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.
Guys with a shorter than average fuse after a few drinks don't comprise much of a threat to society at large. Bigots do...
That's a matter of opinion. Bigots are just ignorant and typically don't comprise much of a threat. Vengeful drunks are responsible for many DUI deaths.
That's a matter of opinion. Bigots are just ignorant and typically don't comprise much of a threat.
Never underestimate the power of ignorance. Bigots represent a threat not just to individuals, but to the rights and lives of entire segments of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Vengeful drunks are responsible for many DUI deaths.
We've gone from an ordinary guy who's had a couple of drinks to people who would qualify as vengeful drunks who slaughter innocents on the highways? How did that happen? But even at that level, we do have paradigms for treating those we define as impaired more harshly than those we do not in the event that either is at fault in exactly the same sort of fatal traffic accident.
The assault part is pretty well covered for each as is. I'm not convinced that extra prison time on the hate aspect is always the best route to follow, though. Maybe we could take some clues from current sex offender paradigms. Force convicted bigots to register with the local police. Have every state publish a list of where all the bigots live. Don't let them live within a mile of any school. Have the local police go out and warn each home in the neighborhood if a bigot is about to move into the area. Maybe bigots should have to wear a tracking bracelet all the time. Maybe some of those sorts of things would be appropriate and effective...
Funny to hear how a liberal, anti-Patriot Act fellow can suddenly throw all of that aside when it suits them...
Nah, we won't have any police casing KKK rallies to pre-label "bigots" or anything here... Beyond that it isn't that you're punishing thought with hate crime legislation. It's that you're assuming it.
So a drunk black guy stumbles out of a bar and decks the first white guy he sees. That's NOT a hate crime. A white guy does the same thing (under your scenario) and it is. As though you KNOW he hit the guy because he was black and was looking for a black guy to hit.
Dangerous territory to assume you know what someone is thinking.
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,469,347 times
Reputation: 382
deliberately go out on the street and punch the first black guy I see just because he's black.
or maybe the guy just punches the first person he sees on the street and the victim sees an opportunity and says "it's because I'm black" (maybe he's a bigot).
Funny to hear how a liberal, anti-Patriot Act fellow can suddenly throw all of that aside when it suits them...
Funny how some will drag red herrings across the path whenever it suits them. If you can't argue the point, don't bother arguing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
Nah, we won't have any police casing KKK rallies to pre-label "bigots" or anything here... Beyond that it isn't that you're punishing thought with hate crime legislation. It's that you're assuming it.
The hate aspect of a hate crime is established in the laws and has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction. You do recall that we were talking about convicted bigots, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
So a drunk black guy stumbles out of a bar and decks the first white guy he sees. That's NOT a hate crime. A white guy does the same thing (under your scenario) and it is.
Read back. They're both assaults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
As though you KNOW he hit the guy because he was black and was looking for a black guy to hit. Dangerous territory to assume you know what someone is thinking.
Go read the standards established in some of the laws. You can't get a conviction through mere speculation over what someone might or might not have been thinking. If you don't establish an actual case, juries just laugh at you...
Hate crimes are crimes motivated by bias against a race, religion, disabiility, sexual orientation, nationality, gender or political affiliation. These crimes are crimes against a group or class of people, not just the individual victim. These crimes are done by hateful and ignorant people. The Senate passed the Hate Crimes Bill to ensure that victims of hate crime and the groups that they represent, are protected under the full extent of the law. Because many of our law enforcement and members of society on a whole are also biased against certain people, these laws provide certain groups added protection. Unfortunately, there are people in our country that don't value the life of a gay man, or black woman or Jew the same as they value the life of a heterosexual, white Christian person. Here's an example: In 1997, a 13 year old black boy was beaten unconscious in a racially motivated attack in a white Chicago neighborhood. His attackers were white youths. The victim, Lenard Clark, suffered permanent brain damage and cannot care for himself for the rest of his life. The most severe sentence in this case was 8 years. The other 2 attackers received only probation! In Jena, Louisiana, 6 black youths were charged with attempted murder, one unjustly convicted as an adult for an admittedly brutal schoolyard brawl. The brawl left a white student, Justin Barker, temporarily unconscious, although healthy enough to leave the hospital on the same day and without any permanent brain damage. His black attackers originally faced sentences of as long as 100 years! Our legal system is obviously biased and hopefully Hate Crime legislation will help the situation. Again, hate crimes are meant to intimidate and cause fear in a group of people. That's the fundamental difference. So if a white boy beats up a white boy in a schoolyard, it is different than if a white boy beats up a black boy because he is black, if the fight was due to racial bias. The Jena 6 incident was probably racially provoked. The black students were wrong. However, they should be treated equally in the court system. Justin Barker's life is not worth any more than Lenard Clark's.
Hate crimes are crimes motivated by bias against a race, religion, disabiility, sexual orientation, nationality, gender or political affiliation. These crimes are crimes against a group or class of people, not just the individual victim. These crimes are done by hateful and ignorant people. The Senate passed the Hate Crimes Bill to ensure that victims of hate crime and the groups that they represent, are protected under the full extent of the law. Because many of our law enforcement and members of society on a whole are also biased against certain people, these laws provide certain groups added protection. Unfortunately, there are people in our country that don't value the life of a gay man, or black woman or Jew the same as they value the life of a heterosexual, white Christian person. Here's an example: In 1997, a 13 year old black boy was beaten unconscious in a racially motivated attack in a white Chicago neighborhood. His attackers were white youths. The victim, Lenard Clark, suffered permanent brain damage and cannot care for himself for the rest of his life. The most severe sentence in this case was 8 years. The other 2 attackers received only probation! In Jena, Louisiana, 6 black youths were charged with attempted murder, one unjustly convicted as an adult for an admittedly brutal schoolyard brawl. The brawl left a white student, Justin Barker, temporarily unconscious, although healthy enough to leave the hospital on the same day and without any permanent brain damage. His black attackers originally faced sentences of as long as 100 years! Our legal system is obviously biased and hopefully Hate Crime legislation will help the situation. Again, hate crimes are meant to intimidate and cause fear in a group of people. That's the fundamental difference. So if a white boy beats up a white boy in a schoolyard, it is different than if a white boy beats up a black boy because he is black, if the fight was due to racial bias. The Jena 6 incident was probably racially provoked. The black students were wrong. However, they should be treated equally in the court system. Justin Barker's life is not worth any more than Lenard Clark's.
Hate crime legislation won't cure the ills of racial bias, but will likely exacerbate them. An assault is an assault. Let's pretend that the white boy in Jena was killed. Should the white attackers have received a stiffer sentence because it was considered a hate crime than the black attackers because their's wasn't considered a hate crime?
Hate crime legislation won't cure the ills of racial bias, but will likely exacerbate them. An assault is an assault. Let's pretend that the white boy in Jena was killed. Should the white attackers have received a stiffer sentence because it was considered a hate crime than the black attackers because their's wasn't considered a hate crime?
Hate crime legislation may exacerbate the bias in people that already are biased against certain groups of people. But at least if those same people act upon harming the group of people that they dislike or hate, they should be adequately punished for it. Again, a hate crime is done to intimiate and cause fear in a group of people by harming or killing one of that groups' members. A hate crime is a crime against a group, not simply against a person. Blacks that attack whites because of race, should receive as severe of a penalty as whites that attack blacks. But in the cases that I mentioned in my earlier post, there still seems to be bias in our legal system and it's that bias and inequality that causes great tension in society. Hate crime against anyone; blacks, whites, Jews, homosexuals is all equally bad and it should all be treated equally bad in our court systems. If someone attacks a gay man because he winked at them, the attacker is not attacking the gay man because he doesn't like him personally or because he's protecting himself in self defense. He's attacking the gay man because he's a homo-phobe and doesn't like gay people as a whole. So since hate and ignornance seems to linger in our society and is not something that can be easily resolved, if it ever will be, the Federal Government has to provide groups an extra layer of protection from people that act upon their hate and ignorance. If all of us could be tolerant of each other, we would not need laws like this. The boy in Chicago, Lenard Clark rode his bike threw a predominately Irish/Catholic neighborhood in Chicago and has permanant brain damage to show for it. His attacker will spend 8 years in prison max. And yes, perhaps that light sentence will exacerbate more anti-White bias in Chicago. But you have to admit, it's understandable, isn't it? Until everyone in this counry is treated fairly, this will always be a problem.
IMO, so called "hate crime" laws are redundant - murder is murder. Assault is assault. Etc.
Enforce existing laws - no need to create more, and redundent, laws
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.
