Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hate Crimes

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:00:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have a problem with hate crimes, because I don't think the entire argument is looked at, but rather some desired goal.

If someone beats me up because I'm gay, is that worse than someone who beats me up because I'm rich? The argument would ensue that the desire to remove the biggoted hate is of a higher priority than it is to remove random hates or motivations that yield a similar result. The net result to the victim is the same, and so too is the loss. If we are to look at the function of a judiciary, is it to embark on a process of addressing societal concerns, or to simply administer justice case by case? Do we expect a singleness of purpose in the judiciary, or is it an instrument of the political system?

Does a victim of a hate crime lose more in the crime than a person who is of a crime that is the same in practice, but different in motivation by the perpetrator?

I have debated this a long while ago, and I won, but the RFD's don't add any clarity to my position, or my understanding of my opponent's.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:37:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Kind of in the same line of reasoning, I feel like I shouldn't hit a woman just because she is a woman, rather I feel it is wrong to hit anyone smaller than me if I can avoid it male or female.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 9:14:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A lot of people have hate for other types of people, I think the media just sensationalizes things like homosexuality and race because they are easy to categorize. There are hate wars by vegetarians against meat eaters, intellectuals against idiots, i'm sure theres even some short people that hate tall people. I think the judicial system is just one branch that performs a very specific task - that is to determine constitutional justice in a case within the court of law.

Last night a fellow american who happened to be black was attempting to pick a fight with myself, who happens to be white. I was just making a small purchase at a convenience store and although my mind and actions were very removed from the influence of my surroundings, i was sill taunted with phrases like "...da f*ck you lookin' at?" when my gaze followed a certain general direction.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 9:46:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:00:47 AM, innomen wrote:
I have a problem with hate crimes, because I don't think the entire argument is looked at, but rather some desired goal.

If someone beats me up because I'm gay, is that worse than someone who beats me up because I'm rich? The argument would ensue that the desire to remove the biggoted hate is of a higher priority than it is to remove random hates or motivations that yield a similar result. The net result to the victim is the same, and so too is the loss. If we are to look at the function of a judiciary, is it to embark on a process of addressing societal concerns, or to simply administer justice case by case? Do we expect a singleness of purpose in the judiciary, or is it an instrument of the political system?

Does a victim of a hate crime lose more in the crime than a person who is of a crime that is the same in practice, but different in motivation by the perpetrator?

I have debated this a long while ago, and I won, but the RFD's don't add any clarity to my position, or my understanding of my opponent's.

well put
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:04:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Intentions are extremely relevant. You can't just look at the act and take it at face value. Someone who specifically targets a member of X group is a genuine danger to society, given his mental state. This isn't true for all acts. If a man beats up someone because they're gay that's fundamentally different than whether the assault was motivated out of poverty or drug addiction. In neither of the later cases was hate involved, and it's honestly the feeling of hate that constitutes the gravest threat to the sanctity of life.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:07:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:04:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Intentions are extremely relevant. You can't just look at the act and take it at face value. Someone who specifically targets a member of X group is a genuine danger to society, given his mental state. This isn't true for all acts. If a man beats up someone because they're gay that's fundamentally different than whether the assault was motivated out of poverty or drug addiction. In neither of the later cases was hate involved, and it's honestly the feeling of hate that constitutes the gravest threat to the sanctity of life.

THEN EVERY THOUGHT THAT LEADS TO CRIME SHOULD BE EQUAL TO BIGOTRY TOWARD GAYS LEADING TO VIOLENCE.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:10:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:05:00 AM, DanT wrote:


It's not about who the crime was committed against, it's about the intent behind the act. Not all interracial crimes are hate crimes.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:12:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:07:45 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:04:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Intentions are extremely relevant. You can't just look at the act and take it at face value. Someone who specifically targets a member of X group is a genuine danger to society, given his mental state. This isn't true for all acts. If a man beats up someone because they're gay that's fundamentally different than whether the assault was motivated out of poverty or drug addiction. In neither of the later cases was hate involved, and it's honestly the feeling of hate that constitutes the gravest threat to the sanctity of life.

THEN EVERY THOUGHT THAT LEADS TO CRIME SHOULD BE EQUAL TO BIGOTRY TOWARD GAYS LEADING TO VIOLENCE.

No, having hate is not illegal. Everyone has hate to some extent, but not every crime is motivated by hate.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:17:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:12:59 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
THEN EVERY THOUGHT THAT LEADS TO CRIME SHOULD BE EQUAL TO BIGOTRY TOWARD GAYS LEADING TO VIOLENCE.

No, having hate is not illegal. Everyone has hate to some extent, but not every crime is motivated by hate.

I said every thought not every hate.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:18:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:16:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
All hate crimes legislation is just an extension of affirmative action to address wrongs against an oppressed minority.

Maybe that's how it ends up in practice, but that's just a practical bias that isn't inherent to the concept. It's absolutely possible that a hate crime could be against a white, heterosexual male.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:21:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:17:07 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:12:59 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
THEN EVERY THOUGHT THAT LEADS TO CRIME SHOULD BE EQUAL TO BIGOTRY TOWARD GAYS LEADING TO VIOLENCE.

No, having hate is not illegal. Everyone has hate to some extent, but not every crime is motivated by hate.

I said every thought not every hate.

I'm just not following. How is thought crime an implication of my view?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:24:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:04:21 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Intentions are extremely relevant.:

Agreed, except that intent and motive are two entirely different things when it comes to the law. What you go on to describe is motive, not intent. Intent simply analyzes whether you purposefully intended to hurt someone and the degree of damage you intended to inflict (if at all). That has nothing to do with motive.

You can't just look at the act and take it at face value. Someone who specifically targets a member of X group is a genuine danger to society, given his mental state. This isn't true for all acts. If a man beats up someone because they're gay that's fundamentally different than whether the assault was motivated out of poverty or drug addiction. In neither of the later cases was hate involved, and it's honestly the feeling of hate that constitutes the gravest threat to the sanctity of life.:

Two scenarios:

1. Your son is stabbed to death in a robbery. Because the motive was monetarily related, the killer received 15 years, 8 years probabtion.

2. Your other son was shot to death because he was gay. Because the motive was homophobic in nature, the killer gets life, no chance of parole.

Fact: Both sons are murdered unjustly, yet one son is valued more highly than the other because killing for greed is not as bad as killing over an ideological difference.

Murder is already against the law. If one's motive for murder is a crime unto itself, then don't you think it should be a crime with or without violence? That's the only way you could be consistent, but of course, that sets a dangerous precedent against the 1st Amendment.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:24:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:21:48 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:17:07 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:12:59 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
THEN EVERY THOUGHT THAT LEADS TO CRIME SHOULD BE EQUAL TO BIGOTRY TOWARD GAYS LEADING TO VIOLENCE.

No, having hate is not illegal. Everyone has hate to some extent, but not every crime is motivated by hate.

I said every thought not every hate.

I'm just not following. How is thought crime an implication of my view?

Intention= thought.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:28:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:18:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:16:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
All hate crimes legislation is just an extension of affirmative action to address wrongs against an oppressed minority.

Maybe that's how it ends up in practice, but that's just a practical bias that isn't inherent to the concept. It's absolutely possible that a hate crime could be against a white, heterosexual male.:

Why not punish 1st degree homicide more severely instead of penalizing people for beliefs that makes some people uncomfortable. That's a thought crime.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:34:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:10:17 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:05:00 AM, DanT wrote:


It's not about who the crime was committed against, it's about the intent behind the act. Not all interracial crimes are hate crimes.

By advocating making the motivation behind a crime, an additional crime, one is essentially advocating the establishment of thoughcrime.

If you ask me, establishing thoughtcrime in order to increase the sentencing of an existing crime, is a intentional subversion of the constitution. The Constitution protects people against an excessive, or cruel and unusual punishment. As a way around such protection, hate crime advocates use thoughtcrime to stack on additional charges, as a loop hole to the bill of rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:35:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:28:01 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:18:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:16:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
All hate crimes legislation is just an extension of affirmative action to address wrongs against an oppressed minority.

Maybe that's how it ends up in practice, but that's just a practical bias that isn't inherent to the concept. It's absolutely possible that a hate crime could be against a white, heterosexual male.:

Why not punish 1st degree homicide more severely instead of penalizing people for beliefs that makes some people uncomfortable. That's a thought crime.

damn you beat me to it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:36:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:35:12 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:28:01 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:18:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:16:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
All hate crimes legislation is just an extension of affirmative action to address wrongs against an oppressed minority.

Maybe that's how it ends up in practice, but that's just a practical bias that isn't inherent to the concept. It's absolutely possible that a hate crime could be against a white, heterosexual male.:

Why not punish 1st degree homicide more severely instead of penalizing people for beliefs that makes some people uncomfortable. That's a thought crime.

damn you beat me to it.

So, a hate crime has to be a physical crime in order to fulfill its premise?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:42:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
wo scenarios:

1. Your son is stabbed to death in a robbery. Because the motive was monetarily related, the killer received 15 years, 8 years probabtion.

2. Your other son was shot to death because he was gay. Because the motive was homophobic in nature, the killer gets life, no chance of parole.

Fact: Both sons are murdered unjustly, yet one son is valued more highly than the other because killing for greed is not as bad as killing over an ideological difference.

Murder is already against the law. If one's motive for murder is a crime unto itself, then don't you think it should be a crime with or without violence? That's the only way you could be consistent, but of course, that sets a dangerous precedent against the 1st Amendment.

Well, first of all of its my son I'd probably be way too personally attached to think rationally about this subject. Lets just make it a boy - or me, even - and change the example to an assault.

In the first case I'm assaulted and wind up in the hospital. I slowly recuperate and deal with the challenges presented to me. After a while, I learn my attacker's motivations and begin to realize that the attack was not done from personal malice. If we concern ourselves with psychological effects on the victim it's fundamentally different: It's the notion of being the subject of an impersonal and systemic act of violence versus one with malicious intent targeted towards you as a person. Reconciliation is much easier in the first case. In the second case I would speculate that there's a much higher possibility that the victim has lasting psychological damage.

Yes, the physical act of crime is the same. The case involves the perpetrator though. If we admit that intentions are relevant we're already made a huge amount of headway into differentiating between impersonal attacks and ones that are malicious and personal. Hate should not be a crime per se, but it's certainly evil. Moreover, I deny that one victim is being valued more. In reality, both victims are dead and we need to deal with the perpetrator who is still alive. The victim of the hate crime could easily have been white and heterosexual.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:42:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why not punish 1st degree homicide more severely instead of penalizing people for beliefs that makes some people uncomfortable. That's a thought crime.

damn you beat me to it.:

Before Washington got involved, judges used to examine the crime and the actions of the offenders in court. That includes their motives and the heinousness of a crime. Obviously on an emotional level, jurors could sympathize with the notion that shooting someone to death is different than torturing someone for 4 days before crushing their skull with boots.

I also agree that the motive is something a court should be taking into consideration, however, my contention is why it is an additional charge. It's not necessary and it creates a slippery slope that endangers the 1st Amendment.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:51:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 10:34:25 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:10:17 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/20/2012 10:05:00 AM, DanT wrote:


It's not about who the crime was committed against, it's about the intent behind the act. Not all interracial crimes are hate crimes.

By advocating making the motivation behind a crime, an additional crime, one is essentially advocating the establishment of thoughcrime.

If you ask me, establishing thoughtcrime in order to increase the sentencing of an existing crime, is a intentional subversion of the constitution. The Constitution protects people against an excessive, or cruel and unusual punishment. As a way around such protection, hate crime advocates use thoughtcrime to stack on additional charges, as a loop hole to the bill of rights.

No, different crimes are carried out for different reasons and recognize this as a society. Some reasons are largely judged to be worse than others - it doesn't make that reason a thought crime just for thinking it. In your criminal justice system do we not take intent into account?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 10:57:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Shoo', mayne. I'd say dat hate's just a product of the particular politico-juridical context in which we find ourselves. When you turn questions of personal identity into primarily legal questions (i.e., questions of carving out spaces for sex, ethnicity, orientation, economic status, etc.), you get yourself stuck necessarily in mechanisms of exclusion--particularly when you invent really dumb abstract fictions like the "citizen" that you then get to use as an instrument of control. When you have a society which functions on those kinds of fictions, you're gonna get hate crimes at the lower levels, too. Can't really be helped when the fundamental structure of the nation-state--by employing the concept of a nation, of an exclusive body politic--is a politics of exclusion based on representable belonging (e.g., being an "American", whatever that really means). I mean, damn, son. It's almost impossible to avoid exclusion and xenophobia in everyday life on that basis.

In that case, though, don't hate da playa--hate da game!
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 11:02:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't believe that crimes that are committed against homosexuals, members of ethnic minorities, people of certain faiths, etc. should attract higher penalties than crimes against anyone else.

Put it this way, imagine you have had a bad day at work and pop into the pub on the way home to brood over the day's events. So, you are standing at the bar nursing you sixth JD and Coke when some clumsy bastard bumps into you, causing you to spill your drink down your shirt.

However, instead of apologising and offering to buy you a new drink and pay for your shirt to be cleaned, he just walks out of the pub. The ignorant c*unt.

Now, you shouldn't do this, of course, but many people wouldn't blame you if you stormed out after him and taught him some f*cking manners.

So, as a result of this interview, the bloke goes to hospital while the filth escort you down to the nick on a charge of aggravated GBH.

Why aggravated? Because it turns out this bloke is a gay Jew. You weren't aware of that, of course, you had never met the guy before, and, anyway, his sexual orientation, ethnic background and religion were not the motive for the alleged assault. Nevertheless, if convicted, you would receive a harsher sentence. Not fair.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 11:03:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That said, I do believe that organisations that incite hate crimes should be targeted.

A good example of such an organisation is the rabidly homophobic Christian Voice.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk...
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 11:07:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't believe that crimes that are committed against homosexuals, members of ethnic minorities, people of certain faiths, etc. should attract higher penalties than crimes against anyone else.

Nobody does. The question is whether the driving force behind the crime was out of a hatred for that person's ethnicity or sexuality.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 11:09:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 11:07:14 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't believe that crimes that are committed against homosexuals, members of ethnic minorities, people of certain faiths, etc. should attract higher penalties than crimes against anyone else.

Nobody does. The question is whether the driving force behind the crime was out of a hatred for that person's ethnicity or sexuality.

This question is not even worth speculating.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts