Murder as Sport

[chanel]

Any tools the prosecution or judges have to enhance penalties or to secure a guilty plea for heinous crimes is fine by me. That's why I still support the death penalty.

I hope they use any and every law on the books to put these monsters away forever.

 

[Kat]

OK - if you want to parse words. Let's limit it to the distinction between first degree murder and second degree murder. Intent and malice are required for both. Yet they are punished differently. The victim is just as dead in both cases. You're the one who brought up this "the victim is just as dead" argument in support of your opposition to hate crime legislation by the way - not I.

How do you distinguish between different punishments for different degrees of murder (I assume you recognize and agree with this) and different punishments for simple assaults and racially motivated assaults?

Point being, we already have degrees of murder, degrees of punishment. I see no need to add another.

Arguing with you is like trying to punch out a sponge. When confronted with a point you do not want to discuss (because it disproves your position), you blithely ignore it (as you are doing here) and keep on skipping down the road.

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

Want to give that one another shot?

Kiss OFF. When you decide to discuss this like the old man you are..let me know..until then..KISS OFF.

 

[George Costanza]

Point being, we already have degrees of murder, degrees of punishment. I see no need to add another.

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

Want to give that one another shot?

Kiss OFF. When you decide to discuss this like the old man you are..let me know..until then..KISS OFF.

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

The two positions seem inconsistent to me. Care to discuss?

 

[chanel]

But wouldn't you say it's overused George? Just because a victim is different than the perp does not make it a hate crime. If applied the way I understand it (motive for the crime), it would be very rarely used.

 

[Kat]

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

Want to give that one another shot?

Kiss OFF. When you decide to discuss this like the old man you are..let me know..until then..KISS OFF.

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

The two positions seem inconsistent to me. Care to discuss?

Why, so you can throw more insults my way? No thanks. UMM, ''friend''.

 

[Tank]

What if two twins are fighting and one twin says "I hate you" and then shoots and kills the other twin.

Hate crime?

 

[DiveCon]

OK - if you want to parse words. Let's limit it to the distinction between first degree murder and second degree murder. Intent and malice are required for both. Yet they are punished differently. The victim is just as dead in both cases. You're the one who brought up this "the victim is just as dead" argument in support of your opposition to hate crime legislation by the way - not I.

How do you distinguish between different punishments for different degrees of murder (I assume you recognize and agree with this) and different punishments for simple assaults and racially motivated assaults?

Point being, we already have degrees of murder, degrees of punishment. I see no need to add another.

Arguing with you is like trying to punch out a sponge. When confronted with a point you do not want to discuss (because it disproves your position), you blithely ignore it (as you are doing here) and keep on skipping down the road.

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

Want to give that one another shot?

why are you being such an asshole?

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

Want to give that one another shot?

Kiss OFF. When you decide to discuss this like the old man you are..let me know..until then..KISS OFF.

Yes, we already have degrees of murder with different degrees of punishment. You don't see a problem with accepting that fact, yet opposing hate crime legislation on grounds that it creates different punishments for what you feel is the same crime (an assault)?

The two positions seem inconsistent to me. Care to discuss?

and not one of them says anything about the race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation of the victim

 

[Tank]

why are you being such an asshole?

Thats what liberals do when their wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

why are you being such an asshole?

Thats what liberals do when their wrong.

sorry, not ALL liberals are assholes
just some choose to go that route

just like not all conservatives are racists
too bad we cant say that for YOU

 

[Tank]

I did not say all liberals are assholes, but when their wrong.

Is a "racist" for or against hate crimes?

 

[George Costanza]

I did not say all liberals are assholes, but when their wrong.

Is a "racist" for or against hate crimes?

Seems to me that most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons, are racists. Any problem with that one?

And it would follow that such folks would probably be against hate crime legislation, wouldn't you think?

 

[George Costanza]

If you really want to know what this business of opposing hate crime legislation is all about, you might want to take a look at the concept of covert racism. It is an acknowledged phenominom - Google it, and you will find any number of Web sites that discuss it. Basically, it works this way:

Overt racism is out. It is no longer stylish or accepted to engage in the racist pracitics of the pre-1960's period. Blacks are no longer relegated to the back of the bus or a "special section" of the restaurant or any of the other outrages that were visited upon them for so many years in our society.

Does that mean that racism no longer exists? Of course not. It simply means that it has gone underground - covert (as opposed to overt) racism is utilized in today's society.

What is covert racism?

Covert racism is a much less public and obvious form of racism than overt racism. It is hidden in the fabric of society, covertly suppressing the individuals being discriminated against. Covert racially biased decisions are often disguised or rationalized with an explanation that society is more willing to accept. These racial biases cause a variety of problems that work to empower the suppressors while diminishing the rights and powers of the oppressed. Covert racism often works subliminally, and often much of the discrimination is being done subconsciously.

Covert racisim can involve being in favor of programs, regulations and laws that tend to suppress minorities or being opposed to programs, regulations and laws that tend to help minorities.

There are many examples of covert racisim in today's society. A few of them are listed here:

Examples of Subtle Racism - Definition of Subtle Racism

Hate crime legislation benefits minorities because it tends to prevent the commission of hate crimes by increasing the punishment for the commission of such crimes. It is not too difficult to see where that leaves those who oppose such legislation.

This is not to say that opposition to hate crime legislation means that a person is a racist in the traditional sense. The quoted definition and the linked article both point out that covert racisim is subliminal and often subconscous. That means that folks who really believe they are not racists in the traditional sense, may still engage in any number of acts of covert racisim.

 

[Tank]

I did not say all liberals are assholes, but when their wrong.

Is a "racist" for or against hate crimes?

Seems to me that most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons, are racists. Any problem with that one?

And it would follow that such folks would probably be against hate crime legislation, wouldn't you think?

All violent crimes involve hate, you seem to think hating someone because of their race is the greatest hate of all.

 

[George Costanza]

I did not say all liberals are assholes, but when their wrong.

Is a "racist" for or against hate crimes?

Seems to me that most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons, are racists. Any problem with that one?

And it would follow that such folks would probably be against hate crime legislation, wouldn't you think?

All violent crimes involve hate, you seem to think hating someone because of their race is the greatest hate of all.

Ah, but you are dodging the question.

Once again: Most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons are racists? Do agree or disagree with this statement? And, if you disagree, why?

 

[JBeukema]

Give them guns and sent them to Iraq. they wanna kill people? Let's make some money...


beats spending money to lock them up, right?

 

[westwall]

I do not agree with different punishments for different degrees of murder. Nor for "simple" assaults. If a person commits a murder they have taken that which can never be returned. They have shown that they have no regard for the rights of others, so why should we care about them?

The differences for 1st and 2nd degree murders are legal fictions dreamed up by lawyers who don't want to do a proper job. That is why we have a legal system and not a justice system.

Thank you. For once, an honest post. Loony tunes, of course - but honest.

If this is truly your view - that all murderers should be punished the same, regardless of the degree of their crime, then we have nothing more to discuss on the issue of hate crime legislation.

Your comment about legal fictions dreamed up by lawyers serves only to show your lack of knowledge on the subject. In point of fact, life would be much, much simpler for everyone if your totalitarian viewpoint was in fact the law. Volumes have been written on the various degrees of murder and how they should be applied to actual situations in the criminal justice system. You should sit in on a criminal law class when they are discussing the nuances of the law of homicide - I think you would change your thinking and that remark.

I'm an expert witness GC, I get to see the legal system with all of its warts all of the time.
Among my close friends are three federal judges, five superior court judges, two DA's, fifteen or so ADA's and close on 50 attorneys. I assure you I am well versed in the system.

Now to your assertion, why shouldn't all murderers be punished the same? Are not their crimes similar? Please note I did not say homicides I said and will stipulate murderers.

 

[westwall]

Seems to me that most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons, are racists. Any problem with that one?

And it would follow that such folks would probably be against hate crime legislation, wouldn't you think?

All violent crimes involve hate, you seem to think hating someone because of their race is the greatest hate of all.

Ah, but you are dodging the question.

Once again: Most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons are racists? Do agree or disagree with this statement? And, if you disagree, why?

Who cares GC. By your reasoning and the concept of "protected classes" you are stating that one class of person is more valuable than another. Their pain matters more to the state then the very same pain that a non protected class is suffering.

Do you not see the problem here?

 

[George Costanza]

All violent crimes involve hate, you seem to think hating someone because of their race is the greatest hate of all.

Ah, but you are dodging the question.

Once again: Most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons are racists? Do agree or disagree with this statement? And, if you disagree, why?

Who cares GC. By your reasoning and the concept of "protected classes" you are stating that one class of person is more valuable than another. Their pain matters more to the state then the very same pain that a non protected class is suffering.

Do you not see the problem here?

You need to understand that there is no such thing as a "non protected class" with hate crime legislation. Hate crime statutes are not race specific. They punish crimes against ANY PERSON that are racially motivated. Hence, a person of ANY RACE can be a victim of a hate crime and, therefore, there is NO RACE that is NOT protected.

If hate crime statutes punished racially motivated crimes against one race only, then I would agree with your premise. A statute such as this would be violative of the Equal Protection clause. But that is not the case.

 

[DiveCon]

All violent crimes involve hate, you seem to think hating someone because of their race is the greatest hate of all.

Ah, but you are dodging the question.

Once again: Most people who commit hate crimes for racially motivated reasons are racists? Do agree or disagree with this statement? And, if you disagree, why?

Who cares GC. By your reasoning and the concept of "protected classes" you are stating that one class of person is more valuable than another. Their pain matters more to the state then the very same pain that a non protected class is suffering.

Do you not see the problem here?

well stated