Murder as Sport

[George Costanza]

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.

I respect your qualifications - thank you for stating them.

I don't think that all murderers should be punished the same. To me, there is a vast difference between a creep who kidnaps someone, tortures and rapes them for days and then kills them by submersing their face into a bowl of acid, and some guy who finds out that his neighbor is banging his wife, grabs a gun, walks next door and kills him.

We could go on all night with the various examples of first and second degree murder, I think you see my point.

In CA, we have special circumstances that, if proven, can result in the death penalty. The special circs involve much more culpable action on the part of the perp, than just a "standard" murder. Murder for hire, multiple murders, lying in wait, etc.

I will give you that, regardless of the degree, the victim is "just as dead" but our system punishes culpability for several reasons. The most obvious one is the deterrent factor. Also, it makes moral sense to punish REALLY bad actors more than merely BAD actors.

Those are my thoughts on that. You may disagree, of course.

 

[George Costanza]

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

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/126436-murder-as-sport-5.html#post2939189

 

[marksinvirginia]

It was crazy. It was violent. It was premeditated. Worse than all, it was sport. Poor Mazariego-Torres was the human pinata, there for the entertainment of a couple of cowards, and their follower-friends who wanted to record the whole thing.

He was an easy target. He was not a big man and spoke limited English. Maybe he had a little to drink. Regardless, he was outnumbered. He was alone, minding his own business, in his own town.

In a cellphone video, Mazariego-Torres is sitting on the bench, and a young man sits to his right. Behind him is another man. They seem to be joking, and Mazariego-Torres is totally relaxed. Then, with animalistic swiftness -- and there really is no better word -- Mazariego-Torres is suckered. His face is covered with his shirt, the young man on the bench gets up and throws a punch meant to take someone’s head off. There is no other way to say it. The boy reaches way back, and puts all he has into it. When some defense lawyer eventually says "they didn’t mean to hurt him," remember this: Anybody who has ever thrown a punch like that, or been hit with one, knows full well the intent. This is not being called a hate crime, but it should be. There was hate behind that punch.

Diverse community attends funeral for Summit man killed in 'mindless' crime | NJ.com

What should be their sentence?

I read the entire article. Nowhere in there do I see any reference to the RACE of the cretins who did this. I wonder why - and I mean that seriously. I would be willing to bet they are white. I wonder why the author would leave out their race.

*********************************

I think you are wrong. If they were white the attack would have been broadcast around the world, and they would be shown no mercy. My bet is that they were blacks just letting off steam. You know... just doing what comes natural.

Mark

 

[marksinvirginia]

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?

************************************

Yours' is one opinion. Most believe that blacks killing whites for sport is not a crime, hate or otherwise; it's justifiable reparation for slavery.

 

[westwall]

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.

And please show us where hate crime legislation has ever been used against a perpetrator of non caucasian persuasion against a caucasian. Just one.

 

[westwall]

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.

I respect your qualifications - thank you for stating them.

I don't think that all murderers should be punished the same. To me, there is a vast difference between a creep who kidnaps someone, tortures and rapes them for days and then kills them by submersing their face into a bowl of acid, and some guy who finds out that his neighbor is banging his wife, grabs a gun, walks next door and kills him.

We could go on all night with the various examples of first and second degree murder, I think you see my point.

In CA, we have special circumstances that, if proven, can result in the death penalty. The special circs involve much more culpable action on the part of the perp, than just a "standard" murder. Murder for hire, multiple murders, lying in wait, etc.

I will give you that, regardless of the degree, the victim is "just as dead" but our system punishes culpability for several reasons. The most obvious one is the deterrent factor. Also, it makes moral sense to punish REALLY bad actors more than merely BAD actors.

Those are my thoughts on that. You may disagree, of course.

Punishment, of whatever type, in general does not deter crime save on an individual level. If you execute a murderer he or she will not be able to kill again. For the most part I am not in favour of the death penalty. I believe it should be rarely used but when used it should be very swift. Jeffrey Dahmer or Gary Ridgway would have been candidates for my version of the death penalty. Upon conviction there is a appeal. After the appeal there is a sentencing hearing. After the sentencing there would be an additional appeal and then sentence is carried out. All of this within a couple of months. Dragging hearings out endlessly is ridiculous. The person is either guilty or not. There are either mitigating circumstances or not. Sentence is carried out. Get it over with.

In my world I don't really care about the motivation. I care about the fact that someone was killed before their time. In my world the majority get life without parole. If they are so immature that their only response to stress is to go out and kill someone, the hell with them let them sit in prison and rot. If they have an epiphany and become good citizens great, they can do their good works in the prison, there are plenty of people there who can use the help.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

And please show us where hate crime legislation has ever been used against a perpetrator of non caucasian persuasion against a caucasian. Just one.

So you seek to rely on the fact that the majority of hate crimes are committed by whites, as justification for your argument that hate crime legislation is selective? You do see the logical flaw there, I trust.

The law is not selective as written. It may be selective as applied, but the answer to that one is not to do away with the law. Rather, the answer to that one is that white folks should stop committing hate crimes.

There are lots of hate crimes committed against whites. Here are several:

The Hate Crimes You Don’t Hear About

 

[George Costanza]

In my world I don't really care about the motivation.

Well, the guys who make up the law of homicide as it is written in every state in this nation, do care about the motivation - at least when it comes to punishment for varying degrees of homicide.

 

[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?

************************************

Yours' is one opinion. Most believe that blacks killing whites for sport is not a crime, hate or otherwise; it's justifiable reparation for slavery.

What on EARTH are you trying to say here?

 

[Tank]

 

[George Costanza]

What's your point? Google up the stats on what percentage of rapes are committed by men against women. Would you propose to do away with the rape laws because the vast majority of rapes are committed by men?

And while I'm at it - 1,916,380 hate crimes in ONE YEAR in this country, and you want to do away with hate crime legislation? Who are you trying to protect?

 

[Tank]

Any rape should be a hate crime

 

[westwall]

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.

And please show us where hate crime legislation has ever been used against a perpetrator of non caucasian persuasion against a caucasian. Just one.

So you seek to rely on the fact that the majority of hate crimes are committed by whites, as justification for your argument that hate crime legislation is selective? You do see the logical flaw there, I trust.

The law is not selective as written. It may be selective as applied, but the answer to that one is not to do away with the law. Rather, the answer to that one is that white folks should stop committing hate crimes.

There are lots of hate crimes committed against whites. Here are several:

The Hate Crimes You Don’t Hear About

The overwhelming majority of interracial crimes are committed by non caucasians against caucasians. That is a simple fact. I can't think of a single case where a hate crime has been charged against a non caucasian...can you?

The fact that you can't think of a single case is telling. That means it is being applied selectively. It also assumes that DA's will be "reasonable" which we all know happens rarely. Thus you must take that subjectivity out of the equation. Violent criminals need to be off the street. Simple, elegant, helps society. Please show me where hate crime legislation is fair. It isn't. By definition it can't be. Take it out of the equation and punish bad people for being bad.

 

[westwall]

In my world I don't really care about the motivation.

Well, the guys who make up the law of homicide as it is written in every state in this nation, do care about the motivation - at least when it comes to punishment for varying degrees of homicide.

And that is wrong. Is the person dead or not? Did this person do it? That is all that truly matters. Unless you think the state is more important than the individual in which case you can support the legal fiction that maybe it's Ok to murder someone...just a little bit.

 

[chanel]

Torture is particularly heinous. Just sayin...

 

[George Costanza]

The fact that you can't think of a single case is telling.

You can read, can't you? If you could, you would have read this:

The Hate Crimes You Don’t Hear About

I guess you didn't bother to click on this link, which I posted in response to your clam that there are not any hate crimes against whites. This link mentions two of them. There are many more.

 

[George Costanza]

Any rape should be a hate crime

I agree with you here. However, I think that has already been factored into the equation when it comes to punishment.

As I said before, technically, I think rape is a hate crime, because it is gender based. However, all rapes are gender based, so why go to the trouble of calling something that happens in every rape a hate crime? No point to it. Just set the punishment, taking that into account.

It would be kind of silly to say "Any rape committed in whole or in part on the basis of gender of the victim is a hate crime," since all rapes are based on gender. Not all assaults are based on race. See the difference?

 

[editec]

What can anyone say when people do something this horrible?

Do they deserve the death penalty?

Hell yes, if they did what they're accused of doing.

 

[chanel]

Well, no DP here in NJ. And the fact that they are juveniles, will ensure they get off easy. I remember debating someone on here who was opposed to bumping up juvenile crimes to adult courts. If they could not do it in this case, these "kids" would be out on the street by their 21st birthday.

 

[westwall]

The fact that you can't think of a single case is telling.

You can read, can't you? If you could, you would have read this:

The Hate Crimes You Don’t Hear About

I guess you didn't bother to click on this link, which I posted in response to your clam that there are not any hate crimes against whites. This link mentions two of them. There are many more.

I was writing while you were posting so I missed that post, and yes I am very well aquainted with those cases, did ANY of them get charged as hate crimes? The purpose of that site was to show all the "hate crimes" that were being committed that weren't being charged. The site goes into great detail to show how white on black crimes are trumpeted from every window in the castle, yet black on white crimes are swept under the rug.

Look to your own responses to this thread...you IMMEDIATELY ASSUMED it was a white on black crime. We know that the vast majority of interratial crime is black on white, yet your immediate response was to assume it was the other way around. Here is a clue for the future, whenever a heinous crime is committed and the race of the perp is not mentioned in the article, you can lay pretty good odds that the perp was black. If the perp was white, that fact will be well reported.

Hate Crime legislation is a PC law. As such it will almost never be charged against a minority. Even our very own DOJ is refusing to look at crimes in a race neutral manner.

New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ - Crossroads - CBS News

Because it is nearly impossible for people to ignore race due to a whole host of factors in order to eliminate unequitable use of these laws they should be abolished. They do not
work in the way they were intended and instead make things worse. How about we really punish the violent jack asses in our world and really remove them from the streets. Of whatever race. Have the enhancements for weapon usage, torture etc. strengthened so that they can be used for actual cases, because face it GC, for someone to do violent attacks on people they're not doing them out of love...now are they?