Originally Posted By TexasTeaIII I think that you misunderstood or went to far Mrsnurmi. A random rape vs an incest rape I doubt we would know which is more hurful.
Originally Posted By barboy Dabob #204 is a responsible and sensible approach--- that is where I am also. You also, inadvertently I believe, tapped into something that I seldom(if never) see discussed here: the defining feature of a "crime" vs something more "civil". According to criminal law theory here in the U.S. a "crime" never involves one specific victim--- A crime (theoretically) victimizes society as a whole.
Originally Posted By Mrs Nurmi Did I? By DAR's response, that is exactly what he/she meant. I agree with you - the moral difference between these two crimes is staggering... just like the moral difference between hate motivated crimes and opportunistically motivated crimes. It baffles me that a compassionate human being cannot see the difference.
Originally Posted By DAR <<It baffles me that a compassionate human being cannot see the difference.>> My compassion lies with the victim(s)in these cases not the criminal(s).
Originally Posted By jonvn "It baffles me that a compassionate human being cannot see the difference." Nearly everyone can. The Rehnquist court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that these laws are valid and come from a long history in law. This is what Mr. Right-Wing-Rehnquist himself wrote. You know why he wrote it? Because while I didn't like all his decisions, he at least had integrity enough to know between right and wrong. What I can't understand here is that people have been told over and over and over that intent and motive are ALWAYS taken into account in the prosecution of a criminal act, yet somehow that seems to slip right on by.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan LOL! Isn't it something? Perhaps if you broadcast it over a radio station, it *might* sink in a little, Jonvn.
Originally Posted By DAR Apparently you guys didn't read what I wrote. So let me make it clear MY COMPASSION LIES WITH THE VICTIMS OF THESE CRIMES, WHETHER IT'S A HATE CRIME OR NOT.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The Rehnquist court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that these laws are valid and come from a long history in law. This is what Mr. Right-Wing-Rehnquist himself wrote.>> And I am telling you that Rhenquist, a man I have always admired in this case was flat out wrong. Many people think the court was wrong in this case. Just like many people know Roe Vs Wade was wrong. Here is a question. Should a guy who beats up a gay person because he is gay get more jail time than a white man who beats up another white man for wearing a shirt he didn't like? If so have fun explaining why one person should get more jail time than another in these examples. I think it will become clear that the bottom line is that liberals want to stick it to the bigot harder, which is in effect making it a penalty in America to be a bigot.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I explained the reasoning behind hate crimes to you several posts back after you raised your various objections, the first being that you thought hate crime protections didn't extend to whites. And yes, hate crime legislation IS intended to send a message that America is NOT a place that is welcoming or accommodating to bigotry. Hate crime laws became necessary because certain knuckle-draggers in this country thought THEY could send a 'message' to gays, people of other races, religions, etc. through beatings, intimidation, all sorts of violence. Every criminal law is designed to send a message: It isn't okay to steal. It isn't okay to embezzle. It isn't okay to kill. Hate crime laws won't stop people from hating, but if it makes a person think twice before acting on their racist feelings, good. If it doesn't, they can mull it over in jail that much longer.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF It *has* been explained to you, over and over and over again. Do you have a concept of "agreeing to disagree?" Nobody is going to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's. The fact remains, the laws are on the books and if you don't like them, then push for a vote to repeal them. You know, like we do in America.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<And yes, hate crime legislation IS intended to send a message that America is NOT a place that is welcoming or accommodating to bigotry.>> Ahhhh.. finally. So should being a bigot be illegal? How about a moonbat who hates neocons? How about blacks who hate the white man? Should all those people be put in jail for thinking bad thoughts? K2man, why not just answer the question? Should a guy who beats up a gay person because he is gay get more jail time than a white man who beats up another white man for wearing a shirt he didn't like?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA This is very interesting debate -- seriously. I'm wondering about flag burning -- is flag burning considered a 'hate' crime? You know, you hate what the country is doing and you burn the flag... How does flag burning fit in here?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The fact remains, the laws are on the books and if you don't like them, then push for a vote to repeal them. You know, like we do in America.>> Tim, this is a great point and if there is a way to repeal them I would gladly donate to the cause. Like we do in America.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>I'm wondering about flag burning -- is flag burning considered a 'hate' crime?<< According to Beaumandy, hate crime laws are about putting you in jail for thinking about burning a flag. You could be in big trouble right now? Or it could just be that he's insane and should probably be medicated...
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Flag buring according to the thought police should put you in jail. See how aout of control this gets when you really break it down? It's a form of hate.
Originally Posted By FaMulan The Supreme Court has held that flag burning is symbolic expression and a form of speech and is therefore protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some of the cases regarding flag burning: U. S. vs O'Brien (1968) Schact vs. U. S. (1970) Spence vs. Washington (1974) Texas vs Johnson (1989) United States v. Eichman More information can be found here, including the text of the Court: <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup ct/search/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "And I am telling you:" Who cares what you're telling me. You're flat out wrong, and uninformed. Neither the law, nor the history of the law is on your side. Why you are wrong has been explained to you multiple times in various ways, citing the Supreme Court, history, definitions of the law, and so on. You, again, do not know what you are talking about here.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Should all those people be put in jail for thinking bad thoughts?<< Of course not, yet another straw man argument. As I said in my post, if you had read it carefully -- if they decide to ACT on those thoughts, that's when a hate crime law would apply. >>Should a guy who beats up a gay person because he is gay get more jail time than a white man who beats up another white man for wearing a shirt he didn't like?<< In certain circumstance (READ THAT AGAIN, BEAU) I would say yes. Here's why (and again, please read it and it explains my reasonings...) In your example, if the prosecution can prove that the person beating up the gay guy did so to send an intimidating message to the gay community at large, it is an additional element that didn't exist in the guy beating up a guy over his shirt. This is a weak example, but I'm trying to simplify here -- It's kind of like, robbing a convenience store vs. robbing a store and spray painting "You other convenience stores are next!!" In both cases, the store is out the money. But with the intimidation aspect added, it takes the crime starts to involve even more of the community. One crime isn't 'better' than the other, but one crime has an extra ugly element added to it. It's why I support laws that give extra jail time for killing a cop. Are cops better than you or me? Are their lives of more value? Probably not. But killing a cop is serious in that it threatens more than just the cop who was killed. It rattles the community's feeling of safety and protection that much more than if you or I get shot. Murder is bad. Murdering a cop has that extra element of intimidation to the community at large. Does that clear it up at all?
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Does that clear it up at all?<< For what it's worth, the 99% of people here with a modicum of common sense undertand it (even though some disagree). I'm not sure why you think some people will ever actually develop the ability to listen to and understand your reasoning however, lol.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <which is in effect making it a penalty in America to be a bigot.< while I understand some of your points inthis discussion as I have chosen to read rather than post...you make it sound like being a bigot is a good thing , or at least not bad. let me ask you this...the anti US factions of the fanatical wings of the Muslim groups who have sworn to hate Americans, do you ( and I ) not want them punished for their beliefs, even though many have not acted (yet) on their hatred ? just asking -- or if that is different how? And for the sake of discussion, let's make the people I would want to compare apples to apples here as American citizens but part of sleeper cells. Just curious... and before you call me ( incorrectly) some anti-American , lib this and that...I want to government to use all the tools they have to prevent another 9/11 etc...so I am trying to determine if maybe I am wrong in my desire.
