Hate crime?

[Sky Dancer]

Barb--

You just happened to run into a few 'sad, little people'. It's not the forum. It's the times we live in. Just stick to your guns and enjoy this interesting topic.
Thanks for telling the story. What state had the sign 'whites only' posted?

Translation: Facts aren't necessary as long as you feed my paradigm.[/QUO

Encouragement to a new poster. Advice to ignore putdowns and stay on the topic. Wiser for me to take Barb's example and leave this thread. You're not going to change but I am.

 

[catzmeow]

Encouragement to a new poster. Advice to ignore putdowns and stay on the topic. Wiser for me to take Barb's example and leave this thread. You're not going to change but I am.

Flee, fool. Your ass has been owned.

 

[catzmeow]

RealClearPolitics - Empty Symbolism on Hate Crimes

Empty Symbolism on Hate Crimes
By Steve Chapman

Federal law enforcement officials are not plagued by idleness these days, thanks to the demands on their time from terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, Ponzi schemers and crooked politicians. But Congress never stops trying to ensure full employment for FBI agents and U.S. attorneys. The latest stimulus is the Matthew Shepard Act, billed as an overdue effort to prevent violence against gays and lesbians.

The logic behind the proposed measure is hard to follow. Says sponsoring Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), "No members of society -- none -- deserve to be victims of a violent crime because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, their gender, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation." Which raises the question: Who exactly does deserve to be the victim of a violent crime?

The bill targets actions we would all like to eliminate -- physically injuring or trying to injure someone with "fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device." But it's hard to imagine that it would reduce the prevalence of such conduct, which is already 1) really, really illegal and 2) subject to harsh penalties.

This legislation would add extra punishment for attacks designated as hate crimes. But if a criminal is not deterred by the fear of five years behind bars, he's probably not going to be pushed onto the straight and narrow by the prospect of six.

In the case of attacks like the one on Matthew Shepard, a gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998, the statute would be superfluous. His killers were eligible for the death penalty, though both made deals that assured they would be locked up for the rest of their lives.
For the most horrific hate crimes, the change would accomplish absolutely nothing.

That's not the only way in which it would constitute an exercise in irrelevance. Already, 45 states have hate crime laws, and two-thirds of them include crimes against gays and lesbians. In the remaining states, you will be relieved to know, such attacks are punished as violent felonies.

What a pointless, stupid, waste of time.

 

[Nik]

The question should be, is hate a crime?

I agree. We should punish the crime, not the thought that inspired it.

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

 

[KittenKoder]

The question should be, is hate a crime?

I agree. We should punish the crime, not the thought that inspired it.

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

There is no difference.

 

[del]

The question should be, is hate a crime?

I agree. We should punish the crime, not the thought that inspired it.

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

i'm sure if you tried harder, you could come up with a more spectacularly stupid analogy.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The question should be, is hate a crime?

I agree. We should punish the crime, not the thought that inspired it.

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

What's the difference if they were both accidental?

Two dangerous instrumentalities and an accident.

 

[catzmeow]

i'm sure if you tried harder, you could come up with a more spectacularly stupid analogy.

He's new. Perhaps exposure to Chris and Sealy will help.

 

[Nik]

I agree. We should punish the crime, not the thought that inspired it.

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

i'm sure if you tried harder, you could come up with a more spectacularly stupid analogy.

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

 

[JBeukema]

RealClearPolitics - Empty Symbolism on Hate Crimes

Empty Symbolism on Hate Crimes
By Steve Chapman

Federal law enforcement officials are not plagued by idleness these days, thanks to the demands on their time from terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, Ponzi schemers and crooked politicians. But Congress never stops trying to ensure full employment for FBI agents and U.S. attorneys. The latest stimulus is the Matthew Shepard Act, billed as an overdue effort to prevent violence against gays and lesbians.

The logic behind the proposed measure is hard to follow. Says sponsoring Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), "No members of society -- none -- deserve to be victims of a violent crime because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, their gender, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation." Which raises the question: Who exactly does deserve to be the victim of a violent crime?

The bill targets actions we would all like to eliminate -- physically injuring or trying to injure someone with "fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device." But it's hard to imagine that it would reduce the prevalence of such conduct, which is already 1) really, really illegal and 2) subject to harsh penalties.

This legislation would add extra punishment for attacks designated as hate crimes. But if a criminal is not deterred by the fear of five years behind bars, he's probably not going to be pushed onto the straight and narrow by the prospect of six.

In the case of attacks like the one on Matthew Shepard, a gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998, the statute would be superfluous. His killers were eligible for the death penalty, though both made deals that assured they would be locked up for the rest of their lives.
For the most horrific hate crimes, the change would accomplish absolutely nothing.

That's not the only way in which it would constitute an exercise in irrelevance. Already, 45 states have hate crime laws, and two-thirds of them include crimes against gays and lesbians. In the remaining states, you will be relieved to know, such attacks are punished as violent felonies.

What a pointless, stupid, waste of time.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to catzmeow again.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

i'm sure if you tried harder, you could come up with a more spectacularly stupid analogy.

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

Are you saying that you believe that motive is an element of the crime? (As in murder, are you saying you must prove motive to succeed in proving a case of murder?)

 

[catzmeow]

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

Motive is already taken into consideration in violent crimes. That's why some murders are charged as 1st degree, some are charged as 2nd or 3rd degree, and some are charged as manslaughter.

Racial bias as a motive in the commission of a crime is already considered as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and would also impact how the charge was prosecuted.

What those of us who have some expertise in these matters are telling you, Nik, is that adding legislation to the books is a meaningless act of symbolism that won't prevent a single crime. It is a sop to advocacy groups.

 

[del]

Sure. Lets punish someone who gets into a car accident and kills someone the same as someone who shoots someone in the face. After all, only the result matters, right?

i'm sure if you tried harder, you could come up with a more spectacularly stupid analogy.

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

sorry, i don't deal in strawmen.
try sky dancer; she's not very bright.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Please tell me whats stupid about it. For those claiming that one person dead is one person dead, there IS no difference.

Motive matters. Always has, always will. People are fine with this, until it comes to hate crimes.

Motive is already taken into consideration in violent crimes. That's why some murders are charged as 1st degree, some are charged as 2nd or 3rd degree, and some are charged as manslaughter.

Racial bias as a motive in the commission of a crime is already considered as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, and would also impact how the charge was prosecuted.

What those of us who have some expertise in these matters are telling you, Nik, is that adding legislation to the books is a meaningless act of symbolism that won't prevent a single crime. It is a sop to advocacy groups.

To clarify, motive is not an element of murder. Mens rea is, but that is not motive.

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

Mens rea defined.

And, yes, aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered during sentencing. So, yes, I agree with Catz result.

 

[catzmeow]

To clarify, motive is not an element of murder. Mens rea is, but that is not motive.

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

Mens rea defined.

Motive does play a role in sentencing, however.

 

[Tech_Esq]

To clarify, motive is not an element of murder. Mens rea is, but that is not motive.

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

Mens rea defined.

Motive does play a role in sentencing, however.

Yes. I amended my post to include that and our agreement in outcome.

 

[catzmeow]

Yes. I amended my post to include that and our agreement in outcome.

Is it just me, or do you find this entire topic incredibly annoying? More laws does not equal better justice for god's sake. Convincing people of that would be a wonderful thing.

 

[JBeukema]

Is it just me, or do you find this entire topic incredibly annoying? More laws does not equal better justice for god's sake. Convincing people of that would be a wonderful thing.

That would require that they think

 

[catzmeow]

That would require that they think

True. You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you cannot make him think.

 

[JBeukema]

True. You can lead an idiot to the facts, but you cannot make him think.

I like this woman

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to catzmeow again.

I hate this system