Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Colorado Springs LGBT Nightclub Shooting; At Least 5 Dead, 18 Injured

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Assaulting a person because they are gay for example is no different for assaulting a person for any other reason. Hate crime legislation necessarily creates an unequal protection under the law giving some crimes extra protection above and beyond the crime.
    Exactly right because how granular do you separate the groups? Where is the line for what constitutes a group?
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

      Not really a good example, Jim - you're responding to "murder is murder".

      In what jurisdiction would an accidental death from improper cooking be "murder"?
      And the other instance would be more along the lines of negligent homicide, not murder.
      I'm responding to the assertion a there should be no difference in punishment due to differing circumstances related to the commission of a crime. But I'll grant that killing grandpa accidentally with bad cooking likely isn't an actual crime to start with. In fact I chose it for that fact, because in both cases grandpa is killed by negligence, but in the cooking case, it likely isn't even a crime. I guess that got lost.

      So take 1st and 2nd degree murder. Different circumstances means a different set of sentencing guidelines. Or armed robbery vs robbery. Or assault vs aggravated assault. And then, sentencing guidelines themselves are meant to allow for differences in the circumstances.

      So - again - we already vary the sentence for a crime based on the circumstances. And we certainly vary the sentence based on the type of crime committed.

      hate crime defines a different category, i.e. as per assault and aggravated assault. A difference that influences sentencing, so there is nothing new about that.

      And I've already explained twice now what is distinctive about that category and why it merits amplification of the punishment normally associated with the crime
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I'm responding to the assertion a there should be no difference in punishment due to differing circumstances related to the commission of a crime. But I'll grant that killing grandpa accidentally with bad cooking likely isn't an actual crime to start with. In fact I chose it for that fact, because in both cases grandpa is killed by negligence, but in the cooking case, it likely isn't even a crime. I guess that got lost.
        Actually, it stood out like a sore thumb, which had me wondering why you even went there. You were directly responding to a post about murder.

        So take 1st and 2nd degree murder. Different circumstances means a different set of sentencing guidelines. Or armed robbery vs robbery. Or assault vs aggravated assault. And then, sentencing guidelines themselves are meant to allow for differences in the circumstances.
        I covered that in my "aggravated X" examples, yes.

        So - again - we already vary the sentence for a crime based on the circumstances.
        Yes, but not based on the identity of the victim, or the supposed motive.

        And we certainly vary the sentence based on the type of crime committed.
        Based on the severity and degree, yes.

        hate crime defines a different category, i.e. as per assault and aggravated assault. A difference that influences sentencing, so there is nothing new about that.

        And I've already explained twice now what is distinctive about that category and why it merits amplification of the punishment normally associated with the crime
        Meh.... I still think there's a degree of virtue signaling in making it "more illegal" to kill a gay person or a black person than anybody else. The Feds, in particular, often seem overanxious to add federal charges based on assumptions of one's motives. Just because somebody murders a person who happens to be gay, for example, doesn't mean that person murdered because the target was gay.

        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

          Accidental giving someone food poisoning and them dying isn't criminal. It's an accident. Killing someone due to drunk driving is a step up as it involves in the least intentionally getting drunk. It tends to be criminal as involuntary manslaughter. Neither of these are considered the intentional killing of a person, i.e. murder (in any degree).
          Both are killing. Which is the point. You have to make allowances for differing circumstances or you don't have justice.


          A crime is still a crime no matter why. Stealing bread for fun and stealing bread because your sister's child is close to death are both still crime. How the crime is adjudicated is something else. Repeated theft for any reason would likely result in
          Assault and aggravated assault are both assault. The modifier 'aggrevated' doesn't make it 'not assault' but the modifier does codify the fact not all assaults are the same.

          Assaulting a person because they are gay for example is no different for assaulting a person for any other reason. Hate crime legislation necessarily creates a unequal protection under the law giving some crimes extra protection above and beyond the crime.
          No more than aggrevated assault and assault create unequal protection. And I've already discussed why hate crimes are a worse category for each crime so designated. They target an entire group based on an intrinsic hatred. This means they are like any act of terrorism - an attack based on an intrinsic characteristics meant to instill fear in that entire population. That is exactly what hate crimes do. When the kkk defaces a synagogue, its purpose is to terrorize that jewish community and others in that area. And that is why as a hate crime it is worse than simple vandalism. By codifying that difference, we can punish it differently, just as we do with assault vs aggrevated assault.




          If you punch a person once is less severe if you punch them twice. Punching a person once because they are gay is no more severe if you punch a person once for "being disrespectful".
          In fact it is, and for the reasons already stated


          ...
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-28-2022, 03:39 PM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

            I'm responding to the assertion a there should be no difference in punishment due to differing circumstances related to the commission of a crime. But I'll grant that killing grandpa accidentally with bad cooking likely isn't an actual crime to start with. In fact I chose it for that fact, because in both cases grandpa is killed by negligence, but in the cooking case, it likely isn't even a crime. I guess that got lost.

            So take 1st and 2nd degree murder. Different circumstances means a different set of sentencing guidelines. Or armed robbery vs robbery. Or assault vs aggravated assault. And then, sentencing guidelines themselves are meant to allow for differences in the circumstances.

            So - again - we already vary the sentence for a crime based on the circumstances. And we certainly vary the sentence based on the type of crime committed.

            hate crime defines a different category, i.e. as per assault and aggravated assault. A difference that influences sentencing, so there is nothing new about that.

            And I've already explained twice now what is distinctive about that category and why it merits amplification of the punishment normally associated with the crime
            All it does is elevate the "social value" of certain groups above the social value of others that aren't in those defined groups. Most violence is hate based. Even crimes of passion are based in hatred of sorts. You're not really separating circumstances or even motivations, you're separating and elevating one group of victims over others that died under similar circumstances.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              ... They target an entire group based on an intrinsic hatred....
              A) How do you know it's "intrinsic hatred" rather than just a really nasty person who is a murderer?
              2) If a black person killed a white person because he hated white people, is that a hate crime?

              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • And, come to think of it - when it's black on black crime, especially murder - is that death less significant than a black person killed by a prejudiced white man?
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                  ..... Just because somebody murders a person who happens to be gay, for example, doesn't mean that person murdered because the target was gay.
                  Absolutely true. Hate crimes designations shouldn't be tagged onto a criminal act just because the victim(s) might be in a group typically targetted by hate. A vandalized synagogue might just be a vandalized building. But from what I'm seeing, to get that hate crime designation, there has to be significant evidence the crime was committed on that basis.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • So, more to the point, I'm not a fan of hate laws because, quite honestly, they just seem not to work like they were intended.

                    This article explains what I'm trying to say better than I was explaining it.

                    Why aren’t more perpetrators charged with hate crimes? My academic research into prosecutorial decision making has included interviews with dozens of prosecutors (under promise of anonymity) in more than 30 states. Many said they often avoid adding hate-crime charges even—and perhaps especially—when the crime is particularly horrific. This seemingly surprising pattern makes sense if one understands the challenges and incentives facing prosecutors.

                    First, prosecutors prefer not to bring charges when they doubt that they can secure a conviction. Many prosecutors believe that proving an actor’s motive—what was really driving their actions—is immensely difficult. As one prosecutor told me, “It’s impossible to know what’s in someone’s heart.” Jurors faced with evidence that a perpetrator acted for multiple reasons may well acquit on an added hate-crime charge because they are unwilling to treat bias as the sole or predominant motive, as many hate-crime statutes require.

                    Second, when a crime is particularly heinous and the defendant is already facing a long prison sentence—or even multiple life sentences—a hate-crime conviction would not have any practical effect. Without the possibility of a meaningful increase in penalty, prosecutors have little incentive to expend the additional resources and personnel necessary to pursue hate-crime charges. When discussing cases involving serious injury or death, a common refrain from prosecutors was some version of “I don’t need anything more to charge.” As one prosecutor elaborated, “Hate-crime charges wouldn’t give us more, and aren’t worth the time in such cases.”


                    It seems to be more "look at me - I really care" than anything else.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Absolutely true. Hate crimes designations shouldn't be tagged onto a criminal act just because the victim(s) might be in a group typically targetted by hate.


                      A vandalized synagogue might just be a vandalized building. But from what I'm seeing, to get that hate crime designation, there has to be significant evidence the crime was committed on that basis.
                      I'll wait for your comments on the article I just posted, because that's pretty much what I've been saying.

                      Meanwhile, if somebody vandalized a synagogue, and a resulting proper search warrant turned up a bunch of vile hateful anti-Semitism, along with, perhaps, a list of other synagogues or Jewish persons.... That would be a fairly easy "hate crime" to prove.

                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post





                        I'll wait for your comments on the article I just posted, because that's pretty much what I've been saying.

                        Meanwhile, if somebody vandalized a synagogue, and a resulting proper search warrant turned up a bunch of vile hateful anti-Semitism, along with, perhaps, a list of other synagogues or Jewish persons.... That would be a fairly easy "hate crime" to prove.
                        But if as crisis pregnancy center was vandalized by a group of hateful pro-abortion antifa types, would that be fairly easy to classify as a hate crime? That's my issue is who gets to determine what hate crimes are? The same power hungry people we already don't trust?
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                          All it does is elevate the "social value" of certain groups above the social value of others that aren't in those defined groups. Most violence is hate based. Even crimes of passion are based in hatred of sorts. You're not really separating circumstances or even motivations, you're separating and elevating one group of victims over others that died under similar circumstances.
                          There is a sense in which you are correct. A hate crime designation says we as a society will treat hatred directed criminally at whole groups on the basis of their distinction differently, more severely, than crimes that do not. And the reason for that is simple - we do not support bullying or terrorism, and if a person or group of people engages in that kind of intimidation and terrorism, they will be held accountable for it.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                            There is a sense in which you are correct. A hate crime designation says we as a society will treat hatred directed criminally at whole groups on the basis of their distinction differently, more severely, than crimes that do not. And the reason for that is simple - we do not support bullying or terrorism, and if a person or group of people engages in that kind of intimidation and terrorism, they will be held accountable for it.
                            And you trust the government to be fair about it? Because the government is the biggest bully intimidators in existence.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              And, come to think of it - when it's black on black crime, especially murder - is that death less significant than a black person killed by a prejudiced white man?

                              Is the impact of the death of a person in a mass shooting greater than the impact of a death in a robbery? No. But which crime has the greater impact on a community as a whole?

                              suppose there were two mass shootings in Texas.

                              Which would create the most concern in your congregation or yourself on Sunday morning

                              1) 2 random mall events
                              2) 2 targetted hits on congregations of your denomination during Sunday worship

                              hate crimes target groups and in so doing create fear in that group. They do more than harm the intended targets. They instill fear into entire communities.
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                                And you trust the government to be fair about it? Because the government is the biggest bully intimidators in existence.
                                That's a completely different topic.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X