Hate crime or not?

[Tashah]

What about when jews attack gentiles, is that a hate crime?

Lol... are you on hallucinogens?

ArroyoSecodeDiablo = Secode Stream Devil > what the hell is that?

 

[Dogger807]

Upping the stakes for murder because it was motivated by hate seems redundant. Personally I think murder done for personal profit is much more heinous. At least when done in hate the murder believes (most wrongly) that they are doing society a favor. (Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending those that commit hate crimes. I simply see them as the lesser evil.)

For lesser crimes I think the harsher punishments are a two edged sword. One side is stopping them from getting braver and committing more sever hate crimes. The other side, well people don't like to take responsibility for their own actions. In the case of spray painting a Jewish house I can see the offender thinking "That D**N Jew got me a longer sentence."

capital punishment also seems big on this thread so I'll but my two cents in. In those cases where it's undeniable murder committed by the defendant I believe that there should be (1. no suppression of evidence what so ever. 2. no technical loop holes. 3. No hesitation to enforce eye for an eye .. life for a life.) That being said, I can only see this in the clear cut cases. For those of the circumstantial evidence my opinion reverses on itself.

 

[cnredd]

What about a longer sentence for a jew vandalizing her own car and blaming it on non-jews?

Or maybe a longer sentence for a jew found to have vandalized a non-jewish school and blamed it on non-jews?

Any reason for the fondness of using Jews in your examples? Do you have a fear of your dentist?:roll:

 

[mixedmedia]

Any reason for the fondness of using Jews in your examples? Do you have a fear of your dentist?:roll:

This is just what I was thinking....:roll: and doing.

What about a longer sentence for a jew vandalizing her own car and blaming it on non-jews?

Or maybe a longer sentence for a jew found to have vandalized a non-jewish school and blamed it on non-jews?

But for the record, yes, any person who commits a crime against another person or persons only because they are biased against that person for their beliefs, lifestyle or ethnicity should be charged with a crime of prejudicial intent - otherwise known as a hate crime. Even if you are a Jew. And like I have heard from conservatives over and over about the Patriot Act, if you're not going to commit a crime, then you have nothing to worry about. Isn't that right?

 

[teacher]

What about when jews attack gentiles, is that a hate crime?

Does making us pay retail count?

 

[fyrefighter]

Crime is crime in every instance the only thing different here is 1) I want everyone to know it is my group they did this to and thats why they did it. 2) If they do this to my group they will get punished even more because I am SPECIAL sob.
I dont care if your purple or green,like people of your own sex, or even if you like animals more than people, if you do the crime it (the law)should stomp your a** just like anyone else who has broken the law. If the law had teeth I mean real teeth not where you get out in 4 years after committing murder for good behavior it might make a real difference. Oh and Tashah arson is one crime that packs a pretty good penalty.

 

[vergiss]

Problem with this case: the article says "A witness who was also at the house described how the victim was savagely beaten after her biological identity was revealed when her underwear was pulled aside." However, it also says that they both had sex with her.

There should be specific laws for hate crimes. It seems that most of the people against those laws are WASP-y types. Why? Do they think they won't get attacked? Certainly not. Discrimination and racial/religious etc. hatred is unfortunately spread across all groups, even minorities. WASP-y types still fall victim to such crimes - 9/11, anyone?

As someone said, if someone is murdered in a hate crime, their death is a symbol. It's not personal - the perpetrator hates all members of that group. Therefore, the likelihood of committing the same crime again is high.

 

[mwi]

"As someone said, if someone is murdered in a hate crime, their death is a symbol. It's not personal - the perpetrator hates all members of that group. Therefore, the likelihood of committing the same crime again is high."

Not if we enforce the death penalty. Murder is murder. Execute the bastards -- after giving them a fair trial, naturally.

 

[fyrefighter]

There should be specific laws for hate crimes. It seems that most of the people against those laws are WASP-y types. Why? Do they think they won't get attacked? Certainly not. Discrimination and racial/religious etc. hatred is unfortunately spread across all groups, even minorities. WASP-y types still fall victim to such crimes - 9/11, anyone?

Exactly it is spread across all groups so why have another law?
Enforce the ones you have properly and they wont live or get out again to repeat it. Thanks for supporting that aspect of this.

 

[mixedmedia]

There should be specific laws for hate crimes. It seems that most of the people against those laws are WASP-y types. Why? Do they think they won't get attacked? Certainly not. Discrimination and racial/religious etc. hatred is unfortunately spread across all groups, even minorities. WASP-y types still fall victim to such crimes - 9/11, anyone?

Exactly it is spread across all groups so why have another law?
Enforce the ones you have properly and they wont live or get out again to repeat it. Thanks for supporting that aspect of this.

What I see repeatedly here from the folks against hate crime laws is that they are addressing it only as it applies to murder. There are many other lesser crimes made more serious with the addition of prejudicial intent. How should these crimes be handled?

 

[epr64]

"As someone said, if someone is murdered in a hate crime, their death is a symbol. It's not personal - the perpetrator hates all members of that group. Therefore, the likelihood of committing the same crime again is high."

Not if we enforce the death penalty. Murder is murder. Execute the bastards -- after giving them a fair trial, naturally.

And that's where the problem is. Failure is the mark of mankind. Can you trust a judge? Nope. Can you trust a jury? Nope.
If you were talking 'bout a lifetime in jail, I could follow you. And even so.. how do you repay for jailing someone for 18 years when he's innocent? But at least, you can free him.

On the other hand, I'm totally for jailing people responsible for hate crimes. As they will most probably commit another crime if they're let out, don't let them out.

CU
Y

 

[epr64]

What I see repeatedly here from the folks against hate crime laws is that they are addressing it only as it applies to murder. There are many other lesser crimes made more serious with the addition of prejudicial intent. How should these crimes be handled?

Basically, a hate crime is a crime against a whole community, driven by hatred of that specific community. As such, those crimes should have really heavy penalties and jail time.
If the perp still can understand his hatred is stupid, he can be left out. If not, if let out, he'll commit a worse crime, as hen will blame his first sentence on the community he already hates.

It's a double-edged sword, but avoiding crimes should be the primary goal of prison. Re-inserting someone in the society should be achieved by other means.

Y

 

[mixedmedia]

Basically, a hate crime is a crime against a whole community, driven by hatred of that specific community. As such, those crimes should have really heavy penalties and jail time.
If the perp still can understand his hatred is stupid, he can be left out. If not, if let out, he'll commit a worse crime, as hen will blame his first sentence on the community he already hates.

It's a double-edged sword, but avoiding crimes should be the primary goal of prison. Re-inserting someone in the society should be achieved by other means.

Y

I agree with everything you say here. Which is why I support the establishment of hate crime laws and their enforcement. Something has to address the mitigating factors of race and other biases in some crimes. It only makes good sense. The justice system is supposed to protect us from dangerous people. Anyone who acts out in a hateful way towards a person or persons based simply on who they are - their skin color, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation - is a danger to society in my book.

 

[GoldPheonix]

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.

I disagree with hate crime, but as it provides a legal basis for motive, it makes the purpose of it useless. Although I think hate crime should bump it up, if it is murder, to murder 1, no matter what.

 

[vergiss]

I don't understand why so many on the Right are so keen and eager for laws to be toughened and to make it punishment more severe, save for this. What's the issue? It's not lenient enough, and that's suddenly a problem?

 

[mixedmedia]

I don't understand why so many on the Right are so keen and eager for laws to be toughened and to make it punishment more severe, save for this. What's the issue? It's not lenient enough, and that's suddenly a problem?

Yes, it is quite puzzling isn't it? I suspect that it is only because protecting people from ignorance smacks of "liberalism." And possibly because hate crime legislation was largely defined during the Clinton years. I can't fathom any other reason why someone would oppose it. Certainly no substantial reasons have been asserted here.