Gay man beaten to death in Vancouver park

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by mindseye

It is the action that is punishable, not the thought

Guynemer, did you read any of Asher's posts?

The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again.

Compare:
Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife.
Killer B murders a man because he is black.

Who is more likely to strike again?

If Killer B's sole motivation was his victim's race, that means there are millions of other members of society equally qualified to be his next victim.

If Killer A's sole motivation was vengeance in the heat of passion, he is far less likely to kill again.

Forget the strawman arguements about thought crimes, pc, or social engineering. This is about risk to society. It's really that simple.

- mindseye

My point was this--lock them both up, permamently. The idea that anyone convicted of murder should get less than a life sentence is beyond me.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by mindseye

It is the action that is punishable, not the thought

Guynemer, did you read any of Asher's posts?

The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again.

Compare:
Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife.
Killer B murders a man because he is black.

Who is more likely to strike again?

If Killer B's sole motivation was his victim's race, that means there are millions of other members of society equally qualified to be his next victim.


This is exactly correct.
Exactly correct.

If Killer A's sole motivation was vengeance in the heat of passion, he is far less likely to kill again.

Forget the strawman arguements about thought crimes, pc, or social engineering. This is about risk to society. It's really that simple.

- mindseye

[Simon Darkshade]

I would like to start by saying that I don't know the details of this particular case, so I don't feel it within my domain to comment on it specifically.
But on the matters of hate crimes, we have not had any landmark cases down here, but personally, regardless of the circumstances, if found guilty, the perpetrator should face the maximum sanction of the law for any type of murder.
Having said that, let me say that the notion of a crime being specifically committed towards a particular group on the sole basis of their sexual orientation, race or whatever, needs to be addressed as well, if but to try and prevent such goings on from now on.
This particular case cuts home a bit, but I do feel that the notion of hate crimes needs a lot of work before it is workable, if indeed it is decided by the relevant communities that it is

"Such a tragedy.

I wish it had happened to a straight guy."
Was this comment really necessary? IMO, not, sorry if I offend, but any type of murder diminshes our community, regardless of sexual orientation. Such reverse homophobia makes us look bad, IMO.

So, in summary, a tragedy, but the implementation of legislation and strictures on hate crimes needs to be thoroughly thought through, bfire blanket application (if indeed at all)

[Evil_Eric_4]

Here's a scenario for all you hate-crime advacates--


A white man passes a black man on the street - Tha black man calls the white man a honkey-white bread-cracker-redneck-trailer trash piece of crap whiteboy. White man procedes to beat BM to a bloody pulp.

reverse this--WM calles BM n***ger -BM beats whity to bloody pulp.

Who here gets charged with hate crime?

answer--white man

just the fact that I cant spell out the N-word is an indication of the Bias of Hate crime legislation.

It is geared toward minorities which flies in the face of the idea of equal protection under the law.

If it cant be handled equally among all races,colors, religion,sexual orientation etc. then it should be abolished.

On a side note the media tends to create news as much as reporting it.

Of course IMHO

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
Here's a scenario for all you hate-crime advacates--


A white man passes a black man on the street - Tha black man calls the white man a honkey-white bread-cracker-redneck-trailer trash piece of crap whiteboy. White man procedes to beat BM to a bloody pulp.

reverse this--WM calles BM n***ger -BM beats whity to bloody pulp.

Who here gets charged with hate crime?

answer--white man

Huh? How do you figure that? Niether of those would be hate crimes - why would the whiteman be charged with a hate crime? especially when it was the black man who provoked him with racist remarks?

It is geared toward minorities which flies in the face of the idea of equal protection under the law.

If it cant be handled equally among all races,colors, religion,sexual orientation etc. then it should be abolished.

I've already adressed this - Any law can be abused, not just hate crimes. It's not a problem with the law (or atleast the principles of it) it's a problem with the legal system that allows this to happen.

[Evil_Eric_4]

Because Oswald --

The black man would cry racism and be believed.

the white man would cry racism and be laughed at.

Here in the USA you see it all the time.

Perhaps you Canadians handle it better but this is what I see in the US.

[Ramo]

I agree with Asher et al.

Hating someone for WHAT they are, rather than WHO a person is a very detrimental to society, way of thinking.

Exactly, we need to take down barriers between first and second degree murders. Damn state criminalizing thought... How dare it make a distinction between murders of passion and pre-meditated murders.

[kittenOFchaos]

Don't be sad folks...the gay man is in heaven now

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by mindseye
The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again.

Compare:
Killer A murders a guy because he finds him in bed with his wife.
Killer B murders a man because he is black.

Killer C murders a man because he wants his money.

Forget the strawman arguements about a killers propenisity to kill again. This is about bowing to the current ethical trends of society much like the legalization of slavery, or denying women a right to vote. It's really that simple.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by mindseye
The purpose of lengthier sentences for hate crimes is not because of the motivation per se (something White Elephants et al are completely unable to grasp). It's because the murderer has a higher propensity to kill again.

I also wanted to add the doling out sentences based on the speculation of what someone may, or may not, do in the future is a long and ugly, ugly, ugly road to start traveling down, especially in light of the advances we've made in the ability to read one's DNA sequence. For instance, if your DNA is close to the DNA of repete offenders then by your logic your sentence should be stiffer since statistically you are more likely to commit more crime, no?

Perhaps sentencing should be confined to the past tense and not the possible future.

[Imazalil]

Vancouver

Not that this thread seems that interested in Vancouver anymore, but...

Generally the Downtown area, Stanley Park included, are very accepting. But there are always a few bad apples. The further you get into the suburbs, the more bad apples there are. Still no word, on the case, whether it is a hate crime or not.

I.

[Guynemer]

Re: Vancouver

Originally posted by Imazalil
Not that this thread seems that interested in Vancouver anymore, but...

Generally the Downtown area, Stanley Park included, are very accepting. But there are always a few bad apples. The further you get into the suburbs, the more bad apples there are. Still no word, on the case, whether it is a hate crime or not.

I.

Thanks, Imazalil--I'm still monitoring this thread for info.

[n.c.]

(Didn't have time to read pgs. 2-3)

Originally posted by Dissident
[Hate crime laws] just creates more hate by discriminating against those people that hate a certain type of people. We aren't treating people as equals. Murder is murder- period

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
If you kill someone you kill someone. The only difference is that it's sometimes an accident. There's no need to interject emotion into the picture.

Then I suppose we need to eliminate the crime of manslaughter? How about criminal negligence? First and second degree murder? Or is it only punishments based on hate-based motivations that bother you? If so, why is that?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by n.c.
(Didn't have time to read pgs. 2-3)




Then I suppose we need to eliminate the crime of manslaughter? How about criminal negligence? First and second degree murder? Or is it only punishments based on hate-based motivations that bother you? If so, why is that?

The way I see it, there are two types of killings. Those without intent (negligence/manslaughter), and those with intent (murder). When it comes to punishment, I couldn't give a flying rat's ass what that intent was. Murder (or attempted murder) = life in prison, full stop. Now, in regards to society, yes, the intent of ethnic hatred (or whatever kind of ignorance and fear was at play) is an issue, and needs to be addressed on a society wide level, as bluntly and efficiently and quickly as possible. But that shouldn't translate into harsher sentencing.

Don't get me wrong; I certainly wouldn't shed any tears over someone who received a longer sentence because he beat the person up because he was black/white/brown/purple/gay/straight/whatever. But that doesn't make it right or philosophically consistent in a nation that professes to be the beacon of free thought.