. This is one of the reasons that things like the heat of passion defense exist in murder cases.

2) The idea behind punishing a hate crime more severely than a similar crime absent some racial/gender/orientation based hatred is that certain crimes are thought to have a negative and lasting impact not just on the actual victim, but on the class of people to which he belongs. From that perspective thje punishment is more severe because the impact is more severe, not, strictly speaking, because of the defendant's thoughts.

3) Hate crime laws absolutely do not provide extra protections for certain classes of people. It is fully possible for, say, a black guy to get punished under hate crimes legislation for beating the **** out of a white guy for being white; or to punish some kind of roving band of militant lesbian feminists for kicking the crap out of every straight male they see (hypothetically speaking). As a practical matter, these laws will obviously be applied more often to minority groups, but it's innacurate to suggest that they (the minority groups) are getting extra legal protections. That is no more true than the notion that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause provides extra protections for minorities.
Click to expand...

That was the rationale but it's absurd. A home invasion robbery or violence would have a lasting impact on that family. If a murder happens down one's street EVERYONE in the area is affected and may have a lasting impact. A serial killer may put an entire city in fear.

Where do those people go to get the extra justice afforded others?

"Hate crime laws absolutely do not provide extra protections for certain classes of people."

In theory, it's possible for a homosexual to be tried for attacking a hetero, but in practice, of course it does. It offers extra justice to s few according to sexual orientation and religion.

BTW - It's no about extra protection, it's about extra justice.
 
Hatuey said:
This must be one of those families joko104 blamed Obama for destroying.
Click to expand...

^ A pointless bizarre hate message having no connection to anything. Obviously you think about me frequently. :doh
 
spanky said:
That was the rationale but it's absurd. A home invasion robbery or violence would have a lasting impact on that family. If a murder happens down one's street EVERYONE in the area is affected and may have a lasting impact. A serial killer may put an entire city in fear.
Click to expand...

First, murders happen all the time, especially in major cities. I've never been affected in any meaningful way by any of them, and I doubt you have either. Same deal with serial killers. Second, you're still talking about normal societal impact of a crime, which is already figured into the sentencing. A better, and more compelling hypothetical situation might involve, say a serial rapist who specifically targets young blondes and only young blondes. In such a situation, anyone fitting that description is going to have their day to day life affected in ways that, say, a murder (totally unconnected to any traits posessed by the victim) would not cause. Of course in that situation, hate crime laws might very well be applicable.

spanky said:
Where do those people go to get the extra justice afforded others?

"Hate crime laws absolutely do not provide extra protections for certain classes of people."

In theory, it's possible for a homosexual to be tried for attacking a hetero, but in practice, of course it does. It offers extra justice to s few according to sexual orientation and religion.

BTW - It's no about extra protection, it's about extra justice.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out to Goshin a page or two back, this argument is why I referenced the Equal Protection clause in my post, because the exact same argument could be made with that. EP undoubtedly has been used far more often to protect minorities of various stripes than to protect straight white males, even though it applies equally to everyone. That doesn't mean it doesn't serve a good and valid purpose, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone's getting extra justice. Moreoever, as the demographics of this country continue to shift it's virtually certain that hate crime laws, and EP, will see a lot more use in protecting what is currently the dominant ethnic group. So no, the law doesn't provide extra protection or extra justice to anyone.
 
Aderleth said:
First, murders happen all the time, especially in major cities. I've never been affected in any meaningful way by any of them, and I doubt you have either. Same deal with serial killers. Second, you're still talking about normal societal impact of a crime, which is already figured into the sentencing. A better, and more compelling hypothetical situation might involve, say a serial rapist who specifically targets young blondes and only young blondes. In such a situation, anyone fitting that description is going to have their day to day life affected in ways that, say, a murder (totally unconnected to any traits posessed by the victim) would not cause. Of course in that situation, hate crime laws might very well be applicable.



As I pointed out to Goshin a page or two back, this argument is why I referenced the Equal Protection clause in my post, because the exact same argument could be made with that. EP undoubtedly has been used far more often to protect minorities of various stripes than to protect straight white males, even though it applies equally to everyone. That doesn't mean it doesn't serve a good and valid purpose, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone's getting extra justice. Moreoever, as the demographics of this country continue to shift it's virtually certain that hate crime laws, and EP, will see a lot more use in protecting what is currently the dominant ethnic group. So no, the law doesn't provide extra protection or extra justice to anyone.
Click to expand...

So it's your position that hate crime laws don't provide extra justice to GBLT victims over heterosexuals? Or the religious over atheists?
 
spanky said:
So it's your position that hate crime laws don't provide extra justice to GBLT victims over heterosexuals? Or the religious over atheists?
Click to expand...

Correct. Edit: At least not any more so than, say, rape laws vis-a-vis women, or the aforementioned EP clause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom