Murder as Sport

[Kat]

I do now. But that should not prevent you from arguing this issue. How about responding to my post here and addressing the argument involved?

I can't without it being personal, and you know that. I bow out!

Well, I never intended to make anything personal - but I understand.

I know you didn't. It slipped you.

BTW I did edit my previous post.

 

[westwall]

It is a corrupt mind that can accept a white person killing a black person is a grater crime that a white killing a white or any other combination of race in crime. We need to move AWAY from race playing ANY factor in law whatsoever. Law is supposed to be colorblind and legislation like this simply moves the focus BACK on color where it should have never been in the first place. A prime example is your own post. The FIRST thing you were interested in was what race they were! That should never play a role in the courtroom.

A white killing a black is no greater crime than a white killing a white, PROVIDED, the killing is not racially motivated. Once the crime becomes racially motivated, however, the race of the killer and the race of the victim are irrelevant - it is a hate crime and should be punished more harshly than a non-racially motivated crime.

I guess you don't see racially motivated crimes as worse than non-racially motivated crimes. Seems to me THAT is evidence of the "corrupt mind" you are referencing in your opening remark.

The dead could care less if their murder was due to hatred, get real.

 

[George Costanza]

I can't without it being personal, and you know that. I bow out!

Well, I never intended to make anything personal - but I understand.

I know you didn't. It slipped you.

BTW I did edit my previous post.

I saw the edit and almost responded. I will now . . .

You have to understand the fundamental principle behind hate crime legislation. It's very simple: racially motivated crimes are more culpable than crimes committed for non racially motivated reasons. Do you agree with that statement? If not, then I can understand your (and others) opposition to hate crime legislation.

But that's the reason for hate crime legislation. Hate crimes are deemed to be worse than "regular" crimes, and the increased punishment is designed to reduce them or stamp them out entirely which, of course, will never happen.

Remember - hate crime legislation is racially neutral. All it does is give added punishment for racially motivated crimes, regardless of the respective races of perp and victim.

Just answer me this: what is the difference between hate crime legislation and harsher punishment for first degree murder as opposed to second degree murder?

 

[westwall]

Actually, I have to revise my original "no" answer to the question of whether rape of a woman is a hate crime. Many hate crime statutes (California included) include gender as one of the protected classes, along with race, sexual orientation, etc.

That being the case, it could be argued that rape of a woman is a hate crime by definition. The only problem with that is, that virtually all rapes involve a man raping a woman. Since that would seem almost (but not quite) to be an element of the crime, then adding punishment for the fact that it is a man raping a woman would be superfluous. I know that, in actual practice, you will never see a hate crime charge filed along with a rape charge.

But the answer is not all that simple. Here, take a look at this:

Is Rape a Hate Crime? | Teaching Tolerance

It does appear that raising the issue of whether or not rape of a woman can be classified as a hate crime, is one of the major talking points suggested to conservatives who are opposed to hate crime legislation. Just sayin' . . .

I would guess that most any violent crime is done out of hatred, not love. Why not prosecute as such, and not try and legislate anything as a ''hate crime''?

This point alone exposes hate crime for the fallacy it is.

 

[George Costanza]

It is a corrupt mind that can accept a white person killing a black person is a grater crime that a white killing a white or any other combination of race in crime. We need to move AWAY from race playing ANY factor in law whatsoever. Law is supposed to be colorblind and legislation like this simply moves the focus BACK on color where it should have never been in the first place. A prime example is your own post. The FIRST thing you were interested in was what race they were! That should never play a role in the courtroom.

A white killing a black is no greater crime than a white killing a white, PROVIDED, the killing is not racially motivated. Once the crime becomes racially motivated, however, the race of the killer and the race of the victim are irrelevant - it is a hate crime and should be punished more harshly than a non-racially motivated crime.

I guess you don't see racially motivated crimes as worse than non-racially motivated crimes. Seems to me THAT is evidence of the "corrupt mind" you are referencing in your opening remark.

The dead could care less if their murder was due to hatred, get real.

A victim of first degree murder is just as dead as a victim of manslaughter. Yet the first degree murderer may get the death penalty; the manslaughter defendant as little as three years in prison.

Your thoughts on that one?

 

[westwall]

Well, I never intended to make anything personal - but I understand.

I know you didn't. It slipped you.

BTW I did edit my previous post.

I saw the edit and almost responded. I will now . . .

You have to understand the fundamental principle behind hate crime legislation. It's very simple: racially motivated crimes are more culpable than crimes committed for non racially motivated reasons. Do you agree with that statement? If not, then I can understand your (and others) opposition to hate crime legislation.

But that's the reason for hate crime legislation. Hate crimes are deemed to be worse than "regular" crimes, and the increased punishment is designed to reduce them or stamp them out entirely which, of course, will never happen.

Remember - hate crime legislation is racially neutral. All it does is give added punishment for racially motivated crimes, regardless of the respective races of perp and victim.

Just answer me this: what is the difference between hate crime legislation and harsher punishment for first degree murder as opposed to second degree murder?

No, it's not. Please show us a single instance when a non caucasian has been charged with a hate crime when it was committed against a caucasian. The DOJ reports show the black on white crime is orders of magnitude greater then the other way round.

 

[westwall]

A white killing a black is no greater crime than a white killing a white, PROVIDED, the killing is not racially motivated. Once the crime becomes racially motivated, however, the race of the killer and the race of the victim are irrelevant - it is a hate crime and should be punished more harshly than a non-racially motivated crime.

I guess you don't see racially motivated crimes as worse than non-racially motivated crimes. Seems to me THAT is evidence of the "corrupt mind" you are referencing in your opening remark.

The dead could care less if their murder was due to hatred, get real.

A victim of first degree murder is just as dead as a victim of manslaughter. Yet the first degree murderer may get the death penalty; the manslaughter defendant as little as three years in prison.

Your thoughts on that one?

Probably the simple fact that for murder to be charged intent and malice are required. I thought you were a lawyer.

 

[Kat]

Well, I never intended to make anything personal - but I understand.

I know you didn't. It slipped you.

BTW I did edit my previous post.

I saw the edit and almost responded. I will now . . .

You have to understand the fundamental principle behind hate crime legislation. It's very simple: racially motivated crimes are more culpable than crimes committed for non racially motivated reasons. Do you agree with that statement? If not, then I can understand your (and others) opposition to hate crime legislation.

But that's the reason for hate crime legislation. Hate crimes are deemed to be worse than "regular" crimes, and the increased punishment is designed to reduce them or stamp them out entirely which, of course, will never happen.

Remember - hate crime legislation is racially neutral. All it does is give added punishment for racially motivated crimes, regardless of the respective races of perp and victim.

Just answer me this: what is the difference between hate crime legislation and harsher punishment for first degree murder as opposed to second degree murder?

Crime is crime. We already have degrees of different crimes, and different punishments.
Who decides if is was racially motivated? How do you actually prove it? Hearsay?
I think you might use is as a cop out in court, but that doesn't prove a thing.
As was said above, by another poster...if a person is dead, they are dead. What flipping good would it do to sit in court and try and prove the murder was committed due to anyone's race..etc.

Next you will want it to be a hate crime for a crime committed against someone due to hair color, or eye color.

''Kat is murdered. She is blond...so she was murdered b/c the person hated blonds.'' GMAB.

 

[Tank]

Liberal Supremist:

A person who sees people as victims because of their race.

 

[George Costanza]

The dead could care less if their murder was due to hatred, get real.

A victim of first degree murder is just as dead as a victim of manslaughter. Yet the first degree murderer may get the death penalty; the manslaughter defendant as little as three years in prison.

Your thoughts on that one?

Probably the simple fact that for murder to be charged intent and malice are required. I thought you were a lawyer.

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?

 

[George Costanza]

I know you didn't. It slipped you.

BTW I did edit my previous post.

I saw the edit and almost responded. I will now . . .

You have to understand the fundamental principle behind hate crime legislation. It's very simple: racially motivated crimes are more culpable than crimes committed for non racially motivated reasons. Do you agree with that statement? If not, then I can understand your (and others) opposition to hate crime legislation.

But that's the reason for hate crime legislation. Hate crimes are deemed to be worse than "regular" crimes, and the increased punishment is designed to reduce them or stamp them out entirely which, of course, will never happen.

Remember - hate crime legislation is racially neutral. All it does is give added punishment for racially motivated crimes, regardless of the respective races of perp and victim.

Just answer me this: what is the difference between hate crime legislation and harsher punishment for first degree murder as opposed to second degree murder?

Crime is crime. We already have degrees of different crimes, and different punishments.
Who decides if is was racially motivated? How do you actually prove it? Hearsay?
I think you might use is as a cop out in court, but that doesn't prove a thing.
As was said above, by another poster...if a person is dead, they are dead. What flipping good would it do to sit in court and try and prove the murder was committed due to anyone's race..etc.

Next you will want it to be a hate crime for a crime committed against someone due to hair color, or eye color.

''Kat is murdered. She is blond...so she was murdered b/c the person hated blonds.'' GMAB.

I have to go to bed! How do you prove it? Usually by the fact that the perps are screaming racial slurs as they beat the victim to the ground. Those are typically the cases that get filed as hate crimes. Any problem with that?

Good night, sweetheart.

 

[Kat]

A victim of first degree murder is just as dead as a victim of manslaughter. Yet the first degree murderer may get the death penalty; the manslaughter defendant as little as three years in prison.

Your thoughts on that one?

Probably the simple fact that for murder to be charged intent and malice are required. I thought you were a lawyer.

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.

 

[Kat]

I saw the edit and almost responded. I will now . . .

You have to understand the fundamental principle behind hate crime legislation. It's very simple: racially motivated crimes are more culpable than crimes committed for non racially motivated reasons. Do you agree with that statement? If not, then I can understand your (and others) opposition to hate crime legislation.

But that's the reason for hate crime legislation. Hate crimes are deemed to be worse than "regular" crimes, and the increased punishment is designed to reduce them or stamp them out entirely which, of course, will never happen.

Remember - hate crime legislation is racially neutral. All it does is give added punishment for racially motivated crimes, regardless of the respective races of perp and victim.

Just answer me this: what is the difference between hate crime legislation and harsher punishment for first degree murder as opposed to second degree murder?

Crime is crime. We already have degrees of different crimes, and different punishments.
Who decides if is was racially motivated? How do you actually prove it? Hearsay?
I think you might use is as a cop out in court, but that doesn't prove a thing.
As was said above, by another poster...if a person is dead, they are dead. What flipping good would it do to sit in court and try and prove the murder was committed due to anyone's race..etc.

Next you will want it to be a hate crime for a crime committed against someone due to hair color, or eye color.

''Kat is murdered. She is blond...so she was murdered b/c the person hated blonds.'' GMAB.

I have to go to bed! How do you prove it? Usually by the fact that the perps are screaming racial slurs as they beat the victim to the ground. Those are typically the cases that get filed as hate crimes. Any problem with that?

Good night, sweetheart.

So if a black person is yelling racial slurs against another black person (or white on white) as they are murdering them, it is racial? Gotcha. Niters GC.

 

[westwall]

A victim of first degree murder is just as dead as a victim of manslaughter. Yet the first degree murderer may get the death penalty; the manslaughter defendant as little as three years in prison.

Your thoughts on that one?

Probably the simple fact that for murder to be charged intent and malice are required. I thought you were a lawyer.

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?

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.

 

[westwall]

Crime is crime. We already have degrees of different crimes, and different punishments.
Who decides if is was racially motivated? How do you actually prove it? Hearsay?
I think you might use is as a cop out in court, but that doesn't prove a thing.
As was said above, by another poster...if a person is dead, they are dead. What flipping good would it do to sit in court and try and prove the murder was committed due to anyone's race..etc.

Next you will want it to be a hate crime for a crime committed against someone due to hair color, or eye color.

''Kat is murdered. She is blond...so she was murdered b/c the person hated blonds.'' GMAB.

I have to go to bed! How do you prove it? Usually by the fact that the perps are screaming racial slurs as they beat the victim to the ground. Those are typically the cases that get filed as hate crimes. Any problem with that?

Good night, sweetheart.

So if a black person is yelling racial slurs against another black person (or white on white) as they are murdering them, it is racial? Gotcha. Niters GC.

Bam! And it's out of the park!

 

[Tank]

A white man attacks a black man for being a black panther.

A black man attacks a white man for being in the KKK.

Equal?

 

[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.

 

[George Costanza]

Probably the simple fact that for murder to be charged intent and malice are required. I thought you were a lawyer.

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?

 

[George Costanza]

A white man attacks a black man for being a black panther.

A black man attacks a white man for being in the KKK.

Equal?

Both are hate crimes.

 

[George Costanza]

I have to go to bed! How do you prove it? Usually by the fact that the perps are screaming racial slurs as they beat the victim to the ground. Those are typically the cases that get filed as hate crimes. Any problem with that?

Good night, sweetheart.

So if a black person is yelling racial slurs against another black person (or white on white) as they are murdering them, it is racial? Gotcha. Niters GC.

Bam! And it's out of the park!

But curving . . . . FOUL. Count remains 0 and 2.