Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob
what happened to Matthew Sheppard was beyond calling him a fa**ot. That was a pre meditated murder that was soley based on the fact that he was gay. I remember the case very well as well as the one with James Byrd who was dragged behind a pickup truck in Texas for being black. This law doesn't prohibit you from using any deragatory slurs but it does hold you accountable if you assault someone.
Makes me wonder why such a law bothers you unless it infringes upon your desires to assault others who may be gay.
I agree. While I am not comfortable with the idea of punishing thoughts or speech, we have to crack the whip on the right wing violence in this country. Spray painting a swastika and "Kill The Jews" on the home of a Jewish family is not the same as spray painting "I Love _____" somewhere. Yes they are both crimes of vandalism but one is superficial while the other is intended to do harm to a class of victims.
I agree. While I am not comfortable with the idea of punishing thoughts or speech, we have to crack the whip on the right wing violence in this country. Spray painting a swastika and "Kill The Jews" on the home of a Jewish family is not the same as spray painting "I Love _____" somewhere. Yes they are both crimes of vandalism but one is superficial while the other is intended to do harm to a class of victims.
The above logic begs a repeat of the absurdity below:
"I think that we need hate legislation for hate crimes against humans. Humans who kill humans simply because they are humans not only kill the human but also attack humans in general. We can not allow murderers to get away with indirectly attacking the rest of the human race by only punishing them for killing the individual victim."
-Before we get into this, I want to clarify that I am not a Democrat, nor a liberal, I am an independent voter and moderate who once supported the ideals of Republicans, but has watched the party and the conservative ideology warp into identity politics and the worst kind of anti-idealism---
In line with other such threads on the boards-
In the midst of Republicans shooting down the bill that banned gang rapings of women in US contracting positions overseas (blackwater), and attempts to kill a funding bill for our soldiers overseas because it included a measure that expanded hate crime protections to homosexuals, I ask myself, do republicans HATE people who do not conform into the majority?
By non conforming groups, I dont simply mean mexican americans and blacks, though one would have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of the almost daily socially, and racially charged comments, statements, 'jokes' and ideals that seem to be spewing from the current Conservative leadership (NOT republican leadership, mind you). I mean any group that tends to oppose the 'old guard' thinking; The poor, the handicapped, Gays and Lesbians, non-christians, athiests, Immigrants (mexican and middle eastern), mexican americans in general, Feminists, Environmentalists, blacks...It seems that every Glen Beck or Rush limbaugh rant it either aimed at
1.Why these people are bad for america, or
2. Why these people somehow either directly or indirectly contribute a 'threat' to 'real America'...which by definition proclaims those groups as not 'real americans'.
Now, I am not at all saying I agree with the claims of several of the groups mentioned above, but I cannot help but wondering, why would a person not support a law that bans discrimination, or at the very least increases the state options for prosecution of people who violently attack others based on such reasoning?
We are all aware, and understanding (and even possibly agree with) the conservative argument that there are already laws on the books to prosecute such people. However, there is no equal conservative consensus or opposition to laws that are discriminatory in their results (examples- Crack vs Cocaine/meth mandatory sentences law disparity, rape victim law requirements, domestic violence victim laws etc). If youre so occupied with avoiding overkill in the law, why are you silent in instances of overkill when its not aimed at your primary demographic, but another group?
One would not want to simply look at the obvious, that post-Bush neoconservatives are compromised of mostly white males, usually a bit older and either in rural homogeneous regions or in urban/suburban areas, wealthy and in homogeneous areas. One would seek a more complex answer than the obvious, but the more extreme statements and outlandish voting that comes out of the 'new christian conservative movement', that harder it is to argument. Thoughts?
Hate crimes tend to reinforce the very thing that they are against. It reinforces group identity rather than individualism. When a "white" guy beats up a "black" guy, you are not only prosecuting the individual, but reaffirming group identity. This mentality may exacerbate group tension and further divide society.
One of the major reasons that hate crimes are dangerous is that it may constitute as a thought crime and every time a "white" guy gets mugged by a "black" guy, then prosecutors will look for hatred motive where none may actually exist.
I don't agree with modern day Republicans too often, but I support their stance on this. I am not sold on the idea of punishing someone for a hatred motive. Most violent crimes are committed out of hatred for something.
Last edited by I Like Taxes; 10-24-2009 at 11:53 PM..
Hate crimes tend to reinforce the very thing that they are against. It reinforces group identity rather than individualism. When a "white" guy beats up a "black" guy, you are not only prosecuting the individual, but reaffirming group identity. This mentality may exacerbate group tension and further divide society.
This is a good argument. But likewise, it fails to live up to its own standard when uttered by conservatives-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tindo
We are all aware, and understanding (and even possibly agree with) the conservative argument that there are already laws on the books to prosecute such people. However, there is no equal conservative consensus or opposition to laws that are discriminatory in their results (examples- Crack vs Cocaine/meth mandatory sentences law disparity, rape victim law requirements, domestic violence victim laws etc). If youre so occupied with avoiding overkill in the law, why are you silent in instances of overkill when its not aimed at your primary demographic, but another group?
You cant argue 'fairness in the law' when you are okay with it being unfair to a different constituency. Plus, a 'might happen' argument never hold as much water as a 'does happen'. And in the case of hate crimes, they do happen and are on the increase. Likewise, it does not address the 'Not race related' aspects of hate crime laws. Specifically, Anti-Homosexual hate crimes, anti-homeless hate crimes and anti-women hate crimes (rape and domestic violence).
You cant argue 'fairness in the law' when you are okay with it being unfair to a different constituency.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but do not understand your argument that Republicans are arguing for unequal treatment before the law.
If you express your thoughts again in a different manner, then I may agree with. I certainly don't support unequal treatment before the law, but I am not sure that I understand your argument that Republicans do.
Quote:
Specifically, Anti-Homosexual hate crimes, anti-homeless hate crimes and anti-women hate crimes (rape and domestic violence).
Tell me where do we draw the line? Now fat people are getting into hate crimes.
I also hate the fashion of the 80's, so if I attack a person with a mullet, tight stone washed jeans tucked into white high top sneakers, listening to Cyndi Lauper, is that considered a hate crime?
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but do not understand your argument that Republicans are arguing for unequal treatment before the law.
If you express your thoughts again in a different manner, then I may agree with. I certainly don't support unequal treatment before the law, but I am not sure that I understand your argument that Republicans do.
Tell me where do we draw the line? Now fat people are getting into hate crimes.
I also hate the fashion of the 80's, so if I attack a person with a mullet, tight stone washed jeans tucked into white high top sneakers, listening to Cyndi Lauper, is that considered a hate crime?
It depends. If there is a population in a society which is targeting specific people because of an immutable characteristic (being not-white, being a woman) or a mutable characteristic thats not illegal (being gay, being non christian), why should society restrain itself from 'getting tough' on those criminals?
Especially when the very same folks have no problems increasing penalties for crimes committed by the aforementioned groups, or at least ignoring when those groups are victimized.
My argument is essentially that Conservatives are playing a double standard deal with their 'opposition' to hate crimes. They call it needless additional penalties for things already illegal, yet on the other hand support additional penalties for things already illegal that tend to be committed by those groups for which hate crime laws seek to protect.
There seems to be no way of logically defending it. If you are against double penalties, you should be against it whenever its used, not just when its used against your social demographic/constituency/whatever. Not playing it that way seems, at the very least hypocritical, at the very worst, prejudicial.
, yet on the other hand support additional penalties for things already illegal that tend to be committed by those groups for which hate crime laws seek to protect.
Such as?
Quote:
There seems to be no way of logically defending it
Even if you do show them to be hypocrites, hypocrisy never validates the law. In fact, your attempt to prove the validity of "presumptuous hypocrisy" is as wrong as Richard Simmons wearing pants.
As stated, opposition to anti-rape laws (see the first post), support for higher penalties for crack usage (mostly nonwhite drug) than cocaine/meth (mostly white drugs), opposition to rape screening requirement laws, support for stronger 'street gang/thug' crime yet loose penalties for white collar crimes, etc
As stated, opposition to anti-rape laws (see the first post), support for higher penalties for crack usage (mostly nonwhite drug) than cocaine/meth (mostly white drugs), opposition to rape screening requirement laws, support for stronger 'street gang/thug' crime yet loose penalties for white collar crimes, etc
Good points. I agree with you on the hypocrisy part, but not on the legislation.
Black arrests for marijuana skyrocketed when Giuliani took office and he was the prime Republican candidate for Rupert and Friends.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
News: Conservatives support Hate Crimes?
