Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
If we decide that motive is important enough to create a difference in scale between killing with a premeditated motive, and say, killing out of passion (the end result being the same), then can;t we then differentiate between motives as well?

Motive isn't the sole element in making that determination.

If you stab someone 400 times, skin what's left and mount it on your living room wall, and preserve the internal organs in your refrigerator, you're going to have a much tougher time selling the jury on a reduced offense, regardless of the crime of passion argument.

The other issue is that the intent of allowing motive to be part of the elements of lesser offenses isn't to make punishment harsher than it would be otherwise, it's to recognize that certain circumstances are mitigating, and thus a just result is to convict on the lesser offense.

Crime of passion example - woman finds out husband has been cheating, and embezzled from family business they both owned to pay for gifts for bimbo and put money into her account, such that the her and husband's business goes BK, but he doesn't care, he was going to dump her and shack up with piece of fluff - she goes ballistic, freaks out, and goes straightaway to kill his ass, with no delay, and no real effort to cover her tracks.

Same situation, but this time, the woman sets up an out of town trip for herself and hires a hitman to do the dirty work. One is a temporary loss of self-control under highly unusual circumstances, the other is a clearly planned out course of events.

It's a much greater difference in thought process than "I'm going to waste this queer for hitting on me" than "I'm going to waste this loser ******* because he doesn't have enough money for me to steal to get high on" One is rationality vs. lack of rationality, the other is callous disregard due to bigotry, vs. callous disregard period.

[Az]

GePap: Believe me, I think a lot before changing an avatar. The decision to change it is completely spontaneous, but the process of choosing it is painstaking. One of my best avatars ever was Yasser Arafat. He might just do a comeback one of those days.

[GePap]

MtG: the the kids lawyer should argue that his attack was a crime of passion and not bigotry. Juries can decide, you know, if you give them an argument.

[Japher]

It's a much greater difference in thought process than "I'm going to waste this queer for hitting on me" than "I'm going to waste this loser ******* because he doesn't have enough money for me to steal to get high on" One is rationality vs. lack of rationality, the other is callous disregard due to bigotry, vs. callous disregard period.

So, do you think they should both get the same punishment?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Of course the lawyer always argues that. They tried it in the Shepard case, but the jury really didn't buy that the crime of passion went as far as kidnapping and torture, then tying the victim out overnight when he clearly critically needed medical assistance. Had the kid just punched Shepard's lights out and kicked him in the balls right in the parking lot, he probably would have walked, or gotten a minimal sentence for misdemeanor battery.

I'm talking about what the law determines as far as sentencing options - does a "hate crime" element increase the sentence in a violent crime in and of itself? Or is it the degree of violence inflicted that should be the driving factor?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher


So, do you think they should both get the same punishment?

In the example with the woman and cheating/embezzling husband, the spontaneous killing fits perfectly with the notion of manslaughter, the contract killing after setting up an alibi is clearly a first degree murder.

In the second case, regardless of motivation, the elements of kidnap, torture, and leaving the guy tied up and dying warrant the death penalty, or life without parole if the jury are weenies.

[Japher]

I agree.

does a "hate crime" element increase the sentence in a violent crime in and of itself?

Yes (see below)

Or is it the degree of violence inflicted that should be the driving factor?

In a sense all "hate crimes" already have the sense of motive involved to a degree that would register it as murder. The degree of violence I think is relevent, but not just in hate crimes. The degree of violence, however, is ussually just an indication of the fact that it was premeditative.

I now don't think there should be a "hate crime" staute more so a better defining line across the board between violent and sickenly violent crimes (maybe there is, but I don't know).

A. Say a guy goes out with the intention of killing someone... So, he goes out, finds that someone, and shots them in the head.

B. Same guy goes out and pulls a Reservoir Dogs/Mr. Pink thing on the guy.

I think case B is warrent of a harsher punishment then case A. However, in my sick head, I think the both oughta get the death penalty.

[Az]

Ahem, Please, let's get back to topic? And the topic here is not hate crimes, their definition, validity, etc.

[Shi Huangdi]

I sent blackice a PM linking to this, lets see if he can't be summoned...

[Japher]

What's the topic then? Your avatar?

[Az]

The topic is the "feminism" debate thingee that merrily went on before you guys got sidetracked in this stupid technicality that is hate crime laws. A technicality that doesn't even apply worldwide.

[Japher]

oh yeah, women... sorry.

I think I might of said all I wanted to on that.

[Japher]

I went and look in the census records

Here for 1997 and here for 1994

Some amazing stuff:

In 1994 women owned 15.9% of the buisnesses (non-ag I think).
men owned 62%
the rest was co-owned by both men and women.

In 1997 women owned 26% of the buisnesses.
Men owned 55%
the rest was co-owned

What else was shocking was what the womens buisnesses where in! They generally owned service, retail, or finance/incurance/real estate buisnesses. I couldn't find what the men generally owned buisnesses in. Yet, construction accounted for a large majority of all buisness and women generally didn't own them...

Read into it as you want. Yet 26% is high especially with another 19% be co-owned thats 45% of all buisnesses be owned, in part or in full, by a women!

and that was 1997, bet it grew since then...

[Japher]

Is that a 2:1 for men to women?

I think that is pretty good. Especially when I see all those soccer mom's driving around in their SUVs chatting on their cells with that giant rock on their finger...

[johncmcleod]

oops - hit edit instead of reply with quote MtG

originally posted by: Imran Siddiqui:
You're NUTS! As Lorizael said, feminism is just the idea that women are people too! MOST (as in 90%) of feminists simply want equality in the workforce and more CEOs and elected representatives be women. I see nothing wrong with that.

What you are doing is confusing radical feminists with mainstream feminists. To compare them to the KKK is to lose touch with reality.

No Imran, I believe you are incorrect. First off, many feminists will say they want things to be equal just to justify their views, when really they have a bias against men. Secondly, the doctrine that we should be equal is equalism. Feminists say either they are for being equal because that's what they want you to believe, or they say that women should get better rights to make up for the "years of oppression."

originally posted by Japher:
The NAACP, IMO, has outlived is usefulness.

I disagree. The NAACP stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peopls. Minorites are in a bad situation. There is nothing wrong with something trying to advance them and get them in a better one.

originally posted by MichaeltheGreat:
Nobody claims consent as a defense to armed robbery.

In an armed robbery, the person says "If you don't open the cash register I'll kill you." The cashier is forced to consent. If a man tells a women, if you don't have sex with me, I'll kill you. That is a rape. When the women actually says "Have sex with me." That is consenting and not rape.

originally posted by MichaeltheGreat:
real:
Two straight white males beat a gay male nearly to death (actually or allegedly triggered when he hit on one of them in a bar), then they tie him to a fence post in a remote area where they know he'll die due to lack of medical treatment for his injuries.

hypothetical:
Two straight white males beat a straight white male nearly to death because they were going to rob him, then got pissed that he only had $15.00 on him, and no credit cards or other valuables, then they tie him to a fence post in a remote area where they know he'll die due to lack of medical treatment for his injuries.

Which is worse?

IMO, they're equivalent, and should be punished equivalently.

They are not equivalant. In the first one the object is to kill someone because of their sexual preference, just because of the way that they are. Saying they're equal is like saying killing someone in self-defense is as bad as murder. After all, the intentions don't matter, killing someone is killing someone. It is also saying that if you fight a war in which a lot of people die it is the same as the holocaust, because killing someone is killing someone. It us also saying that if the government gives someone the death penalty because they're a serial killer is the same as giving it to them just because they're a communist, killing someone is killing someone.

It is also saying that if the principal decides he should throw out the 15 Mexicans out of his school is the same as expelling 15 kids for getting in a bad fight.

Discriminating against someone is what caused hundreds of years of dehumanization and bigotry for Indigenous peoples, therefore that should be added to the sentence of a murder. Murder+discriminatory treatment > murder