Hate Crime Laws...

[nationalist]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Well you've created yourself a nice little world there, but it can work both ways you know.

Yeah, but it won't. How often do you hear a call for hate crime legislation when a black guy kills a white guy, or when a gay guy attacks a straight guy?

And you can legally punish people for what they think when connected to a physical crime go to previous posts.

That's intent, not ideology. People aren't punished for what they believe. Even if a guy killed someone else simply because of race, the fact that it was racially motivated wouldn't matter. What would matter is that the killer premeditated the murder. He intended to kill him. That is how people are punished for what they think.

[gsmoove23]

It is intent as a hate crime is done not against an individual but a group, many times with the intent of terrorizing that group. For instance, a cross burned in a black man's yard is not only vandalism on that man's yard but a threat to the communities black people.

Plus, I happen to know people who have committed crimes against straight white people have been charged with hate crimes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is intent as a hate crime is done not against an individual but a group, many times with the intent of terrorizing that group. For instance, a cross burned in a black man's yard is not only vandalism on that man's yard but a threat to the communities black people.

Yeah, but what is hate crime legislation INTENDED to do?

[gsmoove23]

Well, I confess its obviously intended to keep the straight white man down.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I asked you a serious question, can you not give me a serious answer?

[monkspider]

I must admit that I am for the most part opposed to hate crime laws. Just as I said in the AA thread, things like hate crime laws just further divide humanity and help perpetuate an "us and them" mentality. I think the greatest way to help defeat the ignorance that is at the root of these crimes is to support socialism and socialist brotherhood.

[gsmoove23]

To me you asked an obvious question. To punish an offense deemed worthy of punishing. But I assume you have another opinion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

To me you asked an obvious question. To punish an offense deemed worthy of punishing. But I assume you have another opinion?

So it is retributive to you?

The question isn't obvious at all! Not even close.

Most people have backed it to deter future conduct of that sort. Though, if it is for deterrance, it seems that simply finding the crime to be with intent (increasing the punishment) would suffice. Same with the incapacitation argument.

I wonder how many agree with you that hate crimes legislation is retributive.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by monkspider
I must admit that I am for the most part opposed to hate crime laws. Just as I said in the AA thread, things like hate crime laws just further divide humanity and help perpetuate an "us and them" mentality. I think the greatest way to help defeat the ignorance that is at the root of these crimes is to support socialism and socialist brotherhood.

i agree (well not about that socialist bollocks, obviously ). as you said it would just create an 'us and them' mentality and i don't see how that would help anyone.

[gsmoove23]

if you're asking what the intent of any punishment is deterance is obviously one of them. Promoting a civil society is another. Creating a safe environment for all citizens yet another.

There is a distinct difference in beating someone because he looked at you wrong and beating him because he's white, asian, whatever... This is not addressed in pre hate-crime legislation, it is not an individual attack but an attack against a group.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a distinct difference in beating someone because he looked at you wrong and beating him because he's white, asian, whatever... This is not addressed in pre hate-crime legislation, it is not an individual attack but an attack against a group.

What do you mean this isn't addressed in pre hate-crime litigation? For premeditated attacks based on groups, the sentancing will be much longer than simply beating someone because 'he looked at you wrong'. You realize there are more than one degree of felony too?

[gsmoove23]

Leaving it up to sentencing is leaving it up to the whims of the judge and I'm not only talking about pre-meditated crimes. As for the degrees of felony, they do not address crimes against a group, that is what we're talking about. Crimes done with the intent to terrorize a group.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for the degrees of felony, they do not address crimes against a group, that is what we're talking about. Crimes done with the intent to terrorize a group.

Oh come on! There is no degree of felony that addresses crimes against people named Bob too; should there be a catagory for that? Why should there be a special 'crime against a group' when there is already degrees of felony based on the intent of the individual in the crime? If you intend to hurt someone based on group affiliation, that increases the degree of felony you are going to convicted of.

[gsmoove23]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh come on! There is no degree of felony that addresses crimes against people named Bob too; should there be a catagory for that? Why should there be a special 'crime against a group' when there is already degrees of felony based on the intent of the individual in the crime? If you intend to hurt someone based on group affiliation, that increases the degree of felony you are going to convicted of.

Well, I don't think crimes against people of certain names are covered in most states, but I do believe that crimes against groups deserves a seperate crime status. Perhaps you'd be happier if they were designated terror crimes.

Your last statement is pure nonsence as hate crimes would not automatically gain a higher degree felony. These crimes are extremely prevalent in our society and they deserve to be addressed by our legal system and not left to the whims of prosecutors and judges on a case by case basis.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do believe that crimes against groups deserves a seperate crime status.

Why?

Perhaps you'd be happier if they were designated terror crimes.

Not at all.

Your last statement is pure nonsence as hate crimes would not automatically gain a higher degree felony.

So you happen to be an expert on criminal law now? Actually, FYI, crimes based on hate of a group would gain the HIGHEST degree of felony. Why? Because they would be obviously considered premeditated and with malicious intent.

These crimes are extremely prevalent in our society and they deserve to be addressed by our legal system and not left to the whims of prosecutors and judges on a case by case basis.

Once again, your knowledge of the criminal law in this country is severely lacking (IIRC, you didn't know the different levels of murder or manslaughter). THEY ARE ADDRESSED by the legal system. You think that judges deciding which murder to assign outside of the legal system? Please!