if this guy really beat up the pedophile rapist, what should his punishment be?

[Toome]

All I know is that I couldn't serve on that jury. I know what the law says, and I know what the victim did was wrong, but this is an eye for an eye in the strictest sense of the word.


I lose all objectivity when it comes to pedophiles.

 

[editec]

It's damned hard to give up that hatred that comes from childhood victimization.

But until you do you can never be free from its pernicious hold over you.

I speak with peronal experience on this issue.

I totally understand why that guy did that.

I also am fairly sure that it didn't help him.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Counseling.
I can't imagine a jury will find him as guilty as a person who beat the crap out of someone in a bar fight etc.

At the same time, isn't the greater question - why is the child molester not in jail?

 

[midcan5]

The thing I don't understand about these cases is why thirty years passed and now he seeks revenge. I was an altar boy for many years - they call them altar servers today - went to Catholic grade school and HS, worked with the Brothers in HS, and never once heard of abuse. We did think many were gay or just plain weird. Is it exaggerated and why did the boy not speak up when the act occurred. If beating up an old man resolves anything I'm not sure what. Working his conscience may be a more powerful tool.

 

[Tony Skanda]

He broke the law. The judge must decide.

 

[Tony Skanda]

The judge must decide.

 

[Father Time]

If he did this, it was obviously a hate crime, because he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If somebody who supposedly beats up a gay man because of his sexual orientation deserves extra punishment, then the guy who did this deserves the same punishment. Another reason to oppose hate crime legislation.

exactly right, well it would be if not for the fact that hate crimes were set up to protect just a few certain groups. Pedophiles isn't one of those groups.

I know, but this is the single best argument against hate crimes I can think of. I am positive even the most ardent proponent of hate crime legislation would not want this to be a hate crime, but this is exactly the type of crime covered by those laws.

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

 

[George Costanza]

So due process is only for some people?

One of the basic corner stones of conservative thinking these days.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

exactly right, well it would be if not for the fact that hate crimes were set up to protect just a few certain groups. Pedophiles isn't one of those groups.

I know, but this is the single best argument against hate crimes I can think of. I am positive even the most ardent proponent of hate crime legislation would not want this to be a hate crime, but this is exactly the type of crime covered by those laws.

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So due process is only for some people?

One of the basic corner stones of conservative thinking these days.

Shame on you Geoerge. You know as well as I do that I can supply plenty of examples of "liberals" thinking the same way, just about different groups.

 

[ConHog]

So due process is only for some people?

One of the basic corner stones of conservative thinking these days.

Shame on you Geoerge. You know as well as I do that I can supply plenty of examples of "liberals" thinking the same way, just about different groups.

George is a known lying political hack. PERIOD.

 

[George Costanza]

If he did this, it was obviously a hate crime, because he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If somebody who supposedly beats up a gay man because of his sexual orientation deserves extra punishment, then the guy who did this deserves the same punishment. Another reason to oppose hate crime legislation.

exactly right, well it would be if not for the fact that hate crimes were set up to protect just a few certain groups. Pedophiles isn't one of those groups.

I know, but this is the single best argument against hate crimes I can think of. I am positive even the most ardent proponent of hate crime legislation would not want this to be a hate crime, but this is exactly the type of crime covered by those laws.

Technically, you are correct. I suppose that any crime committed against anyone because they "are" something, could be considered a hate crime. But, in actual practice, hate crimes are limited to the classes defined in the legislation itself. Generally, a hate crime is any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. The laws vary from state to state. Some also include gender.

One can logically see the reason for increasing the punishment whenever a crime is committed against another person based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. It becomes much more difficult to see the reason for including pedophiles as a protected class.

 

[George Costanza]

So due process is only for some people?

One of the basic corner stones of conservative thinking these days.

Shame on you Geoerge. You know as well as I do that I can supply plenty of examples of "liberals" thinking the same way, just about different groups.

Many conservatives love to express their views on the proper punishment for sex offenders. "Sending them out into the general prison population," is near the top of the list, i.e., let the other prisoners kill them. Ripping genitals off, hanging, throwing off cliffs, burning alive - the suggestions are endless.

What is really being said, of course, is that, when it comes to sex offenders, we throw Due Process (and Cruel and Unusal Punishment) out the window. In other words, due process is only for some people - not sex offenders.

I have never heard any liberal say something like that. I have heard dozens of conservatives say exactly that - and worse. So I think we clearly DO have an example here of conservatives looking the other way on Due Process when it comes to punishing sex offenders.

 

[George Costanza]

I know, but this is the single best argument against hate crimes I can think of. I am positive even the most ardent proponent of hate crime legislation would not want this to be a hate crime, but this is exactly the type of crime covered by those laws.

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

Ah, but they DON'T - and that's the entire point.

Father Time is absolutely correct in his criticism of your argument on this issue.

 

[Father Time]

I know, but this is the single best argument against hate crimes I can think of. I am positive even the most ardent proponent of hate crime legislation would not want this to be a hate crime, but this is exactly the type of crime covered by those laws.

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles.

Wrong. This was quite clearly revenge, and thus not a hate crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Technically, you are correct. I suppose that any crime committed against anyone because they "are" something, could be considered a hate crime. But, in actual practice, hate crimes are limited to the classes defined in the legislation itself. Generally, a hate crime is any crime based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. The laws vary from state to state. Some also include gender.

You admit that hate crime laws are designed to protect only certain people, and not to actually stop specific crimes? (Gotta rub it in a bit.)

One can logically see the reason for increasing the punishment whenever a crime is committed against another person based on a belief regarding the victim's race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. It becomes much more difficult to see the reason for including pedophiles as a protected class.

They are a specific minority with a history of persecution. why wouldn't they be part of a protected class?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One of the basic corner stones of conservative thinking these days.

Shame on you Geoerge. You know as well as I do that I can supply plenty of examples of "liberals" thinking the same way, just about different groups.

Many conservatives love to express their views on the proper punishment for sex offenders. "Sending them out into the general prison population," is near the top of the list, i.e., let the other prisoners kill them. Ripping genitals off, hanging, throwing off cliffs, burning alive - the suggestions are endless.

What is really being said, of course, is that, when it comes to sex offenders, we throw Due Process (and Cruel and Unusal Punishment) out the window. In other words, due process is only for some people - not sex offenders.

I have never heard any liberal say something like that. I have heard dozens of conservatives say exactly that - and worse. So I think we clearly DO have an example here of conservatives looking the other way on Due Process when it comes to punishing sex offenders.

Liberals are more than willing to use the law to carve out protected classes for some people based on historical injustices. How is that any less a violation of due process and equal protection than being willing to look the other way when certain criminals are attacked?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles. Hate crimes could easily cover it without any stretch whatsoever, which is only one reason I oppose them.

Ah, but they DON'T - and that's the entire point.

Father Time is absolutely correct in his criticism of your argument on this issue.

How do they not? If it is a crime to attack someone based on their sexual orientation, like being homosexual, how is not a crime to attack them because they are, or are perceived to be, pedophiles? Do the laws specifically exempt pedophiles from protection, or do you just assume they do?

I think that makes your criticism of my argument even shakier than Times, because you, being a lawyer, should know better. If they did attempt to carve out a specific exemption for pedophiles they would be unconstitutional, which is why they do apply to them. Even if you, personally, do not like it. You support these laws, you have to deal with the consequences, intended or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is the dumbest argument against hate crimes I have EVER seen.

This is clearly an act of revenge. He did not attack him because he was a pedo he attacked him because the priest molested him as a kid.

If you think revenge beatings are covered by hate crimes, you really don't know much about them.

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles.

Wrong. This was quite clearly revenge, and thus not a hate crime.

Suppose I find out that my father was killed by a member of the KKK and plan a revenge killing on someone else who just happens to be white, is that a hate crime?

Use the law, as it is written, to prove I am wrong.

Existing law provides that no person, whether or not acting under
color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure,
intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person'
s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that
the other person has one or more of those characteristics. Existing
law also provides that no person, whether or not acting under color
of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or
personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating
or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of
this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or
because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of
those characteristics. Existing law requires that any person who
violates these provisions be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

SB 1234 Senate Bill - CHAPTERED

Like it or not, this crime is a hate crime in California, where it was committed. The law does not make an exception for revenge, or anything else.

 

[Father Time]

Are you trying to claim this would not be covered by a law that says something like OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? The only reason this beating happened was because the priest is a member of a persecuted minority, pedophiles.

Wrong. This was quite clearly revenge, and thus not a hate crime.

Suppose I find out that my father was killed by a member of the KKK and plan a revenge killing on someone else who just happens to be white, is that a hate crime?

Use the law, as it is written, to prove I am wrong.

Existing law provides that no person, whether or not acting under
color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure,
intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person'
s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that
the other person has one or more of those characteristics. Existing
law also provides that no person, whether or not acting under color
of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or
personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating
or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of
this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or
because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of
those characteristics. Existing law requires that any person who
violates these provisions be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed $5,000, or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

SB 1234 Senate Bill - CHAPTERED

Like it or not, this crime is a hate crime in California, where it was committed. The law does not make an exception for revenge, or anything else.

No it's not a fucking hate crime because you are not attacking someone because of their sexual orientation you are attacking someone for what they did.

Are you trying to not get it or are you really this thick?