Hate crimes against "the homeless"

[MikeK]

The crime should determine the punishment.

Person A sets a homeless man on fire because he hates the homless, person B sets a banker on fire because he hates corporate America. How is person A deserving of a harsher punishment?

For the same reason crimes against children call for exceptional punishment. Children are exceptionally vulnerable. So are the homeless, most of whom are mentally deficient.

If a man assaults another man does he deserve the same level of punishment as the man who assaults a woman?

Etc.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I disagree, the first two are aggravated assult with bodly injury, the other two are rape. You punish actions, not thought.

 

[occupied]

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.

That did not offend me at all and I damned sure am not going to ask for something as meaningless as an apology. I get worse than anything I have ever said to you every day of the week from you guys and it never gets under my skin because I do not take things so personally, give me your worst and it rolls off my back like water off a duck. I have been accused of everything from world domination to treason to pedophilia from people like you for so long all I do is laugh at your foolishness.

 

[OKTexas]

The crime should determine the punishment.

Person A sets a homeless man on fire because he hates the homless, person B sets a banker on fire because he hates corporate America. How is person A deserving of a harsher punishment?

For the same reason crimes against children call for exceptional punishment. Children are exceptionally vulnerable. So are the homeless, most of whom are mentally deficient.

If a man assaults another man does he deserve the same level of punishment as the man who assaults a woman?

Etc.

Why, is one person more valuable than another? The Constitution requires EQUAL protection under the law, not special protection.

 

[AmyNation]

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."

N
....

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.

How is beating the shit out of a black man because he's black worse than beating the shit out of a man with glasses because you hate glasses?

 

[Si modo]

The crime should determine the punishment.

Person A sets a homeless man on fire because he hates the homless, person B sets a banker on fire because he hates corporate America. How is person A deserving of a harsher punishment?

For the same reason crimes against children call for exceptional punishment. Children are exceptionally vulnerable. So are the homeless, most of whom are mentally deficient.

If a man assaults another man does he deserve the same level of punishment as the man who assaults a woman?

Etc.

Absolutely. It's called "equal protection".


Here's a hint: 14

 

[Connery]

The crime should determine the punishment.

Person A sets a homeless man on fire because he hates the homless, person B sets a banker on fire because he hates corporate America. How is person A deserving of a harsher punishment?

For the same reason crimes against children call for exceptional punishment. Children are exceptionally vulnerable. So are the homeless, most of whom are mentally deficient.

If a man assaults another man does he deserve the same level of punishment as the man who assaults a woman?

Etc.

Why, is one person more valuable than another? The Constitution requires EQUAL protection under the law, not special protection.

The genesis of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was the "Black Codes" established after the Civil War and the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Indeed, the "Black Codes" were established in order to create the fiction that "one person was more valuable than another". Since then it has been illegal to discriminate again a person because of race in employment.

 

[Connery]

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.

How is beating the shit out of a black man because he's black worse than beating the shit out of a man with glasses because you hate glasses?

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc. is actionable, this does not just pertain to Black people. There has been a history in the US of discriminating again people because of the aforementioned. If people who wore glasses were discriminated against in the US in the same manner then that action would be viewed in the same manner as previously discussed.

 

[AmyNation]

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.

How is beating the shit out of a black man because he's black worse than beating the shit out of a man with glasses because you hate glasses?

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc. is actionable, this does not just pertain to Black people. There has been a history in the US of discriminating again people because of the aforementioned. If people who wore glasses were discriminated against in the US in the same manner then that action would be viewed in the same manner as previously discussed.

I understand the reasoning behind hate crime laws, just like I understand why affirmative action laws were started. However, it's not 1964 anymore.

 

[Connery]

How is beating the shit out of a black man because he's black worse than beating the shit out of a man with glasses because you hate glasses?

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc. is actionable, this does not just pertain to Black people. There has been a history in the US of discriminating again people because of the aforementioned. If people who wore glasses were discriminated against in the US in the same manner then that action would be viewed in the same manner as previously discussed.

I understand the reasoning behind hate crime laws, just like I understand why affirmative action laws were started. However, it's not 1964 anymore.

No it is not, but, there still seems to be the same issues regarding "hate" crimes, the players are different but the hate is still the same.

Do you think if these laws regarding "hate" crimes were repealed there would be no crime based on "hate"?

 

[AmyNation]

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc. is actionable, this does not just pertain to Black people. There has been a history in the US of discriminating again people because of the aforementioned. If people who wore glasses were discriminated against in the US in the same manner then that action would be viewed in the same manner as previously discussed.

I understand the reasoning behind hate crime laws, just like I understand why affirmative action laws were started. However, it's not 1964 anymore.

No it is not, but, there still seems to be the same issues regarding "hate" crimes, the players are different but the hate is still the same.

Do you think if these laws regarding "hate" crimes were repealed there would be no crime based on "hate"?

No, I dont think eliminating hate crime laws eliminates hate.

Do you think making more hate crime laws with reduce hate?

 

[Dreamy]

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.

How is beating the shit out of a black man because he's black worse than beating the shit out of a man with glasses because you hate glasses?

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc. is actionable, this does not just pertain to Black people. There has been a history in the US of discriminating again people because of the aforementioned. If people who wore glasses were discriminated against in the US in the same manner then that action would be viewed in the same manner as previously discussed.

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc

Connery it is the etc... that troubles me. Which subsets of society get to be covered or included under the "hate crime" laws? Who decides? During the commission of a felony it is not always clear as to why someone assaulted another and I despise anything getting close to thought police.

 

[AmyNation]

It is a form of punishing thought.

 

[occupied]

It is a form of punishing thought.

While it is not actually punishing thought, I do not have a lot of respect for any thought process that leads to firebombing churches, vandalizing property and thrillkilling the homeless.

 

[syrenn]

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc. is actionable, this does not just pertain to Black people. There has been a history in the US of discriminating again people because of the aforementioned. If people who wore glasses were discriminated against in the US in the same manner then that action would be viewed in the same manner as previously discussed.

I understand the reasoning behind hate crime laws, just like I understand why affirmative action laws were started. However, it's not 1964 anymore.

No it is not, but, there still seems to be the same issues regarding "hate" crimes, the players are different but the hate is still the same.

Do you think if these laws regarding "hate" crimes were repealed there would be no crime based on "hate"?

hate is a thought and feeling.

crime is crime.

 

[AmyNation]

It is a form of punishing thought.

While it is not actually punishing thought, I do not have a lot of respect for any thought process that leads to firebombing churches, vandalizing property and thrillkilling the homeless.

No one is defending crime.

I am not suggesting that someone who sets a homeless man on fire go free. Only that he receive the same punishment as the man who sets a banker on fire.

 

[Mustang]

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

What could possibly more American than attacking the weakest members of society?

 

[occupied]

It is a form of punishing thought.

While it is not actually punishing thought, I do not have a lot of respect for any thought process that leads to firebombing churches, vandalizing property and thrillkilling the homeless.

No one is defending crime.

I am not suggesting that someone who sets a homeless man on fire go free. Only that he receive the same punishment as the man who sets a banker on fire.

Yeah, that's what this is, if a homeowner gets attacked on his property there are a host of laws that can be used to up the penalties, trespassing, armed invasion, B+E, etc. Not so for a guy sleeping in an alley.

 

[Connery]

I understand the reasoning behind hate crime laws, just like I understand why affirmative action laws were started. However, it's not 1964 anymore.

No it is not, but, there still seems to be the same issues regarding "hate" crimes, the players are different but the hate is still the same.

Do you think if these laws regarding "hate" crimes were repealed there would be no crime based on "hate"?

No, I dont think eliminating hate crime laws eliminates hate.

Do you think making more hate crime laws with reduce hate?

It makes the penalty for the crime committed based on hate more severe. Hate cannot be legislated away only the unlawful exhibition of that hatred.

 

[AmyNation]

While it is not actually punishing thought, I do not have a lot of respect for any thought process that leads to firebombing churches, vandalizing property and thrillkilling the homeless.

No one is defending crime.

I am not suggesting that someone who sets a homeless man on fire go free. Only that he receive the same punishment as the man who sets a banker on fire.

Yeah, that's what this is, if a homeowner gets attacked on his property there are a host of laws that can be used to up the penalties, trespassing, armed invasion, B+E, etc. Not so for a guy sleeping in an alley.

Those are separate crimes.

If you feel the punishments for setting someone on fire are too lenient, that's one thing. However I don't agree the solution to that is to punish people based on how they feel about the victim.