Originally Posted By barboy "It does matter. Our legal system makes distinctions between crimes all of the time". Obviously My "does it really" matter was a ethical/moral and logical piece of rhetoric and not a legal one.
Originally Posted By mele Right. I also said that our society believes that certain crimes are worse than others. Ethically/morally. Obviously.
Originally Posted By jonvn Does it really matter? Yes. It does matter. Because you want to match the punishment to the crime. You don't send someone to the electric chair if they run a red light and kill a nun. You do if you go out and with malice aforethought go after that nun and stab her 50 times to kill her. The nun ends up dead both ways. But they are different crimes.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Also although many hate crime committers act alone..other are part of organizations who teach the hate..and it opens up opportunities to get inside those groups and potentially avert more hate crimes.
Originally Posted By mele One of the reasons people are so offended by hate crimes is that the perp and the victim are complete strangers. It is outrageous that people hate a stranger so much that they feel the need to hurt them in some way. It's terrifying on a very deep level because we know there is no way to combat someone who hates us so much that they want to kill us because of our skin color, religion, appearance, etc. Everyone is greedy in some way, everyone has people in their lives they do not like, hate crimes are different. Most of us cannot understand the motivation and so it scares us. That's why we feel it needs harsher penalties.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >> My "does it really" matter was a ethical/moral and logical piece of rhetoric and not a legal one.<< And on an ethical and moral basis, motive has EVERYTHING to do with the culpability of a certain act. For example, a woman killed a man. That's all you know. Under your reasoning, she should either go to jail or be put to death. But if you find out that he was invading her house and had begun to rape her, you'd see that it was self-defense. The circimstances and intent of actions has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Originally Posted By barboy So if my friend was gunned down in Venice because he was white the perprtrator should be more culpable? No, the perpetrator is just as much of a punk whether he did it for greed or for hate.
Originally Posted By mele Funny, if *my* friend were gunned down in Venice, I'd want the perp to spend as much time behind bars as the law, any law, allowed.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So if my friend was gunned down in Venice because he was white the perprtrator should be more culpable?" No, no one has said that. It's about motive and intent.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Yesterday you said it was never used against blacks who attack whites. Then you shifted to 'almost never' when one example was provided. Then when it was shown that 20% of hate crime victims were white, you said it makes authorites 'guess' at the intent. Then when that's shown to be wrong as well, you resort to this.>> Even if a few whites get caught up in the net of a " hate crime " , that doesn't make it effective or a good idea. Hate crime laws are set up to nail people who did something bad to a certain group of people first and foremost, like gays. You all know it but you don't want to admit it. This is all a setup so people will be nicer to gays or other minority groups that liberals like to protect. Because if these groups are attacked... well we are going to REALLY give you some serious jail time you bigot! Can you imagine John Wayne going to the " hate crime " card? He would fall down laughing his head off it's so stupid.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Michael Savage called. He'd like you to stop lifting his material.>> K2man, you listen to a lot more talk radio that I do. TO bad you never learn anything.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<How is it WORSE for the victim?>> Makes no difference. Whether it is first degree murder or manslaughter the victim is just as dead. First degree murder doesn't make it worse for the victim at all. Yet the punishment is FAR more stringent. What's the difference? Motive behind the crime. Bingo... same thing as you look at with hate crimes... motive behind the crime. Next?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>TO bad you never learn anything.<< Coming from you, I take that as the ultimate compliment.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Hmmm. I've always felt pretty much like Beaumandy and barboy WRT hate crime legislation, but these write ups, especially Dabob2's nice, concise posts, have me reconsidering that. Thank you, Dabob2, for some enlightenment.
Originally Posted By barboy RT and cmp, please read #53 because your responses seem misplaced. I feel motive should have no bearing on punishment---whether motivated by hate, greed, or jealousy. If one intentionally, willfully and/or knowingly harms others without proper justification then she should be punished. To me wether a wife poisons her husband to get some insurance payout(greed) or she hated him because he was Canadian and knifed him in his sleep makes no difference as to her culpability; intent and not motivation is what counts.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder From sources- ----------------------------------- A`hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions. The commission of a hate crime requires that two elements be proven. First, it must be shown that the defendant committed an enumerated predicate offense, such as assault, robbery, manslaughter, or kidnapping. Second, it must be shown that the defendant had illegal motivations based on the victim’s minority status. ----------------------------------- So here's a very base example of a hate crime. Matthew Shepard would never have been tied to a fence, beaten up and left for dead had he not been a homosexual. His murder was based solely the perpetrators' hatred of gays. Shepard's murder is a candidate for the Ultimate Hate Crime. He'd probably be alive today if he wasn't gay. But let's say he lived through it and the crime was attempted murder instead. Because it was motivated by the perps' hatred of gays, if attempted murder in Wyoming carried a sentence of 25 years, the hate crime enhancement might justifiably add another 20 years. Shepard wasn't a random victim in the sense the perps just wanted to tie someone, anyone to a fence and beat them senseless. They specifically wanted to beat Shephard because he was gay, and that makes it a hate crime.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Exactly Barboy. Intent is what counts. The motivation is irrelivant in the end. Your going to give a peron longer jail time because they attacked a person because he was gay instead of attacking him for money? Why exactly? Please explain this to us because it makes no sense whatsover unless you admit it's for PC reasons to get that bigot or homophobe liberals like to crusade against no matter what.
