- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,387
- Reaction score
- 49,410
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
No, I wouldn't trust the government to know a hate group from a breakfast club.
If these hate groups break the law and it's hate related then they may be charged with the crime plus a hate crime for added severity.
If it's heinous enough sure - it's a hate crime penalty is meant to be more punitive given not just the motivation but possibly when such acts carry malice beyond that which can normally be assessed. Granted, additional punitive charges could just be added on to the main charge which would do the same thing but I think the purpose of a hate crime would be to bring State and/or Federal charges which carry more weight.See, I don't even agree with that.
Is murder, or arson, or destruction of property any more "egregious" because hate, in and of itself, was the motivation?
If you murder someone because they are a Jew, and you go out of your way to demonstrate your malice toward Jews (I'm using that as an example so no freak out), and you plan your murder because that person is a Jew (not because the victim and murderer know each other) and the murder takes place. That's not the same as a murder occurring say as a contract killing. Murder is not murder - there are different levels of murder and different severity's.I don't think so.
If you murder someone you murder someone.
The penalty for murder, or any crime, should be what it is.
Adding a hate crime charge is not meant to be a deterrent IMO, it's meant as a punitive additional measure.If we don't want people murdering each other, and we want the penalty associated with a crime to serve as a deterrent as well as a punishment, then the penalty should be so severe in all cases so as to serve as a suitable deterrent.
Murder is not murder - there are different levels of murder and different severity's.
I get where you're coming from. I just don't agree. You still kill someone AND punitively you never get out of prison with the added charges.I realize that that's what the law says.
My point is that in my opinion that's stupid.
White Nationalist groups, KKK, New Black Panthers, Conservative Citizens, Aryan Nation, or any other groups that promote hate and encourage others to perpetrate hate against others.
But on the other hand, a Jew might be randomly mugged on the street one night, and end up murdered, and everyone should be comforted in the fact that it was nothing personal... just business.If it's heinous enough sure - it's a hate crime penalty is meant to be more punitive given not just the motivation but possibly when such acts carry malice beyond that which can normally be assessed. Granted, additional punitive charges could just be added on to the main charge which would do the same thing but I think the purpose of a hate crime would be to bring State and/or Federal charges which carry more weight.
If you murder someone because they are a Jew, and you go out of your way to demonstrate your malice toward Jews (I'm using that as an example so no freak out), and you plan your murder because that person is a Jew (not because the victim and murderer know each other) and the murder takes place. That's not the same as a murder occurring say as a contract killing. Murder is not murder - there are different levels of murder and different severity's.
Adding a hate crime charge is not meant to be a deterrent IMO, it's meant as a punitive additional measure.
But on the other hand, a Jew might be randomly mugged on the street one night, and end up murdered, and everyone should be comforted in the fact that it was nothing personal... just business.
I'm sorry, but I reject that premise completely.
Would you support the government pursuing hate groups as they do terrorist groups? Arresting and detaining leaders of these groups, freezing assets, shutting down websites, and other means of stopping these groups from spreading their hate?
Do you reject punitive dollar amounts being added to civil court cases?
I do, actually, and have said so before.
The theory behind civil action is to be made whole again, not gain a net profit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damagesWiki said:Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.
Do you reject punitive dollar amounts being added to civil court cases?
I do, actually, and have said so before.
The theory behind civil action is to be made whole again, not gain a net profit.
You completely misunderstood my response. You asked if I reject punitive damages. I answered in the affirmative, in that I do reject punitive damages.Punitive damages are not part of being made whole at all but over and above being made whole:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
If that's the case, and you support punitive damages as exemplary - why not in a criminal case with a "hate crime" charge?
Would that include going after liberal hate groups who denigrate Christians because Biblically-based Christians refuse to honor gay marriage and abortion?
Then absolutely. Law enforcement pursues criminals. That's how it works already.Yes. 5
Would that include going after liberal hate groups who denigrate Christians because Biblically-based Christians refuse to honor gay marriage and abortion?
You completely misunderstood my response. You asked if I reject punitive damages. I answered in the affirmative, in that I do reject punitive damages.
radcen said:I do, actually, and have said so before.
Stop. You asked if I rejected punitive damages... your words, not mine... and affirmed that I do reject them, and I even quoted your question.No I didn't misunderstand at all. I asked if you disagree with punitive damages in civil court cases and you clearly said the following:
I'm fine if you want to say you misspoke or misunderstood my question and didn't answer correctly but that was about as direct of an answer to a direct question as DP ever gets. Tell me what I misunderstood (if it wasn't a mistaken post on your part).
What I asked is plainly there to see in my post #58.Stop. You asked if I rejected punitive damages... your words, not mine... and affirmed that I do reject them, and I even quoted your question.
The intellectual maturity is in post #58 and your reply in your post #60.If you don't have the basic intellectual maturity to suck it up and admit a simple mistake, then you're not worth my time.
Would you support the government pursuing hate groups as they do terrorist groups? Arresting and detaining leaders of these groups, freezing assets, shutting down websites, and other means of stopping these groups from spreading their hate?
White Nationalist groups, KKK, New Black Panthers, Conservative Citizens, Aryan Nation, or any other groups that promote hate and encourage others to perpetrate hate against others.
White Nationalist groups, KKK, New Black Panthers, Conservative Citizens, Aryan Nation, or any other groups that promote hate and encourage others to perpetrate hate against others.
Occupy people and the kkk are not the same. The kkk have historically used violence to intimidate and threaten. They also encourage others to use violence.
Monitoring and stopping are not the same. These groups use violence and encourage it. But only the individuals are pursued. What about the others who are actively encouraging the activity. Teaching the hate. Essentially causing these things. Freedom of speech shouldn't protect the right to promote hate and violence against others. We can target the mafia for being members, we can detain terrorists for affiliation. Why shouldn't we purge society of these groups who are actively promoting hate against Americans?
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?