Gay man beaten to death in Vancouver park

[Asher]

Originally posted by vlad
So what your really saying is if I have a predisposition to beating people because of their political views I should get a lighter sentence. I guess next time I beat Imran around I will say its for the political views, muslim muslim, hell I thought he was jewish

When did I say anything remotely like that?

I said if you're very, very likely to strike again, you should get a harsher punishment.

That's all.

If you're VERY likely to be a repeat offender, you get more slapped your way by the justice system.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Asher, what if he has a predisposition to beating up Libertarians?

Say che got beaten up by Rabid Republicans, shouting "DIE COMMIE". Hate Crimes do NOTHING for that (and I don't think they should), isn't that a bit... well, discriminatory?

I'm not talking about hate crimes at all.

If you quite clearly hate libertarians to the point of beating them up BECAUSE they are liberarians, you should get a harsher sentence than somebody who beat someone up randomly in a mugging.

Of course it's discriminatory, but so is your drinking age. Deal with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you support the arbitrary drinking age? Just because there is an injustice, doesn't mean I have to deal with it.

Why should vlad get a harsher sentance because he hates Libertarians? If this is his second offense, then I can see a harsher sentance because he is a repeat offender. However, you are asking a judge and jury to predict the future. That the person WILL commit the crime again.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you support the arbitrary drinking age? Just because there is an injustice, doesn't mean I have to deal with it.

I don't think there should be a drinking age. That's the parent's responsibility. But back on topic...

Why should vlad get a harsher sentance because he hates Libertarians?

Hold it.
He's not getting a harsher sentence because he hates libertarians, he's getting a harsher sentence because he BEATS people because he hates libertarians.
It's not a heat of the moment type thing, it's something he's much more likely to do in the future as opposed to someone who committed a random act of violence.

If this is his second offense, then I can see a harsher sentance because he is a repeat offender. However, you are asking a judge and jury to predict the future. That the person WILL commit the crime again.

Well, if you beat someone on the sole purpose that you hate what they are and/or stand for, I think that pretty much drastically increases the chances of it happening again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not a heat of the moment type thing, it's something he's much more likely to do in the future as opposed to someone who committed a random act of violence.

Well, every crime that is not random falls under this. If a person beats up someone he doesn't like because he screwed him out of something is likely to beat him up again. Is that a hate crime?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, every crime that is not random falls under this. If a person beats up someone he doesn't like because he screwed him out of something is likely to beat him up again. Is that a hate crime?

I'm not talking about "hate crimes".

I'm talking about crimes that are made on the sole basis of something like..."I'm going to kill you because you're a Jew"
Or
"I'm going to kill you because you're Arab"

No provocation on the side of the victim, they are killed just because of what they are and/or stand for.

Crimes like that are highly likely to be repeated.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's not a heat of the moment type thing, it's something he's much more likely to do in the future as opposed to someone who committed a random act of violence.

Well, every crime that is not random falls under this. If a person beats up someone he doesn't like because he screwed him out of something is likely to beat him up again. Is that a hate crime?

Hating an individual is completely different then hating an entire group of people.

To answer your question: You kill/beat an individual because you hate them - that's it. You kill/beat a member of a group because you hate them - other members of the group are potential targets for future crimes.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
My ass. Wait until you're beat bloody by some thugs with a phobia about *white* elephants, then come talk to me.
What a drone.

Additionally Imran, what if it involved a person from Pakistan?
Would you sing a different tune then?
Uh huh. I believe you would. A double to you.
What a hypocritical viewpoint for you to dare and think, much less express.
You're better than that. Show it.

Your ass, is right!

You don't honestly think passing some kind of legislation is going to end hate do you? I think we should first pass a law agaisnt terrorists killing Americans since they hate both you and I. Certainly that would put an end to terrorism, no? It has worked so well with the drug war and all we might as well carry it over.

Lets see is a heroine addict more likely to use more heroine or is a hate crimer more like to commit more hate crimes?

I don't care who or why someone beats me up. I expect them to face justice regardless.

So much for blind justice, eh? Today she's emotionally involved, no?

This is laughable.

[Bereta_Eder]

Imran


Why do you get so hostile against Slowwhand- it's just a discussion

Irini Imin (peace be on us)

[rev]

Imran - RE: rabid Republicans beating up che because he's a dirty commie () - it would be labeled "terrorism" under the new laws and they'd be punished accordingly.

Is that the same thing as being additionally punished for a 'hate' crime?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I don't care who or why someone beats me up. I expect them to face justice regardless.

So much for blind justice, eh? Today she's emotionally involved, no?

This is laughable.

Are you saying that motives should not be considered when bringing a criminal to justice?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by drake
Imran you are a schmuck. Seriously. I don't care if you put me on your ignore list. You want a society in which hate isnt tolerated, but then at the same time youre against laws that could protect minorities from hate crimes.

I am advocate the use of stronger laws against hate crimes, that would protect people (like you) who fear blind hate.

A redneck hick would think twice about taking out his homophobic rage on a gay man if he knew stiffer penalties were attached to it. Will it eradicate hate? Hell no. Will it help discourage it in society? I sure think so.

Why don't we just adopt a code of laws that are subjective and pertain to each and every individual differently -- the WhiteElephants crimes, and the Drake crimes, etc.

I thought people like Imran, and you, and I are already protected against crime by several laws, what do we need more for? The answer is we don't, but it appeases the sexual and racial minority lobby. Look at this thing for what it actually is, not what you want it to be.

And again, how well has "the war on drugs" discouraged drug use?

I'm really digging this whole social engineering by means of legislation thing you're on to. Maybe we could get rid of poor people by making it a law for everyone to find a job and pay their bills? We might as well outlaw unhappiness while we are at it, no?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Osweld
Are you saying that motives should not be considered when bringing a criminal to justice?

I'm saying law should strive for some form of objectivity as opposed to the subjective whims of the populace at large at any given time. Meaning I believe that slavery was not justified at any point in history, yet by clinging to the subjective whims of the people slavery was justified for most of humankinds history.

Realistic? No. Idealistic? Yes.

I'm saying that if I kill someone for drug money or if I kill someone because it's Friday I should have the same sentence. If I kill someone in New York the sentence should be the same as if I kill someone in Los Angles.

Objective as opposed to subjective. Meaning it should never be OK to kill someone, but under the rule of subjectivity this has and could very well happen.

[faded glory]

Hate crimes are stupid....in practice, all crimes are hate crimes.

All crimes are crimes and anybody who commits a crime like this should have the book thrown at them.

Yes the media jumps to conclusion about Hate crime crap. I havent really heard thing.......there still babbling about 9-11.

Infat.....wtf were did that come from? I doubt we would have even been talking about this if he was straight. Media doesnt report this..

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm talking about crimes that are made on the sole basis of something like..."I'm going to kill you because you're a Jew"
Or
"I'm going to kill you because you're Arab"

You are talking about hate crimes, Asher... or what hate crime legislation will cover.

Hating an individual is completely different then hating an entire group of people.

To answer your question: You kill/beat an individual because you hate them - that's it. You kill/beat a member of a group because you hate them - other members of the group are potential targets for future crimes.

If you beat a person, but don't kill them, then you probably will come back to beat them again. And what about gang warfare? That is against a group!

RE: rabid Republicans beating up che because he's a dirty commie () - it would be labeled "terrorism" under the new laws and they'd be punished accordingly.

Are you kidding? Really? Under what act (not being as ass, just very curious). Are you refering to the should be junked Patriot Act, by any chance?

I thought people like Imran, and you, and I are already protected against crime by several laws, what do we need more for? The answer is we don't, but it appeases the sexual and racial minority lobby. Look at this thing for what it actually is, not what you want it to be.

Bingo!

And yes, the law should have SOME objectivity. If it doesn't, then what is the point of law?