white persons fee

And once again, the genius makes stuff up that he wishes were said...

*yawn*

go bother someone who'll play with you.

So you have not defended the racist remarks of Wright and the fact that Obama has claimed that after 20 years of a close personal and professional relationship he never knew Wright thought that way?
 
And she runs away again......................



Guess the truth is still a little too tough for Willy Jilly
 
I'm sorry it makes you sad that I don't play with people who can't debate.

So sorry. No matter how many times you ask... it's just not happening.:eusa_hand:

The one not debating is YOU. You want to make statements and then pretend you do not have to back them up. THAT is your position. When faced with a debate you run away. But then I understand why, given the minimal ability you have in that field.
 
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/p...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

For all you fools who say they never prosicute hate crimes against black people.

You're right about one thing. Anyone that complains about hate crimes on the grounds that they're not prosecuted against blacks is certainly a fool. The wise person recognizes that the real folly of hate crime legislation is that it goes beyond prosecuting the criminal act itself and actually criminalizes a human emotion. Anyone that doesn't see what a slippery slope hate crime legislation represents, is as big a fool as ever there was.
 
How exactly does it criminalize a human emotion? You can't arrest someone for their thoughts or even their words (for the most part). The legislation allows for leeway in the penalty if the perp is convicted of the crime. And there certainly has to be an actual crime committed.
 
How exactly does it criminalize a human emotion? You can't arrest someone for their thoughts or even their words (for the most part). The legislation allows for leeway in the penalty if the perp is convicted of the crime. And there certainly has to be an actual crime committed.

Quit being retarded. You know precisely how it criminalizes a human emotion.

The exact same criminal act can carry two different punishments depending upon whether a particular human emotion was present. How can any rational and intellectually honest person not conclude that this is the criminalization of the emotion in question? The fact that the emotion must be combined with the act before it's criminalized, doesn't change the fact that an emotion is being criminalized.
 
The one not debating is YOU. You want to make statements and then pretend you do not have to back them up. THAT is your position. When faced with a debate you run away. But then I understand why, given the minimal ability you have in that field.

It's useless. They won't admit that it's racist if a white OR a black person does it, nor will they admit they're racist if they make a distinction between what is acceptable (and ultimately, legal) behavior for whites and blacks.
 
Quit being retarded. You know precisely how it criminalizes a human emotion.

The exact same criminal act can carry two different punishments depending upon whether a particular human emotion was present. How can any rational and intellectually honest person not conclude that this is the criminalization of the emotion in question? The fact that the emotion must be combined with the act before it's criminalized, doesn't change the fact that an emotion is being criminalized.

Do you also object to different punishment for different types of murder? If not, why not?

The emotion isn't criminalized. It is simply used as a mitigating factor in sentencing. And many, many crimes can carry different punishments for many, many reasons. There are almost always mitigating factors to take into account.
 
Do you also object to different punishment for different types of murder? If not, why not?

No. But we're talking about the EXACT same criminal act. Not two different types, so this question is not relevant.

And I have no problem with a judge considering all factors in a crime when determining an appropriate sentence. But I do have a problem with mandatory sentencing laws of any kind, especially one that is based on the alleged presense of a particular human emotion.
 
I don't understand why you think the intent for murder being weighed in a wrongful death charge is not the same as the intent for any crime being weighed. Intent is what is normally taken into account in either case.

Also, I'm pretty sure hate crimes carry no mandatory sentencing. In fact I remember reading of a suit brought because a judge ignored mandatory sentencing when he determined the intent...he sentenced a stiffer penalty.
 
Also, I'm pretty sure hate crimes carry no mandatory sentencing. In fact I remember reading of a suit brought because a judge ignored mandatory sentencing when he determined the intent...he sentenced a stiffer penalty.

I guess they're just symbolic then and this whole argument is moot. :doubt:
 
Like the second amendment?

I do understand your misgivings, I'm just not sure how valid they are. How do you feel about terrorism in general...the ultimate hate crime.
 
Like the second amendment?

I do understand your misgivings, I'm just not sure how valid they are. How do you feel about terrorism in general...the ultimate hate crime.

It's actually pretty simple. I believe criminal acts should be prosecuted. I also believe that judges should be allowed to exercise judgement in handing down sentences.
 
It's actually pretty simple. I believe criminal acts should be prosecuted. I also believe that judges should be allowed to exercise judgement in handing down sentences.

That's an answer? Like I said, you should be a politician.

btw, SCOTUS ruled in 2005 that federal judges don't have to stick to mandatory minimums.
 

Forum List

Back
Top