|
| Thread: Hate Crimes |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 06, 2009 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:53, 03 Dec 2009.
|
Hate Crimes
NOTE: I'm turning this into a new thread, because it's getting pretty far afield of Father's LGBT thread (around pg 54), and really it's a topic broader than just sexual orientation. For those not familiar with the context, there was a discussion in that thread about whether hate crimes should be treated more severely than crimes motivated for other reasons. Here is my response.
Note 2: Some time after this thread was started, Father childishly deleted every post he ever made here at HC, including the entire LGBT thread. That explains why there are now some gaps in the coversation.  T
Let me start off by saying that I do honestly sympathize the position that hate crimes should be punished more severely than "regular crimes". Emotionally, it makes a lot of sense. And I'd wager that nobody here thinks that "hate crimes" - or crimes in general - are a good thing.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the law, we have to be practical and logical as well, and we have to consider the possible ramifications of any change we make to the way that laws are enforced.
One problem with your position is that the very word "hate crime" is poorly defined. Before you jump on me, realize that legal language has to be precise and unambiguous - it has to be so because lawyers are going to be looking for loopholes behind every word. So, while I certainly understand what you mean when you are referring to "hate crimes", there's a lot of room for, shall we say, creative interpretation. For instance, if a man catches his wife in bed with another man, and in response he goes home, gets a gun, returns, and blows a 4 cm hole into the offending man's skull, thereby killing him - he certainly didn't commit that crime out of compassion. He hated the fact that his wife was fornicating with another man, and he hated the man and his wife at the moment he acted upon his rage. Hate crime? Well, it was a crime committed out of hate - and a good lawyer could certainly spin it that way to a jury.
So what is hate crime? A crime committed against a certain racial group merely because of their racial identity? Ok. What about against a religious group? Ok. Sexual identity? Clearly. Gender? Maybe. Hair color? Hmmm... Nose size? Well...
Now, you may think I'm taking it into the realm of the ridiculous, but seriously. Let's say a prosecutor is able to make a convincing case that John killed Jack because he hates people with red hair. Well, that's the kind of crazy stuff you'll get if your language isn't unambiguous.
But beyond semantics: the intention of your proposal means to reduce racial (or religious, or whatever) intolerance by stipulating that crimes against a member of a demographic solely because they are a member of that demographic should carry with them higher punishments. You give an interesting example: the killing of a black man because he his black should be punished more severely than a "simple" killing of a black man.
I have a couple of problems with this.
In order to justify a gradation of punishment, you have to be able to show unequivocally why the different grades are necessary. Take the degrees of murder, for instance. Why is a 1st degree murder punished more severely than a 3rd degree murder, which is more than an involuntary manslaughter? Have you ever thought about it? After all, the end result is the same, isn't it? Someone has died. So why do the circumstances surrounding the act affect how the offender should be dealt with? Well, that opens a door to the discussion of why we punish wrongdoers. Is it punitive? Or is it to sequester them from society to prevent them from harming again? It's a good question, probably one better reserved for a whole separate thread, but the practical reason we punish someone is to prevent them from further harming society. Therefore it stands to reason that the magnitude of a crime's punishment should scale with two factors: (A) the severity of the outcome (e.g., loss of life > loss of property, etc.) and (B) the likelihood that the person will commit the crime again. Those are obviously fairly qualitative criteria, but they illustrate an important point.
Let's return to the loss-of-life gradation. The outcome of 1st degree vs. 3rd degree vs. manslaughter is the same. Someone died. Therefore, the reason we punish them differently has to be - ignoring punitive (emotional) components - due to differing likelihoods of the offender in each case committing the crimes again. Does that make sense, when we evaluate the definitions of the various crimes? First degree murder is defined as a premeditated intent to kill another person, whereby the murder has been planned out in advance of the actual act. [These are loose definitions and they also vary by state, but they'll suffice here.] Third degree murder is an intent to kill someone that happens "in the passion of the moment", such as a guy killing his wife in the course of a heated argument. Manslaughter is basically the unintentional killing of someone (there are different types, but generally this is the case). It seems reasonable to me to conclude that a person who goes out of his way to plan a murder in advance is much more likely to kill again in the future, then someone who "just" severely loses his temper in the heat of the moment, and may very well regret it once he's cooled off; and likewise someone who just accidentally kills another person is the least likely to kill again. I repeat, there's not a lot of precision here but I think the general qualitative trend holds. Thus in the case of murders, it seems to be evident that the severity of the crime (measured by the severity of the punishment) scales in some way with the likelihood of the person posing a future danger to society.
Now, ignoring the somewhat unclear definition of hate crime, let's consider the scenario you set before us. On the one hand, we have a man who kills someone just because he's black. I would agree with you that it stands to reason that such a person is reasonably likely to kill someone again. Let's say for a benchmark the likelihood is 80%. Probably he'll kill another black person. On the other hand, we have someone who kills another person for some other reason, and that person happens to be black. Let's say it's because the murderee owes the murderer a lot of money, or something. Assuming that both crimes were planned out well in advance (i.e., all other things being equal), I think you'll find that it's pretty hard to make a clear case that the "hate crime" offender is more likely to kill again than the 1st degree murderer who does it because of money. I mean, if he kills someone over money once, he's likely to kill someone over money again, isn't he? What's the % chance? In other words, the fact that the murder is premeditated is the major indicator here that a murderer is likely to repeat his crime. The actual motive may give you an emotional reason to punish the hate-crime more severely (certainly, killing someone because of their skin color or sexual orientation sounds a lot worse), but there's less of an obvious logical connection there to justify increasing the severity of the hate crime based on the practical criterion of "likelihood to kill again".
This is all, of course, on a purely legal theoretical level. Which brings me to the second point. You need to distinguish between the way the law is written, and the way it is applied. As I stated before, it is very important that the law is unambiguous and logical. There should be an almost scientific mechanism for the way the law is written. It shouldn't be emotional at all, because that makes the application of it a nightmare, and also introduces the great potential for abuse. Thus, on a purely theoretical level, I certainly believe in what I wrote above.
That said, the people who try and hear cases do not make decisions based purely out of logic. They also make decisions based out of emotion. There are certain things called mitigating or aggravating circumstances which at least in part are subject to emotion. Jurors can and do take these circumstances (and their emotions) into account when pronouncing judgment and evaluating what punishment is deserved by any given individual.
So, to sum up so far:
(1) The law must be clear and unambiguous.
(2) Punishments should ideally be used to protect society from repeat offenders, and hence the severity of the punishment should scale with the (A) severity of the outcome of the crime and (B) the likelihood of a crime to be repeated.
(3) The major factor affecting likelihood of repetition of a crime - and hence determining crime severity gradation - is related to whether a crime is premeditated.
(4) Motive plays a less clear roll in determining likelihood of repetition, and is more susceptible to emotional response.
Therefore
(5) Motive should not be written into the legal code; rather its impact on crime severity should be left to the discretion of the jury and judge.
One last thing I'll say here that comes to mind is a practical difficulty in establishing hate as a motive, and, as a corollary to that, the potential for abuse. With respect to the first part: it's hard in a court of law to establish a motive, especially one that is emotional rather than physical. It's easy to prove that John killed Jack over a debt, when bank records are available to establish this. Much harder to prove that John killed Jack because he doesn't like black people. Even if you have a diary from John where he explicitly states that he hates black people, to establish a motive in a court of law, that's not enough. Just because John hates black people doesn't mean he killed Jack because he's black. I could be the most racist person on a planet but it doesn't mean I'd kill someone over it. Not only does this present a practical difficulty in clearly establishing a motive - which in principle would render it very difficult to prove a hate crime in a court of law - but I think you also see here the potential for abuse. It would be quite unfair to try John for killing Jack (who is black) at some elevated, more severe level of murder just because he has a journal that says he hates black people. Because jurors are susceptible to emotional response, many might be likely to convict him of the more severe crime of "hate murder" just because he has this journal, even though it's at best a circumstantial piece of evidence. Hate by itself, while repugnant, is not itself a crime, and the susceptibility of humans to emotional rather than logical thinking makes this sort of special treatment of hate-motivated crimes way too dangerous from the standpoint of abuse.
[There's also the fact that if you introduced this kind of special hate crime label into the law, ANY TIME a member of a minority group is killed, there'd be a push to try it as a hate crime. Everyone loves to play the RACE (or whatever) CARD. You know it would happen. Again, too much potential for abuse.]
Anyway, that's my stand in a nutshell. I am emotionally with you on this one, Father, but I just see too many practical problems with it to support it.
EDIT: Spelling
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:02 AM |
|
|
You already have hate crimes law in USA. The thing that is on the news and what resently caught our attention was that they are planning to expand the bill to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
So briefly, if there is already a hate crime law, should this addition be made?  A tricky question of you want the entire bill to be removed and hence you would vote against anything that strengthens it, but I don't think that is very realistic that it is abolished all together.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:09 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
Father:
Quote:
You don't help someone who has killed someone by standing over the body. You turn to the murderer in question and find out why, then kill him!
The dead are beyond help anyway.
Also, from the LGBT thread:Quote:
Mvass intent has always had a large part in any legal case.
Of course, and rightly so. But whether a crime is a hate crime has nothing to do with intent. If there is intent to murder, and the murder happens, then of course the punishment should be greater than if it was an accident. But both in cases of murder motivated by race/gender/sexual orientation or murder caused by something else, there is the intent to kill - so that's not the question.
Minion:
Since I support the abolition of hate crime laws, I am ambivalent about this expansion. On one hand, it makes the law more uniform. On the other hand, the law shouldn't exist at all.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:18, 06 May 2009.
|
@Father
Quote:
Things are simple to me, complication simply breeds further complication. Long words and prattling on from one logical stance to another....well, can I just call you Spock from now on? 
Well that's sort of the point. You are advocating adding more complexity into the way that laws are written, interpreted and enforced. Where there is more complexity, there is more potential for abuse. Adding special categories for so-called hate crimes makes the law more complicated, not less complicated.
EDIT. By the way, I wanted to ask (and don't take this the wrong way, please), did you actually read what I wrote? I'll admit, it probably takes some concentration to follow the logic, but it might be worth your while. I don't mean that you should read it because I think I'm right and you'll "see the light". But I am just curious if you actually read it and tried to follow what I was saying, or if you are already so convinced your position is the only one worth considering and you aren't even interested in another viewpoint on the matter. Because I'd say only about half of it was logic based - I think the potential for abuse is real and concerning, and should at the least give you pause. You must be able to at least acknowledge that, even if it doesn't ultimately change your overall opinion on the matter.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:22 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 01:23, 06 May 2009.
|
The thing is, we focus on so different things. You focus on the possible exploitation of the law or the definition of what can be hated. We are on a different book, as Father said. You are focused on the technical aspects so to speak.
The American Psychological Association issued the report Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress. In the report Dr. Jack McDevitt, a criminologist, stated, "Hate crimes are message crimes. They are different from other crimes in that the offender is sending a message to members of a certain group that they are unwelcome."
The National Institute of Mental Health has funded the first major study of the consequences of hate crimes on victims, narrowing in on anti-gay hate crimes. Preliminary research indicates that hate crimes have more serious psychological effects than non-bias motivated crimes.
This is what I have focused on. I'd rather not debate about if the law can be interpreted in court wrongly. I can't see that as the major issue.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:26 AM |
|
|
@Minion
Quote:
The American Psychological Association issued the report Hate Crimes Today: An Age-Old Foe in Modern Dress. In the report Dr. Jack McDevitt, a criminologist, stated, "Hate crimes are message crimes. They are different from other crimes in that the offender is sending a message to members of a certain group that they are unwelcome."
Ok, Minion, then supposing Dr. Jack McDevitt is correct: what is creating a special category for this type of crime, assuming you can unambiguously define it (which I'd argue you can't, or at least, nobody has demonstrated that you can), going to accomplish?
Please explain to me the rationale of the actual punishment. Punishment has to accomplish something - there has to be a reason. Is it just punitive? That just means emotional, really, and accomplishes nothing other than to make you, the punisher, feel better. Does this actually solve anything?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:41 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:43, 06 May 2009.
|
With Corribus on this one.
Rape can also be a message crime. It sends a message against lonely vulnerable girls walking shady streets at night.
Stabbing someone and stealing his wallet too. Sends a message against people who try to hold on to their possessions even when threatened.
Murder out of greed is just as lethal as murder out of hate. And they should both be judged as murder IMO.
Though if a person is proven to be a racist, that most probably ought to speak against him when he kills a member of the opposite race. And of course, a wife that murders her husband who was a violent alcoholic beating her up can't be regarded the same as a Ku Klux Klan member killing a black man.
Just my 2 cents of course. I know I'm not really the one to talk about judicial systems, especially on the other side of the planet. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:46 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 01:47, 06 May 2009.
|
The same reason why we punish people from any crime. To set an example to others. But why a harder punishment then? The same reason why murder is punished more heavily than manslaughter.
Punishment alone seldom does much of course, there also needs to be dialogue and discussion why hate crimes are especially bad. The message that discrimination is not tolerated is spread through this law and maybe attitudes slowly start to change. That way a more functioning multicultural/racial society can emerge. Maybe utopian? Maybe not. I think striving towards there is at least something.
As for defining the law - it already exists. I am not sure it is such a catastrophe as you make it sound like.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:52 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:53, 06 May 2009.
|
By the way, Father, may I ask one more thing of you?
In the other thread, you said:
Quote:
Ugh, where are Corribus or Wolfsburg when I need them. They can articulate feelings and thoughts so much better than I.
This of course implies quite clearly that you believed I would hold your point of view. Might I ask why? I have an idea, but I'd rather hear your reasoning rather than jumping to my own, possibly erroneous conclusions.
@Minion
Quote:
The same reason why we punish people from any crime. To set an example to others. But why a harder punishment then? The same reason why murder is punished more heavily than manslaughter.
That's not the major reason why we punish people, as I explained above.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 02:27 AM |
|
|
Certainly it isn't the sole or the biggest reason, it is very late here and I am exhausted and my posts are lacking. But here I'll quote you.Quote:
Therefore it stands to reason that the magnitude of a crime's punishment should scale with two factors: (A) the severity of the outcome (e.g., loss of life > loss of property, etc.) and (B) the likelihood that the person will commit the crime again. Those are obviously fairly qualitative criteria, but they illustrate an important point.
A) The severity of the outcome is more than from a normal attack, so it does qualify
b) You said yourself they are more likely to do it again
Both criteria apply, hence the punishment should be more severe.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 02:40 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 02:40, 06 May 2009.
|
@Minion
Quote:
A) The severity of the outcome is more than from a normal attack, so it does qualify
How? Dead is dead. Beaten is beaten. Physically, there's certainly no difference; and I think you'd have a hard time convincing someone who is beaten within a hair's breadth of their life in a common mugging that their psychological trauma is any less than what black man who is beaten because he's black feels. I'm sorry, I just don't see how the outcomes are really any different.
Quote:
b) You said yourself they are more likely to do it again
I did? Where?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 02:44 AM |
|
|
@Minion: You say that hate makes them "more likely" to kill again. But "more likely" is relative: compared to what? To business? Well a paid assassin is most likely going to kill again.
Or compared to what are they more likely to kill again? What other type of crime is there? "Hate" crime can be extended (and abused) for soo many types (except business-wise)...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 06:01 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 06:02, 06 May 2009.
|
@Father
Quote:
Now then, with that being said...if I ever do not respond to a particular question or comment, it would be because I felt there was no need to do so and thus...remained silent on the issue. As far as my initial reply to you, I just simply disagreed with your stance. I did not feel that further comment from me was required. As I clearly stated my opinions within the LGBT thread anyway so to continue saying the same thing over and over was obviously not getting me anywhere with any of you. As far as your further questions...refer to the first part of this paragraph.
Well certainly you're entitled to say nothing on the issue. I just find it strange that someone who obviously has strong feelings on a particular subject has no interest in discussing it.
Quote:
With regards to my quote. Indeed I had hoped that your opinion would be in line with myself and Minion, but I was not surprised in the slightest to read that it was not.
Ok, let me be more direct.
I find it interesting that you specifically solicited my input on the issue. I can only surmise that you did so because you felt I would be supportive of your side of the issue. And I can only surmise that is the case because I have, in the passt defended quite vigorously the rights of people of - hmm, what's the euphemism currently in use? - alternative lifestyles.
I hope you understand that I consider the two matters completely distinct. Clearly, you feel there is some connection between furthering the cause of equal rights for homosexuals and the prosecution of so-called hate crimes. However, I don't see that connection. Restricting the discussion to homosexuals for a moment (and ignoring crimes targeted against other minority groups), let us recognize that such crimes exist, and also recognize that they are truly heinous crimes and have no place in a civilized society that recognizes equal rights for all people. No doubt, people who commit such crimes are worthless bigots and they deserve to be punished. I want there to be no misunderstanding between us on this point.
What I fail to understand is the following. Let us say that a new, special, more serious (and more harshly punished) class of crimes is written into the code of laws, which stipulates that people who commit crimes against any person simply because he is a homosexual will be punished to a harsher degree than people who commit the exact same crime against someone else for a different, not "hate-motivated" reason. I do not see how this helps homosexuals achieve their goal of equal rights. Perhaps you can explain this point to me so I will understand it.
With that said, let me add three additional points/questions.
(1) If it does not help homosexuals to achieve their goal of equal rights, then what is the purpose behind the change in the law? It seems to me that at this point it could only be simple retribution, which seems to me far beyond the purpose of the law.
(2) I fail to see how this law is fair to non-homosexuals. I think I would feel somehow like a lower-class citizen if I was beaten up by a thug because he wanted to steel my wallet, and he gets a light sentence, whereas a thug who beats up you because you're homosexual gets a harsher sentence. I don't see how that is equal protection under the law, a fundamental principle of the US Constitution. Put another way, if your law was enacted, homosexuals would receive greater protection under than law than other people, would they not?
(3) It has been often implied in this thread (and the other one) that the motivation behind this law is that such crimes cause deep psychological trauma to the individual (and the targeted group), that this somehow justifies the harsher treatment of the accused. To be frank, I think this is completely unfair to victims of ALL crimes, who are ALL traumatized. I would venture to guess that rape is probably one of the most traumatic crimes that can be committed against a woman; should this be a hate-crime? If the punishment of a crime is to be related to the psychological trauma of the victim, I think it is unfair to dismiss the psychological trauma experienced by victims of non-hate-crimes as being insignificant compared to the trauma done to people targeted for hate-crimes.
It just sort of seems like a double-standard to me. Minority groups want to be treated as equals, which they have every right to be, but then they want special, separate levels of protection under the law.
Anyway, respond at your discretion. You are certainly entitled to remain mute on the subject.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 06:10 AM |
|
|
I have been the victim of more then one 'hate crime'. Oddly enough, however, I find myself in disagreement with the idea of a hate crime bill. I see it as special treatment, and I do not want to be 'special' I want to be accepted as an equal. Nothing more, nothing less.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 07:07 AM |
|
|
|
I agree with Corribus and Baklava, mostly. Violence is violence, however motivated, and if anything such a "hate" is not developed from personal grudge or anything but a direct consequence of parental/organizational brain-washing which wouldn't make the crime more severe. On the contrary.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 07:22 AM |
|
|
Hate crime goes both ways.
We are brought up hating certain cultures,certain genders,Certain races,certain sex or certain religion.
That is why there are so many wars, you may call them hate crimes.
Or hate wars.
Hate goes both ways, I see alot of offense with Father & a few others when it comes to disagreements.
I also know for a fact that there is hatred for example L&G (Lesbians & Gays).
It goes down to history from religion.
Being with the same sex is a sin.
There are alot of religious people here & that is a sin, therefore they are hated.
Now the victims also hate the haters.
Therefore they create their own hate crime in retaliation. Yes that is a fact.
I am not saying it is right to hate your fellow man/woman.
As long as there is hatred, then there will never be peace.
There will always be hatred because our history tends to repeat.
We are also human so therefore there will always be hatred towards something that they fear.
They fear a gay man will touch them & there for get turned on for example.
Therefore the terror will turn into rage & that turns into a crime.
People do change though, sometimes people learn to love their fellow man, even if their parents never did.
Point is that there will always be hate crime because of the past.
History is correct when it comes to hatred.
It also proves that there is hatred & sensetivity towards the people hating differentuality.
Right Father?
P.S I like that wird differentuality
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 01:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
A) The severity of the outcome is more than from a normal attack, so it does qualify
How? Dead is dead. Beaten is beaten. Physically, there's certainly no difference; and I think you'd have a hard time convincing someone who is beaten within a hair's breadth of their life in a common mugging that their psychological trauma is any less than what black man who is beaten because he's black feels. I'm sorry, I just don't see how the outcomes are really any different.
From a psychological standpoint, hate crimes may produce devastating consequences.
effects on people - psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.
effect on the targeted group - generalized terror in the group from which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.
effect on other vulnerable groups - ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
effect on society as a whole - the stimulation of divisions in society, which would be an abomination against concepts like harmony and equality in a multicultural society.
And in this very thread I posted already:
Quote:
The National Institute of Mental Health has funded the first major study of the consequences of hate crimes on victims, narrowing in on anti-gay hate crimes. Preliminary research indicates that hate crimes have more serious psychological effects than non-bias motivated crimes.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 03:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm a much better people person and charisma is probably my best quality (of course not a lick of that shows here at HC).
Erratic twitching shouting, spasms and cynical jokes are probably my lesser flaws (Of course, only a quarter of that shows here on HC)
(sorry, father, I am joking. I just wanted to make light of that, since I felt it didn't belong there. I'm sorry, if I offended you. It's nothing personal, really)
Quote:
effects on people - psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.
effect on the targeted group - generalized terror in the group from which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.
effect on other vulnerable groups - ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
effect on society as a whole - the stimulation of divisions in society, which would be an abomination against concepts like harmony and equality in a multicultural society.
Bs, division in society is stimulated by the government that acknowledges there is no such thing as equality.
Stop splitting yourself up in groups. You're all citizens of the world and all those laws protecting people should refer to you. The only thing that should be protected more is the child, but that's about it for special things. I should be punished equally for throwing rocks at black or white strangers, not more for one and less for the other.
Quote:
The National Institute of Mental Health has funded the first major study of the consequences of hate crimes on victims, narrowing in on anti-gay hate crimes. Preliminary research indicates that hate crimes have more serious psychological effects than non-bias motivated crimes.
What? Do they have a machine or something?
EDITED
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 03:29 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:33, 06 May 2009.
|
@Minion
One at a time:
Quote:
effects on people - psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.
(emphasis my own). I don't see any way that you can make such an assertion. If nothing else, I think "psychological trauma" is something that is hard to objectively quantify. Furthermore, using this logic - that the punishment should scale with the alleged damage done to the victim - someone who steals a Mercedes Benz should get a much worse punishment than someone who steals a Ford Taurus. After all, the damage done to the Benz owner is much greater than that done to the Taurus owner. Right? At some point, you have to draw a line at what crimes are considered equivalent to what other crimes. In both cases someone lost a car - do we need to go in and determine which car is worse to lose?
Quote:
effect on the targeted group - generalized terror in the group from which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.
Causing fear isn't really a punishable offense. Aside from that, I'd argue that this isn't a phenomenon restricted to victims of hate crimes. Some time ago, there was a rapist at large in Philadelphia who raped some large number of women while they were jogging in a nice area near one of Philadelphia's rivers. For months, women were terrified to go to this area and enjoy the park. Women were terrified to go ANYWHERE alone in the city. It was all over the news. Same effect, no?
Quote:
effect on other vulnerable groups - ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
So what you're basically implying is that a person who commits a crime should be punished extra harshly because of feelings of fear felt by people that had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime? So if John kills a Jew because he hates Jews, we should punish him extra harshly because Christians are afraid of the possibility of hate crimes against their religion, too? Forgive me, but that seems a little like presuming someone guilty without a fair trial.
Quote:
effect on society as a whole - the stimulation of divisions in society, which would be an abomination against concepts like harmony and equality in a multicultural society.
This is an effect only of hate crimes? Seems to me that ALL crimes create division in society. And furthermore, it's not illegal to be racist. If creating divisions in society at racial/ethnic boundaries was a crime, then what happens to free speech? Let me ask you this: do you advocate arresting and punishing people who say that they are against homosexuality? After all, they are certainly interfering with "harmony and equality in a multicultural society", and probably cause similar "psychological damage" to the targeted groups, both at the individual and group levels.
Should we get rid of free speech altogether, or any other things that are "abominations against concepts like harmony and equality in a multicultural society"?
Quote:
The National Institute of Mental Health has funded the first major study of the consequences of hate crimes on victims, narrowing in on anti-gay hate crimes. Preliminary research indicates that hate crimes have more serious psychological effects than non-bias motivated crimes.
I'd like to see the study, first off. I'm not going to just nod my head and agree with a study I haven't even seen. Such studies are hard to interpret anyway, are hard to carry out objectively, and have the enormous potential for bias, but beyond that, you're making a conclusion based on "preliminary research". When people cite "preliminary research", that's a clear sign of a predetermined and hence biased conclusion. You're basically saying, "These people are going to be doing a study, and this is what I think it's going to end up showing."
EDIT: I'll also reiterate that punishment is not about the victim - it's about the criminal.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 04:47 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 16:50, 06 May 2009.
|
Should psychological damage be taken into consideration when considering the punishment? To me, it seems natural that it is taken. If you can convince me that it should have no value, go ahead. I do agree that "psychological trauma" is something that is hard to objectively quantify. No denying that.
That brings us to the study made by The National Institute of Mental Health, I have no idea if it is correct or not but if other studies show different I have no problem changing my mind at all.
Here is one study made in Canada Hate-motivated crimes are unique in that they can have effects on the victim beyond those commonly associated with non-hate crimes. The personal characteristics related to hate crime victimization (e.g. race, religion, sexual orientation) are often core elements of the victim’s sense of identity and, when targeted, can create feelings of anger and vulnerability. Research on the psychological effects of criminal victimization has found that emotional consequences tend to be more severe among victims of hate crime than victims of non-hate crime (Schaffer, 1996). Other research has suggested that the recovery period can be longer for victims of hate crime (Herek, 1999).
The car example is simple, if a person destroys my car 10,000 he should pay less than if he destroyed my 50,000 car.
About free speech, somehow it always goes there. That is the cornerstone of western world, but however (at least here in Finland) you are not allowed to encourage other people to commit crimes against people. That is punishable as well, do you find that it is against the holy free speech and should be abolished?
Quote:
do you advocate arresting and punishing people who say that they are against homosexuality?
Absolutely not. Only if they encourage OTHER people to commit felonies against homosexuals and they do so, they are to be punished as well.
I am not against free speech. Why do I need to fight against some made up accusations about where I stand? Really ruins the debate atmosphere for me. If I were American I bet the next thing would be to question my patriotism. But I take it that you are just exaggerating the examples to keep the discussion going. However, I want the court to notify my objection to the style. j/k
As for the effect on the targeted group or other groups that might identify themselves as similar. The fear of a woman not going out because there is a rapist out there is different, she doesn't feel that it is personal. A muslim (that is a minority in some given country) that fears to go out because he knows that his very identity is hated is different. It can cause alienation from the society.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
| |
|
|
