• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hate crime or not?

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, I was a bit surprised here. I don't have all the elements of course, but can someone explain why this isn't considered a hate crime??

Michael Magidson and Jose Merel beat, tied up and strangled 17-year-old Gwen Araujo after discovering she was biologically male, the court heard.

Her body was found in a shallow grave in the Sierra Nevada hills soon after the October 2002 killing in Newark.

The men face 15 years to life in jail for murder but were cleared of hate crime charges.

Full article is here
.

CU
Y
 
I am personally against laws for hate crimes............I think that any person that commits a crime should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law......You don't need special laws to do that...........
 
epr64 said:
Well, I was a bit surprised here. I don't have all the elements of course, but can someone explain why this isn't considered a hate crime??



Full article is here
.

CU
Y

So government should outlaw emotions and thoughts? If they get life what else should they get for what they thought, a lobotomy?
 
"Hate crime" laws are not needed. There are laws that already protect us all. Providing a special law for "hate-crimes" (I do not fully understand this name seeing as how all violent crimes are the result of hate) is putting one group of people above the rest. This is wrong no matter what way it is looked at.
 
epr64 said:
Well, I was a bit surprised here. I don't have all the elements of course, but can someone explain why this isn't considered a hate crime??



Full article is here
.

CU
Y

Hate crime statutes generally have enhanced penalties for the same acts committed without the element of hate in them. For example, it might be a misdemeanor crime to spray paint someone's car, the penalty for which might be $500 or 6 months in jail. If the state can prove the additional element of motivation by *hate*, then the enhance penalty may be something like $1,000 or 1 year in jail.

Seems like there was sufficient evidence to charge the men with the hate crime, but I suppose in this case the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these guys were motivated by hate. It's a lot harder to prove motivation or intent than it is to prove merely that someone committed an illegal act.
 
How can one commit cold blooded murder WITHOUT hate?

I agree with Navy on this. Hate crimes should not exist.
 
alex said:
"Hate crime" laws are not needed. There are laws that already protect us all. Providing a special law for "hate-crimes" (I do not fully understand this name seeing as how all violent crimes are the result of hate) is putting one group of people above the rest. This is wrong no matter what way it is looked at.

Agreed. It is wrong, and the little fact the victim was biologically incoherent is of no relevance.
 
vauge said:
How can one commit cold blooded murder WITHOUT hate?

I agree with Navy on this. Hate crimes should not exist.

Contract killing? Doing it for money and not for passion.
 
Well, I see your point.

On the other hand, hate crime laws are usually passed because there would have been no crime if it wasn't for hatred of a group.
It tries to avoid gay bashing, black lynching, etc.. by providing stronger penalties in those cases, where the crime is motivated by nothing else than a desire for discrimination.

They didn't kill the guy/girl because they hated him personally, but because they hate a whole community. As such, the killing is a symbol, not just a crime. It's the same with cops. Those that kill cops do not kill the specific person that they shoot at, they kill a member of a community, and as such, get harsher penaties.

I'm not that clear, as I can see :lol: , I'll try to make that clearer later today.

CU
Y
 
I'd say yes it is a hate crime, and yes there should be special provisions for such.

The reason I believe in hate crime legislation is that by very nature, a hate crime is commited against a person for who they are and not because of anything they have done. Most murders are commited by people well known by the victim, and the victim's own life choices place them in these relationships -- they are murdered by boyfriends and rival gangsters and various personal enemies for one reason or another. This is not the case with hate crimes when people are murdered because of their ethnicity or sexual orientation, as the victim is just a the wrong place at the wrong time. There are certainly murders commited in a similar vein that aren't hate crimes -- robbery murders and such, and to be consistant, I also think there should be special provisions for those as well.

In any case, the idea that murderers could get off in 15 years (or less with parole) is a revolting one to me. If they can kill a person for their genitalia, they do not belong in civilized society.
 
Sounds like a hate crime to me. The crime was purely motivated by hatred of a particular lifestyle.

Not all murderers kill because they hate their victim.
 
I suppose in the case of murder whether or not it was a "hate" crime is largely irrelevant. But in the case of assault or vandalism or other non-lethal crimes that I can't think of right now, the designation of a "hate" crime would be relevant don't you think?
 
scottyz said:
Sounds like a hate crime to me. The crime was purely motivated by hatred of a particular lifestyle.

Not all murderers kill because they hate their victim.

Hahahaha:rofl
 
Hate Crime laws are B.S., they are nothing more than institutionalized racism, and another of the long list of P.C. lib thought policing, thankyou pres. Clinton or should I say Mustapha Mond.(if you don't get the MM reference don't feel to bad they conceal that type of info. in books). heh heh.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I say Mustapha Mond.(if you don't get the MM reference don't feel to bad they conceal that type of info. in books). heh heh.


You have displayed your knowlege of a book that was required reading in my 8th grade classroom.

I realize there are many young people here, but who hasn't read Brave New World?
 
A perfect example is when those white guys in texas tied that black guy behind their truck and drug him to his death........The usual suspects Sharpton and Jackson wanted them charged with hate crimes......Well there was no hate crime laws in Texas so when they were tried they were convicted and received the maximum sentence.....Two received the death sentence and one got life without parole........I don't know special hate crimes could make those sentences more severe......
 
Navy Pride said:
A perfect example is when those white guys in texas tied that black guy behind their truck and drug him to his death........The usual suspects Sharpton and Jackson wanted them charged with hate crimes......Well there was no hate crime laws in Texas so when they were tried they were convicted and received the maximum sentence.....Two received the death sentence and one got life without parole........I don't know special hate crimes could make those sentences more severe......

I actually agree with you. But don't you think that someone who spraypaints swastikas on the house of a Jewish family should be ajudged more harshly than a subway graffitist? There are some acts committed in the name of prejudice or bias that are made more serious than the broadly defined, mildly penalized categories of crime they fall into.

And it has nothing to do with thought policing. It is ACT policing.
 
mixedmedia said:
I actually agree with you. But don't you think that someone who spraypaints swastikas on the house of a Jewish family should be ajudged more harshly than a subway graffitist? There are some acts committed in the name of prejudice or bias that are made more serious than the broadly defined, mildly penalized categories of crime they fall into.

And it has nothing to do with thought policing. It is ACT policing.

I think there should be a range of sentencing for the kind of crimes you mentioned and hes a more severe sentence appled to the person who spray paints someones house but I don't think you need special hate crime laws to accomplish that...........
 
this is just a wild guess, but i think their lawyer probably said they were motivated by the fact that she had duped them into having sexual relations with her, rather than being motivated by her lifestyle. they probably would have done it either way but these are the kind of things lawyers use in their advantage. they should most definitely have life without parole rather than some bullshit 15 years which will probably be reduced to 8.
 
does it really matter?
 
EPR 64 / # 9
They may have killed him in a rage over being tricked . Unless it can be proven that they went looking for anyone of his type,how is it group hate.
Murder doesn't require hate,just like murderers aren't all insane as some liberals would have you think .
 
JOHNYJ said:
EPR 64 / # 9
They may have killed him in a rage over being tricked . Unless it can be proven that they went looking for anyone of his type,how is it group hate.
Murder doesn't require hate,just like murderers aren't all insane as some liberals would have you think .

Are conservatives now defending the sanity of murderers against the liberal menace?
 
JOHNYJ said:
EPR 64 / # 9
murderers aren't all insane as some liberals would have you think .

You have to be a sick individual to harm someone. IMO, we need to get rid of the death penalty. Who says we have the right to take someone's life coldly, in a pre-meditated manner?
 
I agree with a lot of you when you say that a crime is a crime, and that hate is implied. why should there be an additional time because it is considered a *hate crime*?
 
kal-el said:
You have to be a sick individual to harm someone. IMO, we need to get rid of the death penalty. Who says we have the right to take someone's life coldly, in a pre-meditated manner?

Again I ask you would you feel the same way about the death penalty if it was your mother, sister, or daughter that was raped and murdered?
 
Back
Top Bottom