|
| Thread: Hate Crimes |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted December 04, 2009 11:45 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:52, 04 Dec 2009.
|
@bort
Nice to see you drop by.
Quote:
Assuming that Mary didn't happen to be the last black person on Earth, he is more likely to kill again.
(Emphasis mine). Ok, but I submit that if John is willing to kill Mary because he lost a game of cards with her, that he, too, is also likely to kill again. Who is more likely? Do you have a formula to figure that out? Besides which: the liklihood of future offenses is already taken into account during sentencing, and is already incorporated into existing legal structure (degrees of murder) so why is a separate class of crime required? The presumption as it stands now is that ANYONE who commits a premeditated murder, for whatever reason, is likely to do so again, and for this reason first degree murder is the most severe charge.
Unless you have a fail-proof way of determining absolutely who is more likely to murder again in the future, I don't see how this argument holds any water.
EDIT And by the way, the presumption in my six scenarios was that the murder was planned out a week in advance, although maybe I didn't make that clear. Good luck to any lawyer trying to get a manslaughter charge with clear evidence to show that. 
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 09:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
I don't think there's an objective standard.
And despite there being no objective standard, you'd still advocate a harsher punishment for one crime over the other? :confused:.
Of course. Standards are ever changing.
You can judge something from the result ONLY.
For a number of reasons we don't do that. It seems to make a difference whether someone plans to kill someone to get away with it or whether someone kills another person accidentally. Although in both cases a person is dead, difference in punishment may be massive.
So other factors seem to play a role. Is there an objective standard what else is playing a role? I don't think so. Who can say whether this or that motive or circumstance objectively deserves harsher or lesser punishment? Whether harsher or lesser punishments dis- or encourage and so on?
That leaves finding the pros and cons, and if you change something, there seems to be a reason to act.
So the process would be to analyze whether there have been more and more problems in the US with waht you can characterize as hate crimes or not, analyze the nature of the crime - what constitutes it -, try to find reasons, and then act accordingly.
Constitutionally I don't see any real reason to object - after all hate crimes are not limited to specific groups.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 01:46 PM |
|
Edited by bort at 13:49, 05 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Unless you have a fail-proof way of determining absolutely who is more likely to murder again in the future, I don't see how this argument holds any water.
EDIT And by the way, the presumption in my six scenarios was that the murder was planned out a week in advance, although maybe I didn't make that clear. Good luck to any lawyer trying to get a manslaughter charge with clear evidence to show that.
I'm not sure what the statutes say or even if they say anything regarding how long extreme emotional distress can last, but that's neither here nor there and is besides the point for this.
Now, as to fail-proof as the standard, that is not and has never been the standard in any aspect of criminal justice. It would be nice if it was or that it could be, but it can't since there really isn't such a thing as fail-proof. Is fail-proof the standard that should exist for guilt as well? It certainly would save money on jails.
I'm not saying this to just be an (edit : oh for crying out loud? That's how the coding works now, censored words are replaced by lame ones? The word was a term referring to the hole which in the case of monotremes also functions in expelling urine) and pick on one word you used. I understand that that's not literally your argument, I say that simply to point out that the criminal justice system requires people to make decisions and judgement calls based on imperfect information. If hate crimes codify that judges, juries and attorneys can explicitly include a defendant's prejudices in their thinking/prosecution. It's basically the same kind of thing that a parole board would consider (and make a subjective judgement) but thinking about it at the time of trial rather than at the time of parole consideration.
I do agree that the card game revenge scenario dude is also very likely to kill again. He clearly has anti-social personality disorder or something like that. Fine, give him and the racist guy life without parole while the others might get a chance at parole in 25 years. The iguana guy would probably do so in a mental facility. Is such a result unconstitutional? Doesn't really feel like it to me.
I think the focus on murder is distorting the argument though. All of those people are probably never getting free again at least until they're so old that they're pooping in a bag. Most hate crimes are lesser offenses and its in those cases where I think it's clearer why an additional statute can be helpful.
Is spraypainting swastikas on a synagogue the equivalent of tagging a bridge? Both just vandalism? Pay your misdemeanor fine and move along?
Is burning a cross on a families lawn the same as egging their house on halloween? Trespassing, vandalism, maybe some minor destruction of property? (The cross burned in a controlled manner, leaving nothing but a pile of ashes and some dead grass.)
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 05:36 PM |
|
|
@bort
Yes, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to imply that matters of law need to be determined with 100% certaintly. That's, of course, an impossible burden of proof. What I meant is that if you're going to base the severity of the crime* on the likelihood that the alleged offender will offend again in the future, then you have to have - at least in a qualitative way - a method to determine what that likelihood is. By which I mean - it seems to be sort of arbitrary to charge a person with a hate crime, with your justification being that the guilty party is likely to do another hate crime in the future, while at the same time charging someone who murders due to some other reason - and who may or may not be equally likely to murder again - with a lesser crime. That was quite a long sentence so I hope my meaning was clear.
* Let's be clear that I am not referring to just the punishment that is handed down. I agree with you that the ultimate punishment that is handed down by a judge should depend on the circumstancese surrounding the crime. What I am arguing against in this case is a wholly separate class of crimes in the legal code. You and I would agree, I assume, that in the following scenario -
John robs a convenience store. John has never committed a crime before.
Jack robs a convenience store. Jack has an extensive criminal record.
- that, while both John and Jack are guilty of the crime of petty theft, Jack has several aggravating conditions that would justify a heavier penalty than John, who is guilty of a first offense. Because existing structure of the law allows for this, there is no reason then to complicate the US legal code by making a new class of petty theft specifically for people who have prior offenses. Such legal code would, in effect, be absolutely superfluous, and for that matter it hasn't been done because there is no political motivation for doing so.
In other words, the existing legal structure already provides a mechanism by which judges can hand down stiffer penalties for people who commit hate crimes, if the judge so determines that said motivation is reason to do so. Thus, hate crime legislation is, IMO, superfluous, and exists only for political reasons. I've yet to see a good reason why the existing legal structure to determine the severity of crimes is insufficient in the case of hate crimes - i.e., why does the aggravating circumstance of hate crime require unique and potentially discriminative legislation whereas other types of aggravating circumstances to not?
Quote:
Is spraypainting swastikas on a synagogue the equivalent of tagging a bridge? Both just vandalism? Pay your misdemeanor fine and move along?
Although I think answering a question with a question is rather poor form, I hope you'll excuse me in this case: if the difference between spraypainting swastikas on a synagogue and tagging a bridge is the idea represented in the swastika (which it must be, because the physical "damage" is the same in both cases), is convicting the swastika-painter of violating an inherently more serious crime (i.e., before sentencing has even been considered) any different from basically convicting a person of a thought crime? Put more bluntly, should it be illegal to say out loud that you hate Jews?
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In other words, the existing legal structure already provides a mechanism by which judges can hand down stiffer penalties for people who commit hate crimes, if the judge so determines that said motivation is reason to do so. Thus, hate crime legislation is, IMO, superfluous, and exists only for political reasons. I've yet to see a good reason why the existing legal structure to determine the severity of crimes is insufficient in the case of hate crimes - i.e., why does the aggravating circumstance of hate crime require unique and potentially discriminative legislation whereas other types of aggravating circumstances to not?
Because hate crimes have a political dimension?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 05, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
|
Yes, well, that's an explanation, not a justification.
____________
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 December 05, 2009 08:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Put more bluntly, should it be illegal to say out loud that you hate Jews?
You can't imagine how many people think "free" speech around here only goes one way -- like in the soviet union. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 06, 2009 04:16 AM |
|
|
Free speech = you can say ANYTHING you want.
That doesnt really apply here
So I think its okay to say you hate jews if you have an argument for it like Xerox hates religion (well, thats a bit strong but I might be a future journalist so...) because it doesnt add anything good to world (in my opinion).
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 06, 2009 12:16 PM |
|
|
Wow. Not sure I have the time or energy to properly express why this is such a BAD idea. I will break it down to a few things already used, and just nod in agreement to them.
Yes, it makes one person's life more valuable then another. It doesn't matter if JimbobfurleyBob chopped little Suzy into 100 peices because she was a Martian, or if he did because he is just a sick person. Little Suzy is JUST as dead, and Jimbobfurleybob is JUST as responsible.
SOME people want to actually be EQUAL, not better then equal or 'special'. Dang it, just treat us as horribly as you would anybody else!
Um..in 'manic' phase so my brain is more apt to have STS..so that is all for now...
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
