Hate crimes against "the homeless"

[occupied]

Nope, they deserve the exact same fate.

How do you figure? Do you not think setting a sleeping defenseless human being on fire to be a little more serious than a couple of years in juvie at the most? You probably see it as industrious young conservatives preforming a public service.

I know being a lib your a little slow, but what do you think a criminal deserving the same fate as the victim is some how giving them a pass. You set someone on fire, you get set on fire, sounds fair to me.

That is a little harsher than the law at the moment, making laws to cover what constitutes aggravating circumstances is a step closer to your biblical eye for an eye solution.

 

[occupied]

Crime is crime and by its very nature is fueled by hate. Trying to rationalize it by giving it unique names and special penalties is dumb. The end result of crime is the same regardless of motive. If you're dead you're dead regardless of motive.....

It’s enhanced sentencing, which is perfectly appropriate.

Judges have been using, and are authorized to use, enhanced sentencing for decades – it’s really nothing new. See: Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993).

The states and local jurisdictions are well within their rights to deter hate crimes, or other such crimes motivated by a victim’s condition beyond his control, and exact upon those found guilty of such crimes a harsher penalty.

That this somehow offends your ‘anti-PC’ sensibilities is fortunately irrelevant, as this is settled and accepted case law.

I was hoping you would show up, I'd give you some rep if the board would let me. I feel like I have been arguing this correctly but I welcome your much more informed opinions here.

 

[syrenn]

Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....

oh please...

crime is crime and should ALL be punished the same.


What it is saying.... i am not part of some special interest group...and if i get the shit beat out of me... I am not worth as much and the perp should not be punished as badly...

 

[Noomi]

Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....

Many homeless people are drug addicts or alcoholics. I would be concerned that the homeless person would be more likely to attack a person that someone to attack them.

 

[Noomi]

Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....

oh please...

crime is crime and should ALL be punished the same.


What it is saying.... i am not part of some special interest group...and if i get the shit beat out of me... I am not worth as much and the perp should not be punished as badly...

There is a difference between bashing up some random person, and targeting a person because they are black. Searching out a black person, or a gay person with the intention of beating them up is a worse crime.

Not all rapes are treated equally, because some are worse than others. Likewise, some assaults are worse than others.

 

[Glensather]

Fat people?

Actually, in Britain at least, there is a hate crime law for obese people.

So I can't yell at these bums who stand at the exits of Interstates at a traffic light holding "Homeless and Hungry" signs to get a job? That's not a hate crime in my book; that's a suggestion, which they refuse if you offer them a job, btw.

The problem is, how do we differentiate between the homeless that are... I guess honest? The ones who are there not of their own fault, but because something terrible happened to them and forced them on the streets.

Furthermore, I remember hearing on my local talk radio that one problem homeless people have is that they can't get a job because they're homeless, and to stop being homeless they need a job.

Anyway, the problem with the hate crime law is twofold:
First of all, how is killing, say, a gay person so much worse than killing a straight person? Why do there have to be special provisions in place for that?

Secondly, how do you prove a hate crime? If a psychopath walks up and shoots a black man, is it because he hates blacks or because he's crazy? And ultimately, what does it matter, because the crazy in question up and shot somebody!

We'd be lying if we said that there weren't people out there who did specifically target gays or women or blacks or prostitutes. These people are evil, and there's no justification for targeting a specific group of people to terrorize or kill. If you're killing gay people in alleys at night, that makes you a murderer; how does it being labeled a hate crime make that any different?

I do have a guess about it, though, and I'd like opinions on the matter:
It's my guess that "Hate Crimes" were put into place because there was, say, a large uprising of crimes targeting specific groups of people. Not just murder, of course - assault, B&E, harassment, etc. Because of this, laws were put into place to emphasize to people "Hey, if you mess with gays/latinos/women, you'll be punished harder than if you did it to anyone else." It was meant as a deterrent, to try and cut down on crime against specific groups.

Does that make sense?
But that said, isn't it obvious, that if someone really hates gay people and wants to beat up every single one he comes across, they're going to do it regardless of what the law says?

 

[syrenn]

Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....

oh please...

crime is crime and should ALL be punished the same.


What it is saying.... i am not part of some special interest group...and if i get the shit beat out of me... I am not worth as much and the perp should not be punished as badly...

There is a difference between bashing up some random person, and targeting a person because they are black. Searching out a black person, or a gay person with the intention of beating them up is a worse crime.

Not all rapes are treated equally, because some are worse than others. Likewise, some assaults are worse than others.

there is NO difference....

crime is crime.

 

[Noomi]

^I would be totally ignoring those hate laws about calling a fat person fat. How about they also make it a crime to call a skinny person skinny?

 

[OKTexas]

How do you figure? Do you not think setting a sleeping defenseless human being on fire to be a little more serious than a couple of years in juvie at the most? You probably see it as industrious young conservatives preforming a public service.

I know being a lib your a little slow, but what do you think a criminal deserving the same fate as the victim is some how giving them a pass. You set someone on fire, you get set on fire, sounds fair to me.

That is a little harsher than the law at the moment, making laws to cover what constitutes aggravating circumstances is a step closer to your biblical eye for an eye solution.

If that was an apology to the bold area above I think you need to try harder.

As for being harsh, bet your ass, there are certain crimes on persons that should carry specially harsh punishment. Those that will at a minimum cause a person to be permanently disfigured is one class that I would have no limitations on, such as fire, acid or amputation. If they are big enough to do the crime, then they can accept the punishment.

 

[Dreamy]

Certainly it is but there have to be statutory allowances made to cover what constitutes aggravating circumstances. If you were attacked in some place there is a lot of laws on the books that allow prosecutors to make the penalty more severe based on the severity of the crime, it does not mean you are any less valuable under the law but your attacker may be subject to a harsher sentence due to what actually happened. It's the difference between some kids possibly getting into a sudden unexpected altercation with a homeless man and planning a crime by loading up the baseball bats and going hunting.

I have no problem with the use of mitigating circumstances and the variances the existing laws allow depending on the events surrounding the crime. I do however oppose anything that is special law as in "hate crime" legislation for subsets of society.

Are those B&E home invasion criminals who single out people with homes in a premeditated manner also committing a hate crime?

It all has to do with proof, if they can prove someone invaded your home because you were gay or whatever they can be charged with such. As it is even in states that have such laws on the books it is not charged except in some pretty clear cut cases. Turns out there have not been that many people charged with hate crimes, most of them have been cases of vandalism or arson where some jackass painted swastikas on synagogues or burned black churches and such.

What? Gay people have special laws too? Wth.

No, no, no, you are not following me. You support crimes that single out the homeless to have special laws called "hate crimes" when someone brings harm to them, correct? Simply because they are homeless, right?

So how about some "special law", you know hate crime law, for those criminals who single out those of us WITH homes and home invade us or rob us at gunpoint just because they want what is in our homes ?

 

[Noomi]

oh please...

crime is crime and should ALL be punished the same.


What it is saying.... i am not part of some special interest group...and if i get the shit beat out of me... I am not worth as much and the perp should not be punished as badly...

There is a difference between bashing up some random person, and targeting a person because they are black. Searching out a black person, or a gay person with the intention of beating them up is a worse crime.

Not all rapes are treated equally, because some are worse than others. Likewise, some assaults are worse than others.

there is NO difference....

crime is crime.

There is a difference.

Case one: John hits Jack while drunk, because he believes that Jack is sleeping with his wife. Jack falls back and splits his head open.

Case two: Mark hates blacks, and sets out one night with the intention of assaulting a black person. He finds Bill, and shoves him. Bill falls down, hits his head on the curb, and splits his head open.

One of the above cases is worse than the other.

Case three: Mary invites Craig back home with the intention of sleeping with him. Halfway through, she changes her mind, but Craig continues, even though Mary is struggling against him.

Case four: Lucy is walking home from a bar one night, when she is attacked by Martin, who has been waiting in the bushes for a lone woman to pass by.

Again, one of those cases is worse than the other.

 

[occupied]

I know being a lib your a little slow, but what do you think a criminal deserving the same fate as the victim is some how giving them a pass. You set someone on fire, you get set on fire, sounds fair to me.

That is a little harsher than the law at the moment, making laws to cover what constitutes aggravating circumstances is a step closer to your biblical eye for an eye solution.

If that was an apology to the bold area above I think you need to try harder.

As for being harsh, bet your ass, there are certain crimes on persons that should carry specially harsh punishment. Those that will at a minimum cause a person to be permanently disfigured is one class that I would have no limitations on, such as fire, acid or amputation. If they are big enough to do the crime, then they can accept the punishment.

You want an apology? I am sorry you got personally offended on a message board, grow a thicker skin or better yet, quit acting the stereotype of a rage filled conservative hater.

 

[occupied]

I have no problem with the use of mitigating circumstances and the variances the existing laws allow depending on the events surrounding the crime. I do however oppose anything that is special law as in "hate crime" legislation for subsets of society.

Are those B&E home invasion criminals who single out people with homes in a premeditated manner also committing a hate crime?

It all has to do with proof, if they can prove someone invaded your home because you were gay or whatever they can be charged with such. As it is even in states that have such laws on the books it is not charged except in some pretty clear cut cases. Turns out there have not been that many people charged with hate crimes, most of them have been cases of vandalism or arson where some jackass painted swastikas on synagogues or burned black churches and such.

What? Gay people have special laws too? Wth.

No, no, no, you are not following me. You support crimes that single out the homeless to have special laws called "hate crimes" when someone brings harm to them, correct? Simply because they are homeless, right?

So how about some "special law", you know hate crime law, for those criminals who single out those of us WITH homes and home invade us or rob us at gunpoint just because they want what is in our homes ?

Did you not read my post at all? Hate crime laws are not stand alone laws but a means to add aggravating circumstances to a basic charge of assault, vandalism or arson due to premeditation and are pretty hard to prove except in the most clear cut cases where practically anyone would agree the criminal in question needs to be locked up longer than the law makes provision for.

 

[Dreamy]

It all has to do with proof, if they can prove someone invaded your home because you were gay or whatever they can be charged with such. As it is even in states that have such laws on the books it is not charged except in some pretty clear cut cases. Turns out there have not been that many people charged with hate crimes, most of them have been cases of vandalism or arson where some jackass painted swastikas on synagogues or burned black churches and such.

What? Gay people have special laws too? Wth.

No, no, no, you are not following me. You support crimes that single out the homeless to have special laws called "hate crimes" when someone brings harm to them, correct? Simply because they are homeless, right?

So how about some "special law", you know hate crime law, for those criminals who single out those of us WITH homes and home invade us or rob us at gunpoint just because they want what is in our homes ?

Did you not read my post at all? Hate crime laws are not stand alone laws but a means to add aggravating circumstances to a basic charge of assault, vandalism or arson due to premeditation and are pretty hard to prove except in the most clear cut cases where practically anyone would agree the criminal in question needs to be locked up longer than the law makes provision for.

I did read it. They are indeed stand alone laws at times. Hate crime legislation is by its very nature Orwellian. It sets up thought-control regulations which set up different levels of punishment for a given crime all depending on what someone might have been thinking when a crime was committed as well as depending on who the victim is,.

 

[occupied]

What? Gay people have special laws too? Wth.

No, no, no, you are not following me. You support crimes that single out the homeless to have special laws called "hate crimes" when someone brings harm to them, correct? Simply because they are homeless, right?

So how about some "special law", you know hate crime law, for those criminals who single out those of us WITH homes and home invade us or rob us at gunpoint just because they want what is in our homes ?

Did you not read my post at all? Hate crime laws are not stand alone laws but a means to add aggravating circumstances to a basic charge of assault, vandalism or arson due to premeditation and are pretty hard to prove except in the most clear cut cases where practically anyone would agree the criminal in question needs to be locked up longer than the law makes provision for.

I did read it. They are indeed stand alone laws at times. Hate crime legislation is by its very nature Orwellian. It sets up thought-control regulations which set up different levels of punishment for a given crime all depending on what someone might have been thinking when a crime was committed as well as depending on who the victim is,.

You are just flat wrong there, you cannot simply be charged with hating someone and you can't prove what someone was thinking in a court of law, premeditation has to provable by evidence no matter the crime, if someone gets the gas can that is usually in garage and puts it in their car and then uses it to douse a person or property and set them fire, that's provable premeditation. Procuring a weapon before using it on someone, laying in wait, stalking a victim, those are the sort of things that trigger hate crime penalties. There is no law against any sick thought only sick actions.

 

[Glensather]

^I would be totally ignoring those hate laws about calling a fat person fat. How about they also make it a crime to call a skinny person skinny?

Because obese people are special?

 

[OKTexas]

That is a little harsher than the law at the moment, making laws to cover what constitutes aggravating circumstances is a step closer to your biblical eye for an eye solution.

If that was an apology to the bold area above I think you need to try harder.

As for being harsh, bet your ass, there are certain crimes on persons that should carry specially harsh punishment. Those that will at a minimum cause a person to be permanently disfigured is one class that I would have no limitations on, such as fire, acid or amputation. If they are big enough to do the crime, then they can accept the punishment.

You want an apology? I am sorry you got personally offended on a message board, grow a thicker skin or better yet, quit acting the stereotype of a rage filled conservative hater.

What is this: "You probably see it as industrious young conservatives preforming a public service." You being the sterotypical libtard commiecrat hater?

If you look on this board you libs use the word "hate" far more than anyone, it's a propaganda tool and you folks love it. Yet your the least tollerant people on earth. FOAD asshat.

 

[MikeK]

I don't agree with the designation "hate crimes". Adding the homeless to the list just confirms, to me, the ridiculousness of it.

I agree. "Hate crime" is a stupid term. But the punishment for something as cruel as picking on someone who is homeless and vulnerable should be sufficiently severe as to deter such cowardly behavior.

 

[syrenn]

There is a difference between bashing up some random person, and targeting a person because they are black. Searching out a black person, or a gay person with the intention of beating them up is a worse crime.

Not all rapes are treated equally, because some are worse than others. Likewise, some assaults are worse than others.

there is NO difference....

crime is crime.

There is a difference.

Case one: John hits Jack while drunk, because he believes that Jack is sleeping with his wife. Jack falls back and splits his head open.

Case two: Mark hates blacks, and sets out one night with the intention of assaulting a black person. He finds Bill, and shoves him. Bill falls down, hits his head on the curb, and splits his head open.

One of the above cases is worse than the other.

Case three: Mary invites Craig back home with the intention of sleeping with him. Halfway through, she changes her mind, but Craig continues, even though Mary is struggling against him.

Case four: Lucy is walking home from a bar one night, when she is attacked by Martin, who has been waiting in the bushes for a lone woman to pass by.

Again, one of those cases is worse than the other.

no... they are exactly the same...assault is assault... rape is rape.. violence is violence... crime is crime.


punishment should be exactly the same for the same crime......

 

[syrenn]

I don't agree with the designation "hate crimes". Adding the homeless to the list just confirms, to me, the ridiculousness of it.

I agree. "Hate crime" is a stupid term. But the punishment for something as cruel as picking on someone who is homeless and vulnerable should be sufficiently severe as to deter such cowardly behavior.

how is assaulting a homeless person.....any different then if you or i are assaulted?


the punishment SHOULD be sufficiently sever and equal for ALL criminals to deter criminal behavior.