Lesbian couple and their children attacked by 15 men.

brianlux

polaris_x wrote:

Hate crimes legislation exists because the crime committed goes beyond the physical - there is a psychological component to the crime itself.

So if you burn a guys house down for kicks. Your crime is arson. But if you burn a guys house down because he is gay - the victim suffers a psychological trauma as well as having his house burnt down.

That's the simplistic version. As a victim of a hate crime - you will carry that scar and fear of another attack as long as they are part of the community that was targeted.

Good points. This is also why educating kids- to what ever degree possible- away from hate is important. This kind of thinking is learned at an early age. Also, psychological trauma incurred at an early age-- everything from what these kids went through to bullying at school-- sticks around for a long time if not all of one's life. I still gringe when I think about the guy who sat behind me in my Spanish Language class who repeatedly pounded my back with his fist and wrote "fuck you" on my coat and it was merely because I was a geek, not because I was black or brown or gay or Muslim or what ever. And hate crimes suck far worse than that.

blueandwhite

The way I see it, hate crimes receive special consideration because the motivation for the act is considered particularly heinous by what we deem to be a civil society. I don't see anything wrong with that. Motive is always a factor when determining the severity of a crime, so why shouldn't hate crimes be treated differently?

Consider a murder charge. We have 1st, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. The only thing which separates the three acts is intent. If motive was irrelevant there would be no need for the three distinct charges. When you consider that justice is also supposed to be restorative, you need to consider the motivation of the offender. I feel that a pure and irrational hatred of your fellow human beings is not something that should be casually discarded.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

killing someone because you don't like their ideology or sexual orientation or race is MUCH MORE dangerous than killing someone out of any other motive (such as revenge). that's what Hitler killed for. see the reasoning behind hate crime legislation? it's still murder/assault/rape, but on a much grander scale, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

or we could just give them a hug and tell them we'll spread the love and let them go. whichever.

haffajappa

I see both sides of the argument (tougher laws for hate crimes, i mean, there is absolutely no question of the disgusting nature of the article)

This really bothers me:
A lawyer named Otis Doan is representing the other parties.. while testifying he questioned me about my lifestyle, he was very discrimating and ask me "do you promote this kind of life?" and made the comment "your a lesbian and live in Harlan county"


like, really? REALLY? I know you're a lawyer and that's your "job", but REALLY?
That reminds me of the argument that if you're dressed slutty you suddenly deserved to be raped... What if you're a lesbian you deserve to be beaten up and fireworks shot at your kids?

haffajappa

polaris_x wrote:

Hate crimes legislation exists because the crime committed goes beyond the physical - there is a psychological component to the crime itself.

So if you burn a guys house down for kicks. Your crime is arson. But if you burn a guys house down because he is gay - the victim suffers a psychological trauma as well as having his house burnt down.

That's the simplistic version. As a victim of a hate crime - you will carry that scar and fear of another attack as long as they are part of the community that was targeted.

good points

Thoughts_Arrive

Go on, blame religion.

markin ball

polaris_x wrote:

Hate crimes legislation exists because the crime committed goes beyond the physical - there is a psychological component to the crime itself.

So if you burn a guys house down for kicks. Your crime is arson. But if you burn a guys house down because he is gay - the victim suffers a psychological trauma as well as having his house burnt down.

That's the simplistic version. As a victim of a hate crime - you will carry that scar and fear of another attack as long as they are part of the community that was targeted.

Random acts of crime are very psychologically traumatizing and can be done to terrorize an entire populace.

pandora

we need tougher laws for all violent crime ... it's all based in hate

if we have a certain punishment because one group was targeted

then it should be just as tough on a perp who's victim did not fit into any particular group

they are victimizing a person any way you look at it

have the same punishment ... the harsher punishment when it it violent crime

catefrances

15 men and not a single ball between them.

dignin

blueandwhite wrote:

The way I see it, hate crimes receive special consideration because the motivation for the act is considered particularly heinous by what we deem to be a civil society. I don't see anything wrong with that. Motive is always a factor when determining the severity of a crime, so why shouldn't hate crimes be treated differently?

Consider a murder charge. We have 1st, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. The only thing which separates the three acts is intent. If motive was irrelevant there would be no need for the three distinct charges. When you consider that justice is also supposed to be restorative, you need to consider the motivation of the offender. I feel that a pure and irrational hatred of your fellow human beings is not something that should be casually discarded.

this ^^

cincybearcat

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

killing someone because you don't like their ideology or sexual orientation or race is MUCH MORE dangerous than killing someone out of any other motive (such as revenge). that's what Hitler killed for. see the reasoning behind hate crime legislation? it's still murder/assault/rape, but on a much grander scale, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

or we could just give them a hug and tell them we'll spread the love and let them go. whichever.

But someone ends up dead in any of those situations.

Bottom line, anyone that would do that to anyone for any reason is a piece of shit.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

cincybearcat wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

killing someone because you don't like their ideology or sexual orientation or race is MUCH MORE dangerous than killing someone out of any other motive (such as revenge). that's what Hitler killed for. see the reasoning behind hate crime legislation? it's still murder/assault/rape, but on a much grander scale, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

or we could just give them a hug and tell them we'll spread the love and let them go. whichever.

But someone ends up dead in any of those situations.

Bottom line, anyone that would do that to anyone for any reason is a piece of shit.

so in your eyes, some shithead gangbanger is equal to Hitler?

Prince Of Dorkness

If you hit someone with your car by accident and kill them you get one sentnece. Often it's suspended if you can prove it really was an accident and you really are sorry.

If you do it becuase you were drunk, you get another.

If you do it because the person you hit was the husbnd who beat you black and blue every night, you get another one.

If you did it because it was the man who raped your daughter, many people would rally for your release.

If you did it because it was your husband and he was cheating on you, still another.

If you do it because it was your mom and you wanted the inheritance, still another.

So why not have a category for "person I didn't know but hated because they were a Christian and you hate Christians and think the world would be better off if they were all dead?"

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

If you hit someone with your car by accident and kill them you get one sentnece. Often it's suspended if you can prove it really was an accident and you really are sorry.

If you do it becuase you were drunk, you get another.

If you do it because the person you hit was the husbnd who beat you black and blue every night, you get another one.

If you did it because it was the man who raped your daughter, many people would rally for your release.

If you did it because it was your husband and he was cheating on you, still another.

If you do it because it was your mom and you wanted the inheritance, still another.

So why not have a category for "person I didn't know but hated because they were a Christian and you hate Christians and think the world would be better off if they were all dead?"

obviously, that makes sense, and that's how the law works. people who believe that one crime equals one sentence regardless of situation need to give their head a shake. why have a sentencing hearing at all? BECAUSE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS/MOTIVES FOR THE SAME CRIME CALL FOR DIFFERENT SENTENCES, THAT'S WHY.

stop beating your head against the wall on this one. it's not worth it.

bgivens33

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

killing someone because you don't like their ideology or sexual orientation or race is MUCH MORE dangerous than killing someone out of any other motive (such as revenge). that's what Hitler killed for. see the reasoning behind hate crime legislation? it's still murder/assault/rape, but on a much grander scale, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

or we could just give them a hug and tell them we'll spread the love and let them go. whichever.

But someone ends up dead in any of those situations.

Bottom line, anyone that would do that to anyone for any reason is a piece of shit.

so in your eyes, some shithead gangbanger is equal to Hitler?

What gangbanger has killed as many people as Hitler did?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

bgivens33 wrote:

What gangbanger has killed as many people as Hitler did?

the number is irrelevant in this context. the motive is not.

bgivens33

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

What gangbanger has killed as many people as Hitler did?

the number is irrelevant in this context. the motive is not.

Well, it might certainly be irrelevant to you, but that is the whole crux of the argument.

What about that Giant fan that got put into intensive care after the Dodgers game? Would you include him?
What about a white person(straight person) who is pushing for equal rights for homosexuals that is assaulted by a bunch of white people who don't want that?
A republican assaulting a democrat?

On top of all that, where exactly is the authority granted to the federal government to do that?

AELARA

catefrances wrote:

15 men and not a single ball between them.

:thumbup:

cincybearcat

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

killing someone because you don't like their ideology or sexual orientation or race is MUCH MORE dangerous than killing someone out of any other motive (such as revenge). that's what Hitler killed for. see the reasoning behind hate crime legislation? it's still murder/assault/rape, but on a much grander scale, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

or we could just give them a hug and tell them we'll spread the love and let them go. whichever.

But someone ends up dead in any of those situations.

Bottom line, anyone that would do that to anyone for any reason is a piece of shit.

so in your eyes, some shithead gangbanger is equal to Hitler?

So in your mind some group of shitheads that kill because they hate gays are equal to Hitler?

cincybearcat

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

so in your eyes, some shithead gangbanger is equal to Hitler?

By the way, this is clearly what I said. That's for helping. :shock:

Seriously, wtf is wrong with some people?