If four whites had tortured a black, every city in America would be burning

[MikeK]

Do you think that President Obama will come out and say that if he had a son it would look like one of these cowards?

That would make for an interesting discussion.

But this incident was by no means an outstanding example of insanely malicious violence against innocent Whites by psychopathic Blacks. Have a look at this:

The Wichita Massacre URL
New Nation News - Bloody Kansas - Wichita Wilding

It's another one that was never carried nationwide by the mainstream media.

 

[Roudy]

Tell that to your beloved lefties who squeal racism all the time. Personally I think there should be a hate crime.

Why?

Speaks to the motive, which effects the punishment. Just like an "aggravating factor" during sentencing, if the motive has to do with hatred or bigotry, the sentence should be harsher.

 

[Slade3200]

Tell that to your beloved lefties who squeal racism all the time. Personally I think there should be a hate crime.

Why?

Speaks to the motive, which effects the punishment. Just like an "aggravating factor" during sentencing, if the motive has to do with hatred or bigotry, the sentence should be harsher.

Wow, you actually have a liberal POV on something?! Kudos for admitting it

 

[MikeK]

Speaks to the motive, which effects the punishment. Just like an "aggravating factor" during sentencing, if the motive has to do with hatred or bigotry, the sentence should be harsher.

Hatred is an emotion. How does a prosecutor prove that a specific emotion precipitated or contributed to the substance of an action, such as a brutal crime?

In the Shakespearean drama, Othello, do you believe the Moor's killing of his beloved White Desdemona was a love crime or a hate crime? But whichever, how would you prove it?

Why is it necessary to assign hatred as a motivating factor? The nature of an offense should be sufficient to influence the severity of a sentence. The need to categorize various offenses by assigning an emotional quality to them is stupidly redundant.

 

[Roudy]

Tell that to your beloved lefties who squeal racism all the time. Personally I think there should be a hate crime.

Why?

Speaks to the motive, which effects the punishment. Just like an "aggravating factor" during sentencing, if the motive has to do with hatred or bigotry, the sentence should be harsher.

Wow, you actually have a liberal POV on something?! Kudos for admitting it

I don't care much for labels. I am an independent thinker. Remember that it's the republicans that fought slavery and bigotry first, the Democrats were the racists who have now shifted to race baiting and dividing Americans along economic, ethnic, and racial lines in order to create more voters for themselves.

 

[Roudy]

Speaks to the motive, which effects the punishment. Just like an "aggravating factor" during sentencing, if the motive has to do with hatred or bigotry, the sentence should be harsher.

Hatred is an emotion. How does a prosecutor prove that a specific emotion precipitated or contributed to the substance of an action, such as a brutal crime?

In the Shakespearean drama, Othello, do you believe the Moor's killing of his beloved White Desdemona was a love crime or a hate crime? But whichever, how would you prove it?

Why is it necessary to assign hatred as a motivating factor? The nature of an offense should be sufficient to influence the severity of a sentence. The need to categorize various offenses by assigning an emotional quality to them is stupidly redundant.

Wouldn't you say that killing someone just because of their race, religion, or skin color should carry a greater punishment than someone who who kills someone being out of anger or rage. It's pretty easy to prove a hate crime. Those four blacks were clearly torturing their victim because of his race and his political ideology. There was no other reason for it. Unfortunately for those kids, they're going to get the book thrown at them, just to make an example out of them.

 

[Slade3200]

Tell that to your beloved lefties who squeal racism all the time. Personally I think there should be a hate crime.

Why?

Speaks to the motive, which effects the punishment. Just like an "aggravating factor" during sentencing, if the motive has to do with hatred or bigotry, the sentence should be harsher.

Wow, you actually have a liberal POV on something?! Kudos for admitting it

I don't care much for labels. I am an independent thinker. Remember that it's the republicans that fought slavery and bigotry first, the Democrats were the racists who have now shifted to race baiting and dividing Americans along economic, ethnic, and racial lines in order to create more voters for themselves.

Republican and Democrat are political parties that have shifted positions throughout time. Liberal and Conservative are more accurate terms that reflect a point of view.

My personal opinion is that we are all better off with a healthy balance of both. Many, especially here, are hardliners on one side and like to demonize those on the other side. They sound like fools

 

[MikeK]

Wouldn't you say that killing someone just because of their race, religion, or skin color should carry a greater punishment than someone who who kills someone being out of anger or rage.

No. Why should premeditatedly killing or brutalizing someone because of his race, religion or sexual orientation be any different from killing him for his money or his sports team preference? In fact, killing someone for his/her money is a dual offense, as is raping and killing someone, which does present a pertinent reason for considering sentence severity.

It's pretty easy to prove a hate crime.

Again; hatred is an emotion -- a feeling. Unless one admits to experiencing a specific feeling, how do you go about proving he did? Everyone does not feel the same way about everything.

Those four blacks were clearly torturing their victim because of his race and his political ideology. There was no other reason for it. Unfortunately for those kids, they're going to get the book thrown at them, just to make an example out of them.

Yes. Those four Blacks tortured their victim because of his race and politics -- which reflects their political ideology and disposition toward Whites. But how do you prove they "hate" him? Is it possible they simply harbor contempt for him? So can we call it a contempt crime?

Bottom line: The very nature of their crime is heinous. It marks them as despicable persons, regardless of the race of their victims. So punish them as such. Throw the book at them and send them to the worst prison in the state. But don't set about to manipulate language to further complicate the already overly-convoluted language of our confusing legal process.

Base the degree of punishment on the perceptible nature of an offense, not on the presumption of some supposed feeling which cannot be positively affirmed.

Hatred is the emperor of human emotion and it does not necessarily motivate all acts of inhuman cruelty. Some people do terrible things to others because it's fun. As a boy, George W. Bush was fond of slipping firecrackers into frogs and lighting them. (See, Bush On The Couch, by Dr. Justin Frank) I'm sure he and his adolescent accomplice didn't do that for hours on end because they "hate" frogs. They simply enjoyed doing it.

 

[Roudy]

Wouldn't you say that killing someone just because of their race, religion, or skin color should carry a greater punishment than someone who who kills someone being out of anger or rage.

No. Why should premeditatedly killing or brutalizing someone because of his race, religion or sexual orientation be any different from killing him for his money or his sports team preference? In fact, killing someone for his/her money is a dual offense, as is raping and killing someone, which does present a pertinent reason for considering sentence severity.

It's pretty easy to prove a hate crime.

Again; hatred is an emotion -- a feeling. Unless one admits to experiencing a specific feeling, how do you go about proving he did? Everyone does not feel the same way about everything.

Those four blacks were clearly torturing their victim because of his race and his political ideology. There was no other reason for it. Unfortunately for those kids, they're going to get the book thrown at them, just to make an example out of them.

Yes. Those four Blacks tortured their victim because of his race and politics -- which reflects their political ideology and disposition toward Whites. But how do you prove they "hate" him? Is it possible they simply harbor contempt for him? So can we call it a contempt crime?

Bottom line: The very nature of their crime is heinous. It marks them as despicable persons, regardless of the race of their victims. So punish them as such. Throw the book at them and send them to the worst prison in the state. But don't set about to manipulate language to further complicate the already overly-convoluted language of our confusing legal process.

Base the degree of punishment on the perceptible nature of an offense, not on the presumption of some supposed feeling which cannot be positively affirmed.

Hatred is the emperor of human emotion and it does not necessarily motivate all acts of inhuman cruelty. Some people do terrible things to others because it's fun. As a boy, George W. Bush was fond of slipping firecrackers into frogs and lighting them. (See, Bush On The Couch, by Dr. Justin Frank) I'm sure he and his adolescent accomplice didn't do that for hours on end because they "hate" frogs. They simply enjoyed doing it.

Well I disagree. I think just like when you have aggravating circumstances which another crime or crimes are committed resulting in a murder, which can cause an automatic increase in the punishment and sentencing, so should a crime that is committed based on racism or bigotry.