- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,316
- Reaction score
- 3,220
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yeah, well warrantless searches are patently unconstitutional, and we see where those stand.
Various justifications have been advanced. Deterrence for the violent haters among us. Avoiding the agony of a subgroup when one of their members has been brutally and randomly murdered or assaulted. Reducing the incidence of civil unrest over racial or other divisions. Punishing more drastically those crimes we find most morally repugnant.
You think motive is irrelevant? Tell that to anyone who's been acquitted on self-defense grounds.
O, the Patriot Act? That's a legitimate concern, I agree.
They are taken into account -- I don't know whaca mean here, dear.
They are, but they are taken into account incorrectly is my point. It is clear if we think of it there is no harm even attempted by planning and should therefore have no punishment, but we give it a punishment all the same. Just like in the case of words, there is no harm from words but we treat it as if there is.
Oh and you should be aware I'm not phased by being called an extremist.
Gross expansion of government power is always a legitimate concern. Government doesn't give up power, it takes it. When you allow it to grasp new power, it encourages it to do so more often. Government is to be limited, it must be limited. Quite frankly, we already had the laws in place to punish these offenses. The infringement of rights by another party is never anything to take lightly. But the government does not need more ammunition, we had enough prior.
Planning an act on someones life and failing at it when you actually try to pull it off are different things.
But I don't see the harm in attempting to kill someone and failing!
That is very good point.I will consider it.
Well it seems to me that we ALREADY have those designations. More laws, more policing, more jail time, more government.
Some studies have indicated that assaults motivated by hatred are more violent, and more likely to result in serious injury to the victim, than other types of assaults. That is particularly so with respect to victims in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Studies have also shown that most hate crimes are carried out by persons who do not know their victim, and that the victims are selected based on how they are perceived rather than something they said or did. The arbitrary manner in which victims are targeted in hate crimes can be profoundly unsettling, because victims can do nothing to change their appearance or how their characteristics are perceived by others.
Hate crimes also have a much broader impact within communities than many other types of violent crimes or property crimes. Because they are motivated by bias, hate crimes are often intended to, and do, send a broader message of violent intolerance toward a broad class of persons. Like terrorist incidents, the “message” aspect of the offender’s motive can be profoundly threatening to people far removed from the actual scene of the crime. The fact that the victims of such crimes are selected based on characteristics such as their race or religion can cause all those in the community who share that characteristic to experience similar feelings of vulnerability and secondary victimization. In its impact on the community, the fear of becoming a victim of violence can be nearly as debilitating as suffering through an actual crime. The message of intolerance that is communicated through a hate crime can have broadly disruptive social effects as well, and can lead to greater distrust of law enforcement or friction between racial or religious communities.
Investigating and prosecuting hate crimes is a challenge. Victims are often afraid to come forward or lack the confidence that law enforcement will vigorously pursue the offenders. Some victims are reluctant to acknowledge their sexual orientation or immigration status to law enforcement. There may be cultural or linguistic impediments to effective cooperation with law enforcement. Because establishing motive is a key aspect to proving the crime, investigations often must range far beyond the criminal act itself to locate evidence relevant to the defendant’s state of mind before and during the crime.
The arbitrary manner in which victims are targeted in hate crimes can be profoundly unsettling, because victims can do nothing to change their appearance or how their characteristics are perceived by others.
Citation above.
The bold part means gender. Be it old, young, black, white, gay, straight, Christian or Muslim, targetting based on gender is terrorism. Does this mean pedo is terrorism? I think so.
No, we don't. A hate motive is distinctly different from any other kind of motive. Not necessarily better or worse; just different.
How is it "more government?" Any crime that could have a hate motive is STILL a crime even if you didn't commit it out of hate. You're going to jail either way.
It is not distinctly different, in fact it's the same as any other irrational hate. It doesn't matter if you hate an individual because he's black or because she's your ex-wife and she took the kids so that bitch is going to pay! It's the same thing. Irrational hate that leads to planned violence. That's the true source, not some feigned "OMG hating because of color is so much worse than hating because of any other set of random circumstances!".
No, it isn't. If you hate an individual for your personal interactions with them, your hate ends at that person. You may be a generally volatile person, but you aren't a risk to anyone in particular.
If you hate an entire race, you pose a threat to anyone else of that race you meet.
How that person may be rehabilitated looks very different from someone who committed a crime of passion. What sort of risk they pose to society is also very different.
No one ever said anything about "worse." What I said is "different." Different motive, different rehabilitation, different risk.
If they assault the entire race, maybe. But these crimes are against INDIVIDUALS and thus, on the individual basis it stands. Let me know when they can assault all black people, and maybe I'll agree that hating on race is worse. But since hating on race makes a person lash out against another person, the reason for that is similar to other premeditated reasons for lashing out against anyone else.
You cannot punish people for crimes they have not committed, not justly. And thus when you look at any of these cases its a case of individual vs individual. You cannot prosecute them for society's ills.
Prison is not so much rehabilitation as much as it is punishment, though it is oft wise to inject rehabilitation programs into the jail. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You do want a new crime, you want Hate Crime. It didn't exist before, it extends punishments because you think their crime, similar to so many others, is so much worse because it was done because of race or whatever all our protected classes are these days. Prison isn't about minimizing Society's risks per say, it's to punish individuals who have infringed upon the rights of others; it's for the individual. And while it has aggregate effects for society, it doesn't mean that just because you think a crime is worse that it's then OK to extend punishments on it.
In the end you base this decision on this assumption that it's more dangerous because their hate doesn't end at some specific individual (even though their crime will have) and thus they are more dangerous and deserve to be locked up longer. But while that may be statistically true, it cannot be held to the individual. You don't have a crystal ball, you don't know the future, and you do not know if that individual will commit another crime. Yet you are increasing punishments as if it's a forgone conclusion that he will. Improper justice, improper use of government force, improper expansion of crime.
I only voted for the theater example and the sexual slander example. The reasons being that those are the two examples where you can find a causal link between speech and immediate and intended harm. In the case of the theater your lies were intended in the immediate sense to cause chaos, disruption, and physical harm even then however I think the person should only be held and charged if damage or harm occurred, otherwise simply eject them. I was much more strained on the slander and libel example, but I think that the current regimen we have is very tight and good. You have to prove that the lie being told is causing in a very direct causal way, real harm to yourself or your livelihood.
But I don't see the harm in attempting to kill someone and failing!
Danger to society is based on likelihood of the person committing a similar crime again. If all it takes is a superficial aspect to trigger them to commit a crime, they obviously that represents a unique kind of threat. Worse than some, better than others, but unique, and thus a good reason to declare hate as a motive.
No, I don't. Nowhere have I advocated for making more things crimes. Nowhere have I said that we should increase punishments.
You are simply inventing BS strawmen to knock down as you go, and it has nothing to do with anything I've actually said.
If no harm was caused then it should not be a crime. If you say discharged your firearm in the attempt, you should be charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?