|
|
Silver Dragon Breath dragon forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
 Posted: Wed 09 Apr 2008 14:03 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
I'm going to have to disagree with something here.
| Quote: |
| If a white person killed a black during a robbery (for example), then that wouldn't be a hate crime. |
Yes it would. That would definitely be prosecuted as a hate crime. When people cry persecution irrationally (as they often do these days), they don't truly look the details over; instead they see immediately that the two parties are different colors and immediately label it as "hate". |
Regardless of how the general public may perceive it, legally, it is not a hate crime, and any prosecutor making that case would be very hard pressed to prove it.
From the FBI website:
| Quote: |
| A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. |
The robbery example stands. The homicide would be, at most, incidental to the intent of the robber, which was to make off with whatever was stolen, and would not be because the occupant was targeted due to any of the factors quoted above.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| If, however, the same white person killed the same black person, but this time, because the victim was black and it could be shown to be the case that that was the motivation, then hate crime statutes could apply. |
Again, I only agree with this statement here so long as they use the presence of the motive as just that: a motive--i.e. a means of declaring something first-degree murder instead of second-degree. |
First degree and second degree murder have well-established and entirely separate definitions. Having the hate crime tag added can worsen the sentence for what the defendant would be charged with, but would not in and of itself increase the charge.
| Quote: |
| But beyond that this doesn't make any sense. Why would the identity of the motive have an impact on what the charges would be? That's insinuating that it's a crime merely to BE racist,... |
And here you take it one step too far. While many people would say that it's wrong to be racist, there's almost no one who would say that that is a crime. Acting on it in a destructive way (which is where the hate crime statute may come in), however, takes it one step further, from a personal belief to something which can and does have grave negative consequences for society in general.
| Quote: |
| ... and I say that's unjust because... how would you go about enforcing that? Punish people for merely thinking certain things? I'm not even defending racism here; it is a form of hatred and therefore my spiritual teachings demand I oppose it, but it's not the government's job to butt in here. This is a case to be settled between two parties of conscious people, not between people and the System. |
None of this is an issue, because "thought" is not something that hate crime laws can be applied to.
ETA:
And finally, from a 1993 SCOTUS case, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, there was this segment from the unanimous decision (it's rather long, but quite thorough):
| Quote: |
Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases....
...Finally, there remains to be considered Mitchell's argument that the Wisconsin statute is unconstitutionally overbroad because of its "chilling effect" on free speech. Mitchell argues (and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed) that the statute is "overbroad" because evidence of the defendant's prior speech or associations may be used to prove that the defendant intentionally selected his victim on account of the victim's protected status. Consequently, the argument goes, the statute impermissibly chills free expression with respect to such matters by those concerned about the possibility of enhanced sentences if they should, in the future, commit a criminal offense covered by the statute. We find no merit in this contention.
The sort of chill envisioned here is far more attenuated and unlikely than that contemplated in traditional "overbreadth" cases. We must conjure up a vision of a Wisconsin citizen suppressing his unpopular bigoted opinions for fear that, if he later commits an offense covered by the statute, [508 U.S. 476, 489] these opinions will be offered at trial to establish that he selected his victim on account of the victim's protected status, thus qualifying him for penalty-enhancement. To stay within the realm of rationality, we must surely put to one side minor misdemeanor offenses covered by the statute, such as negligent operation of a motor vehicle (Wis.Stat. 941.01 (1989-1990)), for it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a situation where such offenses would be racially motivated. We are left, then, with the prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of such beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a more serious offense against person or property. This is simply too speculative a hypothesis to support Mitchell's overbreadth claim.
The First Amendment, moreover, does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant's previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Nearly half a century ago, in Haupt v. United States,, we rejected a contention similar to that advanced by Mitchell here. Haupt was tried for the offense of treason, which, as defined by the Constitution, may depend very much on proof of motive. To prove that the acts in question were committed out of "adherence to the enemy" rather than "parental solicitude," the Government introduced evidence of conversations that had taken place long prior to the indictment, some of which consisted of statements showing Haupt's sympathy with Germany and Hitler and hostility towards the United States. We rejected Haupt's argument that this evidence was improperly admitted. While "[s]uch testimony is to be scrutinized with care to be certain the statements are not expressions of mere lawful and permissible difference of opinion with our own government or quite proper appreciation of the land of birth, "we held that "these statements . . . clearly were admissible on the question of intent and adherence to the enemy."
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Mitchell's First Amendment rights were not violated by the application of the Wisconsin penalty-enhancement provision in sentencing him. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. |
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hyraxylos
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 805
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Apr 2008 17:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Regardless of how the general public may perceive it, legally, it is not a hate crime, and any prosecutor making that case would be very hard pressed to prove it. |
Oh wow... I can tell you're not aware of how things work here in the South.  In some areas you can be put on trial for even GLANCING at a black person, and I solemnly swear to you I am not joking or exaggerating at all. I wish I could say I was.
| Quote: |
| Having the hate crime tag added can worsen the sentence for what the defendant would be charged with, but would not in and of itself increase the charge. |
You've yet to explain how exactly this is just. The crime, as I recall, is murder, not racism. It's a crime to kill someone for racist reasons because it's a crime to kill someone, period. I won't dispute what the law says; it merely needs to be changed because it's blatantly pointless, excessive, vengeful, and irrational. Maybe it's excuseable for people to feel that way, but the law has different standards.
| Quote: |
| None of this is an issue, because "thought" is not something that hate crime laws can be applied to. |
O RLY??? And yet at the same time you say the motive is punishable as a crime. Having a motive IS having a thought in your head, an intent to do something for a specific reason, and thus the defendant IS charged for a crime of mere thought. Furthermore many people are accused of racism and brought to trial for imaginary charges because of certain people who just LOVE to point fingers left and right at anyone who isn't black and call them racist, and it's that moronic legislation that's used as a standing-ground. Being found innocent doesn't matter; people shouldn't even be tried merely for being racist.
I don't care what Supreme Court decision you bring up on the basis of whatever strange occurrence happened to whom or whatever it is you wrote there; I barely even bothered to glance it. Because what supporters of hate-crime legislation fail to realize is that the legislation is, in and of itself, very blatantly racist, as are the aforementioned finger-pointers. If the Supreme Court says it's OK, then the Supreme Court is definitely in the wrong about the issue and hopefully this whole matter will be remedied in some future case.
It doesn't matter how horrible a motive is, because a motive by itself does not inflict harm. Only the CRIME is harmful, and only the crime merits punishment. A motive should not be a crime.
_________________
The statement below this one is false.
The statement above this one is true.
This statement is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Apr 2008 18:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Regardless of how the general public may perceive it, legally, it is not a hate crime, and any prosecutor making that case would be very hard pressed to prove it. |
Oh wow... I can tell you're not aware of how things work here in the South. |
Not in the least.
| Quote: |
| In some areas you can be put on trial for even GLANCING at a black person, and I solemnly swear to you I am not joking or exaggerating at all. I wish I could say I was. |
Then you should be able to find some sources (news stories, etc), that reference that. Could you share a few?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Having the hate crime tag added can worsen the sentence for what the defendant would be charged with, but would not in and of itself increase the charge. |
You've yet to explain how exactly this is just. The crime, as I recall, is murder, not racism. |
I haven't even gotten to that part yet. That sentence was addressing a different issue.
| Quote: |
| It's a crime to kill someone for racist reasons because it's a crime to kill someone, period. |
No argument there. I would contend, however, that the additional social harm generated by a hate crime (referenced in the SCOTUS decision), that "bias-motivated (AN: "bias-motivated" is another term for a hate crime) crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest" is enough to warrant an additional penalty.
| Quote: |
| I won't dispute what the law says; it merely needs to be changed because it's blatantly pointless, excessive, vengeful, and irrational. Maybe it's excuseable for people to feel that way, but the law has different standards. |
I don't feel that it is any of those things. The government has a vested interest in keeping things orderly, and these hate crimes are things which are usually more disruptive than other, "normal" crimes.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| None of this is an issue, because "thought" is not something that hate crime laws can be applied to. |
O RLY??? And yet at the same time you say the motive is punishable as a crime. Having a motive IS having a thought in your head, an intent to do something for a specific reason, and thus the defendant IS charged for a crime of mere thought. |
Assuming that the act stops at thought, they can think whatever they want as much as they want. Once they act, it's completely different. Acting on hate is something quite distinct from only thinking it.
| Quote: |
| Furthermore many people are accused of racism and brought to trial for imaginary charges because of certain people who just LOVE to point fingers left and right at anyone who isn't black and call them racist, and it's that moronic legislation that's used as a standing-ground. |
I'm not at all clear on what you're trying to get at here. Relying solely on what's been covered nationally, since I'm not familiar with more local cases, I can think of several that were tried, as it were, in the court of public opinion, but none that were, tried in an actual courtroom. If you know of some, again, please share.
| Quote: |
| Being found innocent doesn't matter; people shouldn't even be tried merely for being racist. |
I completely agree. And they're not. Neo-Nazi groups, the KKK, etc all continue to operate legally. If people were being tried for nothing more than being racist, then wouldn't these groups be the first to go?
| Quote: |
| I don't care what Supreme Court decision you bring up on the basis of whatever strange occurrence happened to whom or whatever it is you wrote there; I barely even bothered to glance it. |
More the pity, since it pretty much shredded the "persecuting thought crimes" argument.
| Quote: |
| Because what supporters of hate-crime legislation fail to realize is that the legislation is, in and of itself, very blatantly racist, as are the aforementioned finger-pointers. |
How is it racist? Hate-crime statutes have been applied to people of all races. If there were selective usage, or if they only protected certain races, then yes, I'd agree, but there's nothing of the sort occurring.
| Quote: |
| If the Supreme Court says it's OK, then the Supreme Court is definitely in the wrong about the issue and hopefully this whole matter will be remedied in some future case. |
Unanimous decisions are very rare from SCOTUS, so it's unlikely that it'll be overturned any time soon. Besides, SCOTUS doesn't make laws, it just determines whether any of the current ones violate Constitutional protections. All they found was that hate-crime laws do not.
| Quote: |
| It doesn't matter how horrible a motive is, because a motive by itself does not inflict harm. |
True. Again, if there were nothing more than that, then there'd be nothing to prosecute.
| Quote: |
| Only the CRIME is harmful, and only the crime merits punishment. |
And if the effects of the crime on society are made worse by the motive of the person who committed it, then an increased punishment is merited.
| Quote: |
| A motive should not be a crime. |
And it isn't. Its effects, however, can be.
Also, I'm curious, hate crime statutes cover many different areas, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc, in addition to just race, so why have you latched on to only its race aspect?
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyraxylos
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 805
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Apr 2008 9:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| why have you latched on to only its race aspect? |
Because this is all about race, and only about race. All that nonsense about religion and gender? No one cares. In the South Christians cry "persecution" and "hate-crime" left and right because the Bible isn't allowed in science classes, but the law isn't bending over for them because apparently religion doesn't matter. You have to read between the lines--everything mentioned in there other than race is nothing more than a smokescreen.
| Quote: |
| Could you share a few? |
You just had to call me on this. Unfortunately I don't have a case to cite here. Maybe there's one lurking around somewhere in the Atlanta news but I don't have one. So I'm going to have to take a hit here.
| Quote: |
| more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest" is enough to warrant an additional penalty |
Isn't that a bit too pre-emptive, punishing someone for a crime they haven't committed yet? Restraining someone is different; maybe forbidding someone to enter a certain area, or putting the area under close guard at certain times. But a penalty? That goes against Due Process, which I'll explain elsewhere...
| Quote: |
| The government has a vested interest in keeping things orderly, and these hate crimes are things which are usually more disruptive than other, "normal" crimes. |
I seriously doubt that. The government only SAYS that as a means of jumping through hoops; really it cares more about bending over for political correctness than for keeping the law just. As for "disruptive"ness, let me play this out:
Party A commits a crime intentionally against Party B. Party A is punished. Fine. Wonderful. But the judge also decides to act on what you've just stated and punish Party A for something additional, because s/he thinks Party B MIGHT retaliate. Do you see something wrong with that too or is it just me? You're talking about punishing someone for a crime that someone ELSE only MIGHT commit in the future!
| Quote: |
| Assuming that the act stops at thought, they can think whatever they want as much as they want. |
Again, no you do not have the right to think whatever you want. You only have the right to your own thoughts TECHNICALLY, but people have lost their jobs simply for stating their racist opinions as if speaking out as a means of insulting someone was a crime. Imagine if this debate here were televised. I can assure you half the black population of the United States would be at my throat in an instant, and I wouldn't have even done anything wrong beyond speaking out against a law that I don't agree with, and I'm not even racist. >_<
| Quote: |
| I completely agree. And they're not. Neo-Nazi groups, the KKK, etc all continue to operate legally. If people were being tried for nothing more than being racist, then wouldn't these groups be the first to go? |
When was the last time the KKK or any other hate group actively demonstrated against black people? If it was recent then I'd like to see so I can point out what the reaction would be. It would further prove my point.
| Quote: |
| How is it racist? Hate-crime statutes have been applied to people of all races. If there were selective usage, or if they only protected certain races, then yes, I'd agree, but there's nothing of the sort occurring. |
I'm well aware that I'm starting to sound racist and it's going to be a bit offensive what I'm about to say, but the problem is mostly black interest groups leaping at the chance to get outraged over nothing at all. Did you hear about Obama's crazy pastor? Those are the kinds of people leading these groups and making weird accusations of racism, and they use the hate-crime laws as a tool of attempting to intimidate people of other races. Many members of the Atlanta city council are suspected of money laundering and embezzlement and the police have the grounds to warrant an investigation but they won't go through with it because these corrupt council members are of a certain race.
Now meanwhile, I don't see Japanese people in America acting the same way despite being literally sent to concentration camps right here in the United States during World War Two...
| Quote: |
| Unanimous decisions are very rare from SCOTUS, so it's unlikely that it'll be overturned any time soon. |
Then that means all nine judges were wrong. Personally I don't believe for a second that they all think positively about this bogus legislation; more likely they were just bending over so that no one would accuse them of being racist for speaking up.
| Quote: |
| And if the effects of the crime on society are made worse by the motive of the person who committed it, then an increased punishment is merited. |
No, an increased punishment is merited if the mere PRESENCE of any motive at all shows that the result was intentional. Again back to my murder example, one first-degree murder should not be more punishable than another. Motive is motive, regardless of the nature of such a motive. But this legislation punishes the IDENTITY (rather than the presence) of the motive all by itself as if it were a completely separate crime!
Then it can't be punishable. You're self-contradicting yourself here. So which is it? Is motive punishable all by itself? Or is it not a crime? You can't have it both ways.
The whole issue of preventing crime before it happens is all very well, but it's just too excessive here. You can't punish someone for a crime that they haven't committed, and there are no exceptions to this rule. If you argue otherwise, then you're going up directly against the Bill of Rights. Use your imagination. All you'd have to do is PRETEND that you fear someone will commit a hate-crime against you and that would automatically warrant an investigation against whomever you point a finger at. It's the Salem Witch Trials all over again.
Again, if law enforcement feels certain that someone is about to commit a crime, then they can DETER that person. This doesn't mean they can PUNISH anyone! But I'm getting the impression that you're arguing punishment SHOULD be implemented as a means of intimidating criminals. But don't worry, I understand and agree to that... to an extent. So on those grounds, I'd like to throw you a little curve... 
I'm suggesting you change your stance on the death penalty. Seriously. If someone commits first-degree murder (or even mass first-degree murder!), that could warrant life in prison, correct? But this hypothetical crime was committed for racial reasons. In that case, the hate-crime legislation would call for his death. That's the only thing upward from life in prison, and just think of what a message it would send to other potential racist mass-murderers out there! And by the message of your argument, NOT executing such a fiend would incur the wrath of the victim's loved ones! So what do you say Ragnarok? Change your mind about the death penalty? Let the government kill someone in cold blood to prevent someone else from doing the same to an innocent? Or will you concede here and realize that the legislation is excessive? 
_________________
The statement below this one is false.
The statement above this one is true.
This statement is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Apr 2008 20:44 Post subject: |
|
|
And now that I have the first free minute of my entire day...
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| why have you latched on to only its race aspect? |
Because this is all about race, and only about race. All that nonsense about religion and gender? No one cares. In the South Christians cry "persecution" and "hate-crime" left and right because the Bible isn't allowed in science classes, but the law isn't bending over for them because apparently religion doesn't matter. |
Explain how not treating the Bible -or in this case, creationism - as science is a hate crime, based on the definition of a hate crime cited two posts ago.
| Quote: |
| You have to read between the lines--everything mentioned in there other than race is nothing more than a smokescreen. |
Explain how a number of cases equivalent to 46.3% of all hate crimes committed is just a "smokescreen".
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest" is enough to warrant an additional penalty |
Isn't that a bit too pre-emptive, punishing someone for a crime they haven't committed yet? |
It's not preemptive. Based on the increased damage to society that a hate crime causes, it is, like the rest of the punishment, addressing an already committed act.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The government has a vested interest in keeping things orderly, and these hate crimes are things which are usually more disruptive than other, "normal" crimes. |
I seriously doubt that. The government only SAYS that as a means of jumping through hoops; really it cares more about bending over for political correctness than for keeping the law just. |
Or, they're trying to keep disruption to a minimum. 
| Quote: |
As for "disruptive"ness, let me play this out:
Party A commits a crime intentionally against Party B. Party A is punished. Fine. Wonderful. But the judge also decides to act on what you've just stated and punish Party A for something additional, because s/he thinks Party B MIGHT retaliate. Do you see something wrong with that too or is it just me? You're talking about punishing someone for a crime that someone ELSE only MIGHT commit in the future! |
You're only half right here. One of the issues with a hate crime is that they tend to have an almost terroristic effect on the entire class of victims. THAT is (among other factors, of course) is what the added punishment is addressing. As a very current (though, admittedly, non-US) example of what you're trying to address, look at the violence in Iraq, or prior to that, Israel and Palestine or Northern Ireland, or the "grand old days" of the KKK in the segregated South. In each of those cases, there was or is essentially class warfare, where individuals of different groups attacking and killing the others, then engaging in revenge killings whenever one of their own was killed. That's the sort of action that is trying to be suppressed by the increased penalties.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Assuming that the act stops at thought, they can think whatever they want as much as they want. |
Again, no you do not have the right to think whatever you want. You only have the right to your own thoughts TECHNICALLY, but people have lost their jobs simply for stating their racist opinions as if speaking out as a means of insulting someone was a crime. |
Depends on the circumstances. At a private firm, employers are allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason they want. Doing things that end up being disruptive to the workplace such as making openly racist comments, is certainly something which could be grounds for a firing. Public jobs, however, can't do that. There have even been cases where people fired for that have had their jobs (public sector, of course) restored via court order.
| Quote: |
| Imagine if this debate here were televised. I can assure you half the black population of the United States would be at my throat in an instant, and I wouldn't have even done anything wrong beyond speaking out against a law that I don't agree with, and I'm not even racist. >_< |
Also irrelevant to the issue. People do, of course, have the right to strongly and vocally object to what they disagree with, don't they?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I completely agree. And they're not. Neo-Nazi groups, the KKK, etc all continue to operate legally. If people were being tried for nothing more than being racist, then wouldn't these groups be the first to go? |
When was the last time the KKK or any other hate group actively demonstrated against black people? If it was recent then I'd like to see so I can point out what the reaction would be. It would further prove my point. |
You're changing the subject. My response was to you saying that people were being tried for being racist, something which you have still not done.
| Quote: |
| I'm well aware that I'm starting to sound racist and it's going to be a bit offensive what I'm about to say, but the problem is mostly black interest groups leaping at the chance to get outraged over nothing at all. Did you hear about Obama's crazy pastor? Those are the kinds of people leading these groups and making weird accusations of racism, and they use the hate-crime laws as a tool of attempting to intimidate people of other races. |
Boy, this topic is zooming all over the place. "Obama's crazy [ex-]pastor" wasn't using hate crime laws for anything. Try again.
| Quote: |
| Many members of the Atlanta city council are suspected of money laundering and embezzlement and the police have the grounds to warrant an investigation but they won't go through with it because these corrupt council members are of a certain race. |
Supporting documents?
| Quote: |
| Now meanwhile, I don't see Japanese people in America acting the same way despite being literally sent to concentration camps right here in the United States during World War Two... |
Because, for the most part, Asians aren't the targets of hate crimes and the like like whites or blacks are. If you look at the table that I linked to above, the numbers for anti-Asian hate crimes are third from the bottom, above only anti-Native American and anti-mixed race. As for WWII, that was a considerably shorter (and in some degree, justified) action, at least as compared to generations of slavery and segregation. We're talking orders of magnitude of difference here.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Unanimous decisions are very rare from SCOTUS, so it's unlikely that it'll be overturned any time soon. |
Then that means all nine judges were wrong. Personally I don't believe for a second that they all think positively about this bogus legislation; more likely they were just bending over so that no one would accuse them of being racist for speaking up. |
I think you're misunderstanding SCOTUS' role here. All they said is that it's not in violation of the Constitution, not that they support it. And if it were that easy to cow all nine justices, SCOTUS would be a pathetic wreck.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And if the effects of the crime on society are made worse by the motive of the person who committed it, then an increased punishment is merited. |
No, an increased punishment is merited if the mere PRESENCE of any motive at all shows that the result was intentional. Again back to my murder example, one first-degree murder should not be more punishable than another. |
Even when the harmful effects are different?
| Quote: |
| Motive is motive, regardless of the nature of such a motive. But this legislation punishes the IDENTITY (rather than the presence) of the motive all by itself as if it were a completely separate crime! |
The legislation punishes the added effects that the particular acted-upon motive have on society, yes. Of course, that's what I've been saying all along.
| Quote: |
Then it can't be punishable. You're self-contradicting yourself here. So which is it? Is motive punishable all by itself? Or is it not a crime? You can't have it both ways. |
Read the sentence after the one you quoted. The effects of the action are what are being punished. It is possible for a hate crime to have effects far beyond those of an identical, though non-bias-based crime. That is what the additional penalties are addressing.
| Quote: |
| The whole issue of preventing crime before it happens is all very well, but it's just too excessive here. You can't punish someone for a crime that they haven't committed, and there are no exceptions to this rule. |
Not quite. As an example, people planning to blow up an airplane, or a building can, if caught beforehand, be punished for something that hasn't happened yet.
| Quote: |
| If you argue otherwise, then you're going up directly against the Bill of Rights. Use your imagination. All you'd have to do is PRETEND that you fear someone will commit a hate-crime against you and that would automatically warrant an investigation against whomever you point a finger at. It's the Salem Witch Trials all over again. |
Not. Even. Close.
| Quote: |
| Again, if law enforcement feels certain that someone is about to commit a crime, then they can DETER that person. This doesn't mean they can PUNISH anyone! |
Depends on the crime.
| Quote: |
| But I'm getting the impression that you're arguing punishment SHOULD be implemented as a means of intimidating criminals. |
Not in the least.
| Quote: |
But don't worry, I understand and agree to that... to an extent. So on those grounds, I'd like to throw you a little curve...
I'm suggesting you change your stance on the death penalty. Seriously. If someone commits first-degree murder (or even mass first-degree murder!), that could warrant life in prison, correct? But this hypothetical crime was committed for racial reasons. In that case, the hate-crime legislation would call for his death. That's the only thing upward from life in prison, and just think of what a message it would send to other potential racist mass-murderers out there! And by the message of your argument, NOT executing such a fiend would incur the wrath of the victim's loved ones! So what do you say Ragnarok? Change your mind about the death penalty? Let the government kill someone in cold blood to prevent someone else from doing the same to an innocent? Or will you concede here and realize that the legislation is excessive? |
Non sequitur to the nth degree. Nice try, though.
And as a more light-hearted ending, notice how the thread's gone from two-line posts to ones that are practically books in themselves? 
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyraxylos
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 805
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Apr 2008 10:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| Explain how not treating the Bible -or in this case, creationism - as science is a hate crime, based on the definition of a hate crime cited two posts ago. |
That's the point I was making. It wasn't. And if one person commits another crime against someone of another race for NONracial reasons, then that's not a hate crime either, but the NAACP keeps crying "racism" at such cases anyway and they use the hate crime legislature to do that.
| Quote: |
| Explain how a number of cases equivalent to 46.3% of all hate crimes committed is just a "smokescreen". |
These statistics are also a smokescreen. They simply widened the OFFICIAL definition of "hate crime" to include these cases. They're there to distract people, and they're there so that people successfully deceived into thinking this legislation is somehow productive will try to use them in a debate.
| Quote: |
| addressing an already committed act. |
No, as you said earlier it attempts to prevent the possibility of future crimes. You're contradicting yourself again.
| Quote: |
| Or, they're trying to keep disruption to a minimum. |
Yes, by declaring critics racist as a means of silencing them. That's correct.
| Quote: |
| That's the sort of action that is trying to be suppressed by the increased penalties. |
For the punishment for PAST crimes or FUTURE crimes? Make up your mind already!
| Quote: |
| That's the sort of action that is trying to be suppressed by the increased penalties. |
They must be going about it the wrong way then. All those "hate crimes" (lol redundant) are evidence that this legislation doesn't even work, just as the Japanese Internment Act didn't work and was not justified at all, contrary to what you say. We didn't catch one single spy out of all those Americans, and it was a stupid witch hunt that was guaranteed to be folly from the start, just as hate crime legislation is.
| Quote: |
| People do, of course, have the right to strongly and vocally object to what they disagree with, don't they? |
I'm speaking of demands for my losing the hypothetical job I'd have and the demand for a publicly televised apology. Sure they have the right to demand that, but they can't justify expecting me to comply.
| Quote: |
| My response was to you saying that people were being tried for being racist, something which you have still not done. |
Yeah right. You'd probably only accept an official memo saying outright that someone was on trial for being racist, and corruption doesn't parade around like that. Certainly not on official court documents. It seems you're unable to take a step back and read between the lines of the Legalese. Now that I realize this I won't bother to press that point further.
| Quote: |
| Supporting documents? |
The supporting documents aren't available because they haven't been found. Because the police are scared to investigate. Because they're scared of being called racist and being tried for hate crimes.
| Quote: |
| All they said is that it's not in violation of the Constitution, not that they support it. |
With the Supreme Court that's the same thing. They wouldn't support something if it WERE constitutional. Or if the Supreme Court weren't corrupt along with the rest of the government.
| Quote: |
| And if it were that easy to cow all nine justices, SCOTUS would be a pathetic wreck. |
The Supreme Court would be a wreck if they HADN'T been cowed, because they would have been accused of racism. Some were probably in favor.
| Quote: |
| Even when the harmful effects are different? |
Then you can be tried for deliberate murder for killing someone completely by accident. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
| Quote: |
| Read the sentence after the one you quoted. The effects of the action are what are being punished. It is possible for a hate crime to have effects far beyond those of an identical, though non-bias-based crime. That is what the additional penalties are addressing. |
That's what I was referring to here! I KNOW you said the effects are not crimes themselves, so you can't TREAT them as such by punishing! If you do, then that's unconstitutional!
| Quote: |
| Not quite. As an example, people planning to blow up an airplane, or a building can, if caught beforehand, be punished for something that hasn't happened yet. |
Faulty example. A better one would be punishing them for provoking America into retaliating, not for actually ATTACKING anyone. That's what hate crime legislation is doing and that's why it's unnecessary.
Apparently, you really would have to see it in action here in the South to realize it. :/
Here. Knock yourself out.
Then why did you use that as an argument? You ARE arguing that someone will feel tempted to commit another crime in retaliation and that the punishment is meant to discourage that. So my so-called "non sequitor" still applies.
| Quote: |
| Non sequitur to the nth degree. Nice try, though. |
Oh no no no nonononono. You can't slide around THIS one. You have to respond with one of the two choices or your argument will speed up in how rapidly it's already been deflating. See, the way you're dodging around reminds me so much of a certain manuever someone else once previously used against me:
| (name respectfully not mentioned here) wrote: |
| Playing this pity card won't do you a bit of good. |
Yes, the infamous XYZ-card accusation. It's something Republicans use. You stick a fancy label onto a really tough question that you can't answer either way, in a desperate attempt to slip out of having to answer.
Yes it is a nice try. My very best in fact. That's why you're not going to escape from it. Read the paragraph again, and this time read the whole thing. I went back and read the Supreme Court case (the one I said earlier I barely bothered to glance at), and it hasn't affected my position one bit. If you're truly in the right then it can't do you any harm to read all of what I wrote in that paragraph rather than immediately toss it aside as off-topic simply because it happened to contain the words "death penalty". And I will continue to ask again and again and again and again until it is answered: going by the system of hate crime legislation, should a mass-murderer who killed several innocent people for specifically racial reasons (and is thus guilty of "hate criming") be sentenced to death rather than merely imprisoned for life? And don't try to dodge around; that "nice try" was far too obvious.
_________________
The statement below this one is false.
The statement above this one is true.
This statement is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Apr 2008 12:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| Explain how not treating the Bible -or in this case, creationism - as science is a hate crime, based on the definition of a hate crime cited two posts ago. |
That's the point I was making. It wasn't. And if one person commits another crime against someone of another race for NONracial reasons, then that's not a hate crime either, but the NAACP keeps crying "racism" at such cases anyway and they use the hate crime legislature to do that. |
I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at. You say people say that something is a hate crime when it is not, therefore religion is not covered by hate crime legislation? If you're trying to say something else, you're going to have to make it clearer for me.
| Quote: |
| These statistics are also a smokescreen. They simply widened the OFFICIAL definition of "hate crime" to include these cases. They're there to distract people, and they're there so that people successfully deceived into thinking this legislation is somehow productive will try to use them in a debate. |
Just to clarify, you're declaring that everything other than race is nothing more than a facade to legitimize legislation against race-based hate crimes? If so, please back up that assertion.
| Quote: |
| No, as you said earlier it attempts to prevent the possibility of future crimes. You're contradicting yourself again. |
I think what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying are two very different things. Hate crimes, in addition to the "base damage" of whatever the crime was, also cause additional damage in the form of
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Or, they're trying to keep disruption to a minimum. |
Yes, by declaring critics racist as a means of silencing them. That's correct. |
The government silences critics by declaring them racist?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| That's the sort of action that is trying to be suppressed by the increased penalties. |
They must be going about it the wrong way then. All those "hate crimes" (lol redundant) are evidence that this legislation doesn't even work, just as the Japanese Internment Act didn't work and was not justified at all, contrary to what you say. We didn't catch one single spy out of all those Americans, and it was a stupid witch hunt that was guaranteed to be folly from the start, just as hate crime legislation is. |
There was more justification for fearing that Japanese Americans (especially those among the issei) would have sympathies for Japan in WWII than for generations of slavery and segregation and discrimination in the US.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| People do, of course, have the right to strongly and vocally object to what they disagree with, don't they? |
I'm speaking of demands for my losing the hypothetical job I'd have and the demand for a publicly televised apology. Sure they have the right to demand that, but they can't justify expecting me to comply. |
If that's what you're trying to get at, you're quoting the wrong sentence. Once again, the segment that you quoted and your reply are addressing two different topics. Most well-organized groups have tremendous political power, and the will to use it. They'd also not be making demands using hate crime legislation, so you're wrong on that point. The demand for an apology, however, may even come from your employer as a form of political damage control, and, if you do not, and things get too hot for them, you may find yourself fired as a different means of damage control. None of this, of course, is restricted to racial groups or utilizes hate crime laws. It's sheer public pressure.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| My response was to you saying that people were being tried for being racist, something which you have still not done. |
Yeah right. You'd probably only accept an official memo saying outright that someone was on trial for being racist, and corruption doesn't parade around like that. Certainly not on official court documents. It seems you're unable to take a step back and read between the lines of the Legalese. Now that I realize this I won't bother to press that point further. |
You're blaming me for your making unsupportable assertions? I ask for an example, and it's my fault you can't find one?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Supporting documents? |
The supporting documents aren't available because they haven't been found. Because the police are scared to investigate. Because they're scared of being called racist and being tried for hate crimes. |
Pretty long winded way of saying "I can't support that assertion." Let's try something easier: find something that indicates that that is the motivation of the police.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| All they said is that it's not in violation of the Constitution, not that they support it. |
With the Supreme Court that's the same thing. They wouldn't support something if it WERE constitutional. Or if the Supreme Court weren't corrupt along with the rest of the government. |
If it is constitutional in the judgment of the justices, then they pass it. If it violates constitutional safeguards, then they kill it. Ideological battles (abortion, for example) are usually settled with 5-4 decisions. Having a 9-0 decision means that whatever the subject was, it is undoubtedly constitutional. The justices don't get to decide on whether they like it or not. It's simply not in their jurisdiction.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And if it were that easy to cow all nine justices, SCOTUS would be a pathetic wreck. |
The Supreme Court would be a wreck if they HADN'T been cowed, because they would have been accused of racism. Some were probably in favor. |
In which case there would be a longstanding pattern of unanimous decisions on issues where race is involved. There is not.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Even when the harmful effects are different? |
Then you can be tried for deliberate murder for killing someone completely by accident. Doesn't sound like justice to me. |
A deliberate complete accident? What would one be? Better yet, if one first-degree murder should be treated the same as any other, why do sentencing guidelines give a range of possible sentences?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Read the sentence after the one you quoted. The effects of the action are what are being punished. It is possible for a hate crime to have effects far beyond those of an identical, though non-bias-based crime. That is what the additional penalties are addressing. |
That's what I was referring to here! I KNOW you said the effects are not crimes themselves, so you can't TREAT them as such by punishing! If you do, then that's unconstitutional! |
And again, you're changing the subject of the quoted sentence. You start off arguing motive, the responses all address that, and then switch to effect.
However, the effect of crimes are factored into "normal" crime sentencing. Hate crimes, however, tend to have effects greater than those of their "normal" counterparts, thereby warranting additional penalties.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Not quite. As an example, people planning to blow up an airplane, or a building can, if caught beforehand, be punished for something that hasn't happened yet. |
Faulty example. A better one would be punishing them for provoking America into retaliating, not for actually ATTACKING anyone. That's what hate crime legislation is doing and that's why it's unnecessary. |
And changing the subject yet again! The issue was punishing people for crimes not yet committed. By that same reasoning, you couldn't punish a terrorist for only planning to destroy a building, instead you'd have to wait for him to do so before you can.
Apparently, you really would have to see it in action here in the South to realize it. :/
Here. Knock[/quote]
| Quote: |
Therefore, in R.A.V., the state of Minnesota argued that because all so-called "fighting words" are outside first amendment protection, race-based fighting words could be criminalized.
The Supreme Court disagreed and struck down the statute. The Court held that because Minnesota had not in fact criminalized all fighting words, the statute isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint and therefore violated the First Amendment. |
Strange, isn't that what I've been saying? That hate crime legislation doesn't apply where first amendment protections apply? Additionally, note that this only addresses "fighting words" or (from the article) "words which will provoke the person to whom they are directed to violence", which have been deemed outside of first amendment protections. (Side question: Minnesota is "South"?)
| Quote: |
| Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Wisconsin statute which provides for an enhanced sentence where the defendant "intentionally selects the person against whom the crime [is committed] because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person." |
This is the one I cited a while ago.
| Quote: |
| These parties have suggested either that the statutes unconstitutionally benefit minorities, because minorities are more likely to be victims of bias crimes, or that the statutes unconstitutionally burden majority members because majority members are more likely to be prosecuted. |
Minorities are more likely to be the targets of hate crime, done by members of the majority, therefore it's biased? Sorry, don't buy it.
It seems that there's nothing that we haven't already gone over here. If there's something specific that you wanted me to address, please point it out.
Sorry, stopped reading once he began making theological arguments. Neither the Bible nor the particular theology of various Christian sects make up America's lawbook.
Oh, and none of this in any way supported your original assertion that:
| Quote: |
| All you'd have to do is PRETEND that you fear someone will commit a hate-crime against you and that would automatically warrant an investigation against whomever you point a finger at. |
| Quote: |
Then why did you use that as an argument? You ARE arguing that someone will feel tempted to commit another crime in retaliation and that the punishment is meant to discourage that. |
Um...no. The issue with what you wrote was that it was, simply, overbroad. All forms of legal punishment are, to some degree, a deterrent to crime. That much is unquestionable. I agree that the punishment should be proportional to the crime, NOT that the punishment should be designed with deterrence in mind. As an example, taking that latter view to an extreme, if any crime, no matter how small, were punishable by an immediate death sentence, crime rates would drop to zero almost overnight. I would never, however, advocate for such a position.
| Quote: |
| Non sequitur to the nth degree. Nice try, though. |
Oh no no no nonononono. You can't slide around THIS one. You have to respond with one of the two choices or your argument will speed up in how rapidly it's already been deflating. See, the way you're dodging[/quote]
It's not a dodge. You misrepresented or misunderstood my position, then based a good argument off of that error. If my position really were what you seemed to think it was, then yes, I might have gone back to reconsider my opinions on the death penalty. As it is, however, your argument was based on something other than my position, thereby making the rest of it irrelevant.
Read the paragraph again, and this time read the whole thing. I went back and read the Supreme Court case (the one I said earlier I barely bothered to glance at), and it hasn't affected my position one bit. If you're truly in the right then it can't do you any harm to read all of what I wrote in that paragraph rather than immediately toss it aside as off-topic simply because it happened to contain the words "death penalty".[/quote]
I've already read it. Several times, in fact. The fact that it's based on an error still hasn't changed.
| Quote: |
| And I will continue to ask again and again and again and again until it is answered: going by the system of hate crime legislation, should a mass-murderer who killed several innocent people for specifically racial reasons (and is thus guilty of "hate criming") be sentenced to death rather than merely imprisoned for life? |
No. Indeed, life in prison is the maximum that the penalty allows, but even then, is usually reserved for the worst criminal offenses. Life in prison without any hope of parole, maybe, but still not the death penalty.
Happy now?
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyraxylos
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 805
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Apr 2008 13:57 Post subject: |
|
|
Actually no. I'm just going to drop out here. This is starting to get repetitive and unproductively so. And you're right about one thing as I recall admitting four posts ago: I'm not citing actual evidence of anything. I can strut around chirrupping "COMMON KNOWLEDGE, COMMON KNOWLEDGE" until I drop but that's too weak; all I have to stand on is pure reason. Now we're taking turns misinterpreting each other and it's just getting lame. I'll just correct one last little misunderstanding here with a case of dumb wording on my part:
| Ragnarok wrote: |
| A deliberate complete accident? |
What I meant was you could kill someone by pure accident and, if said person just happened to be of a different race, someone could try to charge you AS IF you'd done it deliberately. That's all.
I'm tempted somewhat to keep at it but if I continue to (attempt to) clear up anything I'll probably accidentally blur out something else in the process. Also I'm getting bored. I started this up because my homework was finally getting down to manageable levels and I love to debate. I chose to debate here randomly out of either that or FINALLY getting around to drawing some more.
It's unfortunate we couldn't see eye-to-eye on this because earlier I was genuinely enjoying myself, but I don't like to spend too much energy at once arguing with the same person about the same topic. That said even though I'm dropping out doesn't mean I'm convinced that hate crime legislation is quite so wonderful as "the System" would like me to believe. Maybe, just maybe, these feelings might be somewhat hardened by an incident of a black student in high school filing an official complaint of racism against me because I told him (when he ASKED me) that my favorite color is blue. It could any combination of things. *shrug*
Sorry for acting full of myself in all this. It's just that... um, I'm full of myself! And I love debating because it's easy to fully let my feelings gain full direction over me and it feels so wonderful to give in to that. I don't REGRET debating this at all; I was just hoping... ah, heck I'll just say it outright. I was hoping either you'd bend over, or that you'd bring up some detail that would put the legislation into a totally different light from what I've seen--in other words I would have preferred one of us actually switch to the other's side before too long. So again sorry if I seemed to have been going a little berserk. If anyone else wants to pick up from here be my guest.
_________________
The statement below this one is false.
The statement above this one is true.
This statement is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
