Atlanta man gets 40 years for attacking gay couple (violent crime, law)

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Why would somebody do this?

Because they are full of hate. We live around a bunch of selfish people who think they can sh** on people who are different from them especially because of books that were written by men many thousands of years ago. I saw a lot of this growing up. It is being preached in churches, encouraged/ignored in schools, etc.

[DreamerD]

People need to learn to live and let live.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I'm very very glad he got a harsh sentence. But, actually I personally oppose hate-crime laws. We should punish the crime, not the thoughts that motivated it. I feel like that's dangerous territory.

Actually, motivations for crimes have long been a precedent, and I'm not just talking about hate crimes. For instance, there is a significant difference between sentences for vehicular homicide vs. premeditated murder, or for joyriding vs. auto theft. That's why cases against the accused typically put just as much emphasis on motives as they do on the illegal act itself.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Actually, motivations for crimes have long been a precedent, and I'm not just talking about hate crimes. For instance, there is a significant difference between sentences for vehicular homicide vs. premeditated murder, or for joyriding vs. auto theft. That's why cases against the accused typically put just as much emphasis on motives as they do on the illegal act itself.

I have no problem with that. That's sentencing, or different degrees of severity of a given crime. That should be up to the judge's discretion, based on a lot of factors.

That's different than having something be its own class of crime, with more severe mandatory minimums, just because the motivation is hate or bigotry. That's the state directly punishing certain thoughts/viewpoints/opinions.

I get the intention and I know it's a good intention, but I just disagree with that kind of law.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I have no problem with that. That's sentencing, or different degrees of severity of a given crime. That should be up to the judge's discretion, based on a lot of factors.

That's different than having something be its own class of crime, with more severe mandatory minimums, just because the motivation is hate or bigotry. That's the state directly punishing certain thoughts/viewpoints/opinions.

I get the intention and I know it's a good intention, but I just disagree with that kind of law.

No. That's a common misperception about hate crimes. They are not thought crimes. It is perfectly legal to broadcast hate speech in the United States of America, so long as that speech is not a direct incitement of violence. Hate crime laws exist to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Besides, for the overwhelming majority of us who do not hate people of color, LGBTs, etc., why would we want to advocate for lighter sentences for the worst of the worst of us?

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I have no problem with that. That's sentencing, or different degrees of severity of a given crime. That should be up to the judge's discretion, based on a lot of factors.

That's different than having something be its own class of crime, with more severe mandatory minimums, just because the motivation is hate or bigotry. That's the state directly punishing certain thoughts/viewpoints/opinions.

I get the intention and I know it's a good intention, but I just disagree with that kind of law.

To tell you the truth, I think they should be punished more for such hateful actions. It isnt just the crimes but the fact that they are committed to punish people for who they are whether is be related to race, sexual identity, etc. These hate crime laws are still very much needed. And these thoughts opinions spread to other people and they dont just remain thoughts but become action, which is discrimination.

[DreamerD]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

No. That's a common misperception about hate crimes. They are not thought crimes. It is perfectly legal to broadcast hate speech in the United States of America, so long as that speech is not a direct incitement of violence. Hate crime laws exist to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Besides, for the overwhelming majority of us who do not hate people of color, LGBTs, etc., why would we want to advocate for lighter sentences for the worst of the worst of us?

Agreed.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

No. That's a common misperception about hate crimes. They are not thought crimes.

They absolutely are thought crimes, though.

You're saying that first degree premeditated murder is inherently in itself a worse crime than first degree premeditated murder, if the perpetrator did it because they hate blacks or gays, rather than because they hated that individual, or they hated Red Sox fans.

Indirectly, that's making unpopular thoughts or beliefs, a crime.

Sentencing is a different thing. I have no problem with appropriate sever sentencing to protect the community or whatever, determined on a case by case basis.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by primaltech

They absolutely are thought crimes, though.

You're saying that first degree premeditated murder is inherently in itself a worse crime than first degree premeditated murder, if the perpetrator did it because they hate blacks or gays, rather than because they hated that individual, or they hated Red Sox fans.

Indirectly, that's making unpopular thoughts or beliefs, a crime.

Sentencing is a different thing. I have no problem with appropriate sever sentencing to protect the community or whatever, determined on a case by case basis.

OK. Let's try this again. Imagine the following two scenarios:

(A) A driver does not see a pedestrian who had the right-of-way crossing the road, hits them, and kills them.
(B) A driver sees a pedestrian, and in a bizarre fit of rage, suddenly accelerates, and runs over and kills them.

Do you honestly think that a judge would give Defendant A and Defendant B the exact same sentence?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

OK. Let's try this again. Imagine the following two scenarios:

(A) A driver does not see a pedestrian who had the right-of-way crossing the road, hits them, and kills them.
(B) A driver sees a pedestrian, and in a bizarre fit of rage, suddenly accelerates, and runs over and kills them.

Do you honestly think that a judge would give Defendant A and Defendant B the exact same sentence?

Or, what if:

(C) the driver said, "I'm going to run down that pedestrian because he is _________ and I absolutely despise _________ people and want them eradicated."