Want To See A REAL Hate Crime?

[George Costanza]

So, if you believe the perp about his motivation, how come you don't believe them when they use the SODDI defense?

Ah, the logic of a liberal.

(Some other dude did it.)

PC - listen up. Pay attention now. When suspects are calling the victim a "fucking fag" as they attack him, the motivation of the attack is clear - any problem with that? When a defendant tells his attorney SODDI, there is no independent verification one way or the other to prove that this is true, other than the defendant's word. Big difference.

yes, because no one ever calls someone "fag" if they aren't actually gay

Apparently you have not been paying attention to many of the posts on this board over the years . . .

 

[George Costanza]

Time out. I have to go interview my new client . . .

Back soon.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Interesting question. I think the crime would have been complete, but you might have more trouble getting a prosecutor to file on it. Good quesiton.

thats why hate crime legislation is wrong
it matters not who the person was that was attacked
the punishment should be the same for the same crime

No, that is not why hate crime legislation is wrong. Hate crime legislation is not "wrong." It is a good thing, if it discourages hate crimes by punishing them more severely.

Look - homicides are divided up into various degrees and types of homicides. In each and every homicide, the victim is just as dead, yet the perp gets punished more, depending on how he killed the victim. Would you have just one punishment for a homicide, regardless of how it was implemented?

George, if someone is going to commit a crime, they are not going to be dissuaded by an extra 5 years or so tacked on to their sentence if they are caught.

I'm pretty sure that not getting caught at all is pretty much the idea.

And you do realize that by pursuing this course of reasoning, you are making the case for capital punishment. IE: That if the punishment is more severe the perpetrator will not commit the crime in the first place.

I'm against the death penalty. I do not believe that it is a deterrent. Same reasoning here in regards to the level of punishment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Point: since you couldn't read my mind, there is no reason to believe you can read anyone's mind.

"I" do not claim to be able to read anyone's mind. But a hate crime requires a certain motivation. Motivation is what is in someone's mind, and that is impossible to determine UNLESS the person says or does something as he is committing the crime, which makes his frame of mind (his motivation) apparent.

I would say that, in this case, that is pretty evident, wouldn't you?

1. Now, watch how easily I read your mind: I posed this suggestion-
"How about we make a hate crime any crime committed by a member of one racial, religious, ethnic group against a member of a different group?
Good idea?
Then we wouldn't have to claim to be mind readers.
You mean you wouldn't support that? "
Now, why would you ignore it? Shouldn't we read an "anti-Fill In Group" motivation into this?
You ignored it because it would not benefit one of the liberal preferred groups, those covered by affirmative action.

2. And the reason why particular groups are 'hate-crime authorized'?
They represent the voting constituency that keeps Democrats in power.

Whadda ya' think?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Touche. You are correct, sir - with regard to the logical fallacy. That does not, however, make my position incorrect.

George, at this point you don't have a point, other than hate crimes are bad.

You have not made your argument that they are worse than any other crime.

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

I think a crime is a crime is a crime.

An assault should be punished the same. Motivation does not enter into the equation for the purposes of punishment. A victim is not deader simply because the perpetrator didn't like gays or black people.

 

[DiveCon]

PC - listen up. Pay attention now. When suspects are calling the victim a "fucking fag" as they attack him, the motivation of the attack is clear - any problem with that? When a defendant tells his attorney SODDI, there is no independent verification one way or the other to prove that this is true, other than the defendant's word. Big difference.

yes, because no one ever calls someone "fag" if they aren't actually gay

Apparently you have not been paying attention to many of the posts on this board over the years . . .

turn on your sarcasm meter

 

[George Costanza]

Point: since you couldn't read my mind, there is no reason to believe you can read anyone's mind.

"I" do not claim to be able to read anyone's mind. But a hate crime requires a certain motivation. Motivation is what is in someone's mind, and that is impossible to determine UNLESS the person says or does something as he is committing the crime, which makes his frame of mind (his motivation) apparent.

I would say that, in this case, that is pretty evident, wouldn't you?

1. Now, watch how easily I read your mind: I posed this suggestion-
"How about we make a hate crime any crime committed by a member of one racial, religious, ethnic group against a member of a different group?
Good idea?
Then we wouldn't have to claim to be mind readers.
You mean you wouldn't support that? "
Now, why would you ignore it? Shouldn't we read an "anti-Fill In Group" motivation into this?
You ignored it because it would not benefit one of the liberal preferred groups, those covered by affirmative action.

2. And the reason why particular groups are 'hate-crime authorized'?
They represent the voting constituency that keeps Democrats in power.

Whadda ya' think?

First of all, this thread is moving so fast, I simply missed your post here. Let me address it before I go.

That's the way hate crime legislation IS worded. What do you think - that hate crime legislation is only directed toward one race, i.e., only white people will be punished if they commit a hate crime? Hate crime legislation is race neutral, both as to perps and victims. It does not mention any particular race or gender or sexual orientation. It merely provides for additional punishment when ANYONE commits a crime against ANYONE ELSE that is racially motivated.

As to your second assertion here, that is not the reason for hate crime legislation. You may perceive it as such, but that does not make it so.

 

[Intense]

What assault is not motivated by hate?


Hold it! Stop the Bar fight! First fill out this survey both of you! If the Lawyers, check off on you the delay will be fifteen minutes. There is a $50.00 processing fee of which the lawyers keep $49.00 and $1.00 will go to the Union of the protection of Left handed under privileged babies of all ages around the world. There is a $5.00 processing fee and a 45% Metro Activity tax added to the receipt.

 

[George Costanza]

George, at this point you don't have a point, other than hate crimes are bad.

You have not made your argument that they are worse than any other crime.

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

I think a crime is a crime is a crime.

An assault should be punished the same. Motivation does not enter into the equation for the purposes of punishment. A victim is not deader simply because the perpetrator didn't like gays or black people.

OK - I understand that view. I certainly do not agree with it, but I understand that it is your view. We have a basic disagreement here, wouldn't you say? So - how about those Giants, huh?

 

[George Costanza]

What assault is not motivated by hate?

None. All assaults are motivated by hate. But it is the assaults that are motivated by RACIAL hatred that are singled out for additional punishment.

You, um, aren't in FAVOR of racial assaults, are you . . . . ?

 

[ConHog]

So you are saying that the suspects in this case should NOT be punished more severely than anyone else who commits a "plain" assault on a victim? Sure sounds to me as if you are defending the animals in this case.

they should recieve the full punishment for the crime, regardless of WHO it was done to

equal justice under the law
if someone attacks me they should receive the same punishment

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

Justice is just as much about equal treatment of the victims as it is equal treatment of the perpetrators. At least it's supposed to be.

PS - We're not supposed to take motivation into consideration when determining guilt and sentencing. For example, there is no leeway in the law to not charge someone with theft if they stole because they are REALLY hungry. Nor does a person get time added to their sentence if they stole from a rich person b/c they hate the rich. This is affirmative action ran amuck.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

I think a crime is a crime is a crime.

An assault should be punished the same. Motivation does not enter into the equation for the purposes of punishment. A victim is not deader simply because the perpetrator didn't like gays or black people.

OK - I understand that view. I certainly do not agree with it, but I understand that it is your view. We have a basic disagreement here, wouldn't you say? So - how about those Giants, huh?

Well, I'm at a loss at how you disagree with the thought that a victim isn't deader because of the motivation of the perp.

The victim is deader?

 

[DiveCon]

What assault is not motivated by hate?


Hold it! Stop the Bar fight! First fill out this survey both of you! If the Lawyers, check off on you the delay will be fifteen minutes. There is a $50.00 processing fee of which the lawyers keep $49.00 and $1.00 will go to the Union of the protection of Left handed under privileged babies of all ages around the world. There is a $5.00 processing fee and a 45% Metro Activity tax added to the receipt.

i chuckled

 

[Intense]

they should recieve the full punishment for the crime, regardless of WHO it was done to

equal justice under the law
if someone attacks me they should receive the same punishment

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

Justice is just as much about equal treatment of the victims as it is equal treatment of the perpetrators. At least it's supposed to be.

PS - We're not supposed to take motivation into consideration when determining guilt and sentencing. For example, there is no leeway in the law to not charge someone with theft if they stole because they are REALLY hungry. Nor does a person get time added to their sentence if they stole from a rich person b/c they hate the rich. This is affirmative action ran amuck.

I have no problem with circumstance dictating or having a role in punishment at all, as long as it follows reason. One size does not fit all any more than protected privileged classes are fair to the whole.

 

[DiveCon]

What assault is not motivated by hate?

None. All assaults are motivated by hate. But it is the assaults that are motivated by RACIAL hatred that are singled out for additional punishment.

You, um, aren't in FAVOR of racial assaults, are you . . . . ?

i'm against ALL assaults
you dont think only racial assaults should be punished, do you?

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh from the title I thought this might be about Abu Grabass.

 

[Intense]

What really get's me is making excuses to let dangerous predators out of prison early, to walk our streets, and on the other hand claiming that the punishment is not hard enough because someone is offended by the reason someone was attacked as opposed to the lesser reason over there. Some how it makes the stitches hurt less? You think?

 

[Immanuel]

Hate crimes have been discussed here for a long time. Much of the discussion is unfocused and many of the opinions expressed based upon incomplete information. Want to see what a real hate crime looks like? I just took this case in. The arrest report contains the following:

"The victim is standing in the rear alley of his apartment talking to friends. The suspects are also in the alley, and begin yelling at the victim, calling him a 'fag' and a 'faggot.' The victim, who is gay, ignores the suspects. The suspects then approach the victim and begin hitting him with their closed fists in the face and head area. The victm falls to the ground, and the suspects begin kicking the victim in the head. While the suspects are hitting and kicking the victim, the suspects continue to call the victim a 'fag' and 'fucking faggot.' One of the suspects also states, 'you should die' and 'go back to Mexico." The suspects then search the victims pants pockets, and one of the suspects removes the victim's immigration papers from his pants pockets. The suspects then flee on foot, W/B through the alley and out of sight."

Note that here is no question here as to WHY the suspects were attacking and robbing the victim - they SAY SO throughout the attack and the robbery.

All right, hate crime apologists - have at it. Come on and defend these animals.

There is no defending the morons who committed these crimes. That being said, I do not believe they should be punished any more or any less than the person that commits the same without using the offensive language.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

I think a crime is a crime is a crime.

An assault should be punished the same. Motivation does not enter into the equation for the purposes of punishment. A victim is not deader simply because the perpetrator didn't like gays or black people.

OK - I understand that view. I certainly do not agree with it, but I understand that it is your view. We have a basic disagreement here, wouldn't you say? So - how about those Giants, huh?

Well, I'm at a loss at how you disagree with the thought that a victim isn't deader because of the motivation of the perp.

The victim is deader?

Dead, deader, deadest?

 

[Intense]

OK - I understand that view. I certainly do not agree with it, but I understand that it is your view. We have a basic disagreement here, wouldn't you say? So - how about those Giants, huh?

Well, I'm at a loss at how you disagree with the thought that a victim isn't deader because of the motivation of the perp.

The victim is deader?

Dead, deader, deadest?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GrYNaaYSjs&feature=related[/ame]