• 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!

Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

AGENT J said:
thats way i said "almost" shocking
and its not the racist part that is shocking, there bigots right on this board and racism is still wide spread

it was the whole writing a letter and mailing it to your neighbor telling them you are going to murder them thing that just surprised me

i know racism comes from ignorance and stupidity but jeez lol

but yes people are warped
Click to expand...

So threatening to kill someone else for racist reasons is different than just threatening to kill someone else in general? Why?
 
Hard Truth said:
I don't fully know why it is, but many don't seem to get it. One reason is that the right wing media has created the impression that there are, or imminently will be, hate speech laws. Very few people in he USA want hate speech laws, there is no reason to think that they could get passed legislatively and they would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
Click to expand...

Well I mean considering the powers of the executive branch has been exploding and the individual power of citizens have been diminishing there is no way you can predict that speech laws won't occur, you can trust that the courts will rule it unconstitutional however limiting that power in General would guarantee that it would never happen.

The point of why it should not be in legislation is because it sets a precedent on the powers of the federal government over citizens process of thought whether the intentions are to diminish racism or not. This is the facts of hate crime legislation.

Right wing media? I don't see too many republican congressmen or news castors call for the repellent of hate crime legislation, actually a huge group of republicans voted for obamas expansion on the legislation.
 
Henrin said:
So threatening to kill someone else for racist reasons is different than just threatening to kill someone else in general? Why?
Click to expand...

yes thats what the law says
same as the law says self defense, m1, m2 and man slaughter are different
assault and aggravated assault
threats, illegal threats and terrorist threats
etc etc etc

as with other crimes and the earlier links say because of the level of threat and risk of lateral danger
 
Hard Truth said:
I don't fully know why it is, but many don't seem to get it. One reason is that the right wing media has created the impression that there are, or imminently will be, hate speech laws. Very few people in he USA want hate speech laws, there is no reason to think that they could get passed legislatively and they would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
Click to expand...

its just people who ignore facts, laws and rights and play victim manly.
our whole law system is based on tiers but somehow THIS one is magically different. Its foolish and has no legs.
 
AGENT J said:
yes thats what the law says
same as the law says self defense, m1, m2 and man slaughter are different
assault and aggravated assault
threats, illegal threats and terrorist threats
etc etc etc

as with other crimes and the earlier links say because of the level of threat and risk of lateral danger
Click to expand...

Someone being a racist that commits murder, manslaughter, threaten someone with murder, etc didn't somehow do something different than a person that did the same action with a different motivation. Why is the intent of the crime actually a crime?
 
Libertie76 said:
..If I'm not mistaken, Your suggesting that since someone has a huge quantity of guns that it automatically supports the suggestion that he's selling guns...
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. I mean that if there is solid proof that the possessor intended to sell the guns to terrorists or criminals, then they should be (and probably would be) charged and/or sentenced differently than if they only had the guns for their personal collection. Motivation, intent and "reason for doing it" matter.
 
Henrin said:
Someone being a racist that commits murder, manslaughter, threaten someone with murder, etc didn't somehow do something different than a person that did the same action with a different motivation. Why is the intent of the crime actually a crime?
Click to expand...

His suggestion is that because he law states it we should just accept it. Well the increased spending on the militarization and federalization of police is something we should accept as well by that precedent. Isn't any of this warned to us by our founding fathers as the begins stages of tyrannical governments? I've lived in Europe for a while now and a lot of people here view the United States as a tyrannical pplicement of the world but the only people hat don't see it as such are Americans isn't that crazy? And they wonder why we think though crimes shouldn't exist.
 
Henrin said:
So threatening to kill someone else for racist reasons is different than just threatening to kill someone else in general? Why?
Click to expand...

The intent of a hate crime is to send a message to (terrorize) a group of people such as a particular race or religion. Hate crimes harm more people than non-hate crimes and that is the intent.
 
Hard Truth said:
The intent of a hate crime is to send a message to (terrorize) a group of people such as a particular race or religion. Hate crimes harm more people than non-hate crimes and that is the intent.
Click to expand...

So the intent of the law is that you disapprove of a criminals intent to commit another crime? Don't people disprove with the intent to commit most crimes?
 
Henrin said:
1.)Someone being a racist that commits murder, manslaughter, threaten someone with murder, etc didn't somehow do something different than a person that did the same action with a different motivation.
2.) Why is the intent of the crime actually a crime?
Click to expand...

1.) you are free to have that opinion but motive, intent, reasoning and scale are common factors in law/crime
2.) basic common sense and how the law system works especially for types of murder charges or no charges at all

again same as same as the law says self defense, m1, m2 and man slaughter are different
assault and aggravated assault
threats, illegal threats and terrorist threats
endangerment, negligence, gross negligence etc etc
etc etc etc
 
Hard Truth said:
You are mistaken. I mean that if there is solid proof that the possessor intended to sell the guns to terrorists or criminals, then they should be (and probably would be) charged and/or sentenced differently than if they only had the guns for their personal collection. Motivation, intent and "reason for doing it" matter.
Click to expand...

Well selling guns shouldn't even be regulated in e first place. It's not constitutional for the federal government to regulate the possession or sales of fire arms. However, if a person was purposely givi arms to an enemy of the country it would be considered tyranny not a thought crime so it's different
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)His suggestion is that because he law states it we should just accept it. Well the increased spending on the militarization and federalization of police is something we should accept as well by that precedent. Isn't any of this warned to us by our founding fathers as the begins stages of tyrannical governments? I've lived in Europe for a while now and a lot of people here view the United States as a tyrannical pplicement of the world but the only people hat don't see it as such are Americans isn't that crazy? And they wonder why we think though crimes shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

false thats another failed strawman you made up. Do you have any real arguments or even statements not based on falsehoods? lol
what thought crimes?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) you are free to have that opinion but motive, intent, reasoning and scale are common factors in law/crime
Click to expand...

That's great, but this isn't about scale for the first charge, but literally another charge based on the intent of the act.

If what you said was true then you couldn't be found guilty of a hate crime while being found innocent of whatever act you were accused of.
 
Hard Truth said:
You are mistaken. I mean that if there is solid proof that the possessor intended to sell the guns to terrorists or criminals, then they should be (and probably would be) charged and/or sentenced differently than if they only had the guns for their personal collection. Motivation, intent and "reason for doing it" matter.
Click to expand...

yep they are factors based on common sense and how many laws work
 
Henrin said:
So the intent of the law is that you disapprove of a criminals intent to commit another crime? Don't people disprove with the intent to commit most crimes?
Click to expand...

When a hate crime such as the one in the OP occurs, word gets out to the family that received it and the entire community that a particular group is being targeted for harassment, violence or vandalism. That creates an environment of fear for the targeted group that, if extreme enough, may motivate some people to hide their status or move out of that town, and that is the intent. It is a form of terrorism.

If your particular church was bombed and no others, would you feel safe going back if the perpetrator was not caught? Would you feel safe being open about your membership in that church to the general public?
 
Henrin said:
That's great, but this isn't about scale for the first charge, but literally another charge based on the intent of the act.
Click to expand...

false as like other crimes scale is a factor here and why these laws were made and just like in other cases additional charges follow. Nothing new.

assault charges and adding attempted murder if more evidence is found :shrug:
 
Libertie76 said:
Well selling guns shouldn't even be regulated in e first place. It's not constitutional for the federal government to regulate the possession or sales of fire arms. However, if a person was purposely givi arms to an enemy of the country it would be considered tyranny not a thought crime so it's different
Click to expand...

Try carefully re-reading what I wrote because you don't understand my point.
 
AGENT J said:
false thats another failed strawman you made up. Do you have any real arguments or even statements not based on falsehoods? lol
what thought crimes?
Click to expand...

A hate crime is a thought crime there is no denying that and that is not debatable. Murder is the plotting and execution of killing with intent to kill, manslaughter is killing without plot, self defense is the defense of your self in a violent altercation. Hate crime is because you have a bias towards that group which is a thought crime.
 
Hard Truth said:
Try carefully re-reading what I wrote because you don't understand my point.
Click to expand...

You're right I don't understand how charging someone because they have a personal bias towards someone based on a prejudice equates to selling guns to people with the intent to cause a crime in the future
 
Henrin said:
....If what you said was true then you couldn't be found guilty of a hate crime while being found innocent of whatever act you were accused of.
Click to expand...

When has that happened? A quick google search didn't turn up any examples.
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)A hate crime is a thought crime there is no denying that and that is not debatable.
2.) Murder is the plotting and execution of killing with intent to kill, manslaughter is killing without plot, self defense is the defense of your self in a violent altercation.
3.) Hate crime is because you have a bias towards that group which is a thought crime.
Click to expand...

1.) sorry thats just your opinion and nothing else, if you disagree prove otherwise, simply post facts that support your claim
2.) actually wrong again plotting isnt always needed for murder there are different levels like M2. AGain you arent from the US are you because it doesnt seem you understand laws and rights at all.
3.) also wrong its not always a group and no that isnt what makes a thought crime.
by YOUR weak and unsupportable defintion murder can be done on "thoughts" so can rape, robbery etc etc

some how this is magically different though in your eyes
 
Libertie76 said:
You're right I don't understand how charging someone because they have a personal bias towards someone based on a prejudice equates to selling guns to people with the intent to cause a crime in the future
Click to expand...

The point is that motivation, intent and "reason for doing it" matter with many types of crime, so that is not a unique feature of hate crimes. Unless you think motivation, intent and "reason for doing it" should never be considered when charging any crime, it is not a valid argument against hate crimes.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) sorry thats just your opinion and nothing else, if you disagree prove otherwise, simply post facts that support your claim
2.) actually wrong again plotting isnt always needed for murder there are different levels like M2. AGain you arent from the US are you because it doesnt seem you understand laws and rights at all.
3.) also wrong its not always a group and no that isnt what makes a thought crime.
by YOUR weak and unsupportable defintion murder can be done on "thoughts" so can rape, robbery etc etc

some how this is magically different though in your eyes
Click to expand...

M2 is still a forethought of killing maybe not with a plan. Manslaughter is no a forethought this isn't up for discussion

Hate crime is crime you commit because you have a personal bias towards a specific group of the belonging individual still not debatable

You can be charged with murder and have an additional charge because you have a prior prejudice towards that individual based on things like race sexual orientation etc. etc. that additional charge is based on the thought it's not the " similarity between m1 and m2" because these sub categories suggest a difference in how inherently heinous the crime is. You get into a fight with someone and stab them in the neck with the intention to kill is less heinous then plotting a murder for a few weeks. These levels dictate how heinous a crime is based on the amount of afore though given. Not because you had a personal bias towards that person which if it were the case would be a crime against your thoughts. But guess what? They're the same crime your still killing the person. When you are charged with a hate crime it's an additional crime because of your bias towards that person, which is why it's a thought crime
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)M2 is still a forethought of killing maybe not with a plan. Manslaughter is no a forethought this isn't up for discussion
2.)Hate crime is crime you commit because you have a personal bias towards a specific group of the belonging individual still not debatable
3.)You can be charged with murder and have an additional charge because you have a prior prejudice towards that individual based on things like race sexual orientation etc. etc. that additional charge is based on the thought it's not the " similarity between m1 and m2" because these sub categories suggest a difference in how inherently heinous the crime is. You get into a fight with someone and stab them in the neck with the intention to kill is less heinous then plotting a murder for a few weeks. These levels dictate how heinous a crime is based on the amount of afore though given. Not because you had a personal bias towards that person which if it were the case would be a crime against your thoughts. But guess what? They're the same crime your still killing the person.
4.) When you are charged with a hate crime it's an additional crime because of your bias towards that person, which is why it's a thought crime
Click to expand...

1.) there doesnt have to be plotting in M@ your statement was wrong that hasn't changed
2.) sorry it doesnt have to be a group and its still not thought crime. Like i said if you disagree please provide ONE fact that supports you . . one
3.) false i can be charged with aggravated assault then evidence comes forward and then im charged with murder in addition . . . so yes its the same
4.) you havent provide anythign that makes it a thought crime or different from many other crimes lol repeating yourself with no logical, legal or factual backing wont get it done

in you next post please tell us what a though crime is and then factually prove it. I bet you dodge this request again
 
Hard Truth said:
The point is that motivation, intent and "reason for doing it" matter with many types of crime, so that is not a unique feature of hate crimes. Unless you think motivation, intent and "reason for doing it" should never be considered when charging any crime, it is not a valid argument against hate crimes.
Click to expand...

It's the matter of penalization. The intent of the crime shows the severity of the actions , but the intent isn't the crime itself besides cases of tyranny which is stipulated as a special cause in the constitution. M1 and m2 are different levels of severity for the same crime based on things like limited a forethought or not causing to increase the severity they are however the charging of the same crime. You can't be charged with murder two with murder one additional charges unless they are in separate cases, but you can be charged with murder two with additional hate crime charges because he charge of the hate crime is based on your thoughts in regards to why you are committing different charges different crimes. Hate crimes are based solely on your thoughts nothing else.

Such as your weapons analogy you sell illegal weapons your charged with the selling of illegal weapons but your not charged with selling illegal weapons and an additional charge of with the intent to murder. Unless you can prove that the person knew the weapons were to be used to murder then it would fall under conspiracy to commit murder or aiding before the fact. Which is completely different then aiding before the fact because you didn't like the victims race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom