Lesbian couple and their children attacked by 15 men.

cincybearcat

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.

Actually, if you make the number irrelevant then you are making the motive irrelevant.

I can by tougher sentences for someone that hurts/kills someone for a reason like their religion, color, sexuality, etc because it means they are likely to run across people in the future that they will also hurt/kill.

If you kill because of a specific argument with a specific person...while you may have arguments in the future, it's not as easy to see that you would do the crime again.

Does that make any sense?

Cosmo

Soooo.... we shouldn't hold terrorists who kill, with 'Hate Crime' implications... even thought their motivating factor is to kill out of hatred?
...
Okay... makes sense to me... I guess.

bgivens33

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

Actually, if you make the number irrelevant then you are making the motive irrelevant.

I can by tougher sentences for someone that hurts/kills someone for a reason like their religion, color, sexuality, etc because it means they are likely to run across people in the future that they will also hurt/kill.

If you kill because of a specific argument with a specific person...while you may have arguments in the future, it's not as easy to see that you would do the crime again.

Does that make any sense?

And a jury/judge can take that into consideration for sentencing. We don't need the federal government legislating how states should prosecute criminals and having the DOJ have the ability to take jurisdiction.

If there is one thing most everyone can agree on is the complete ineffectiveness of our federal government for the last 11 years(probably more like 100 years). Why would you want them to have more control?

fife

And a jury/judge can take that into consideration for sentencing. We don't need the federal government legislating how states should prosecute criminals and having the DOJ have the ability to take jurisdiction.

If there is one thing most everyone can agree on is the complete ineffectiveness of our federal government for the last 11 years(probably more like 100 years). Why would you want them to have more control?[/quote]

the reason i wouldn't want the states to decide what sentences people should get is because i have a feeling that minorities in the so-called bible belt would not get the same sentence as they would in say the liberal states.

butterjam

fife wrote:

the reason i wouldn't want the states to decide what sentences people should get is because i have a feeling that minorities in the so-called bible belt would not get the same sentence as they would in say the liberal states.

Probably not. And maybe a person from the bible belt might not get the same sentence in the liberal states.

People that commit these "hate" crimes are worse for our society than the average criminal. These people deserve the full wrath of the law.

My issue is that "hate" crimes just complicate our already complicated judicial system. I would try any case the same, but just let the jury/judge be empowered with their sentences instead of classifying them as "hate" or not.

Motive should definitely be a factor. The "who, what, where, when, how, why" are all important in determining the sentence.

Is being mugged because I am rich a "hate" crime? Or maybe because I'm a politician?

How about the thugs at the Niners/Raiders game? Is that a hate crime because of the team they like? Where and when does the classification of groups/people end?

I like to think that at some point, we can start seeing people as who they are without all of the tags.

bgivens33

311jj wrote:

fife wrote:

the reason i wouldn't want the states to decide what sentences people should get is because i have a feeling that minorities in the so-called bible belt would not get the same sentence as they would in say the liberal states.

Probably not. And maybe a person from the bible belt might not get the same sentence in the liberal states.

People that commit these "hate" crimes are worse for our society than the average criminal. These people deserve the full wrath of the law.

My issue is that "hate" crimes just complicate our already complicated judicial system. I would try any case the same, but just let the jury/judge be empowered with their sentences instead of classifying them as "hate" or not.

Motive should definitely be a factor. The "who, what, where, when, how, why" are all important in determining the sentence.

Is being mugged because I am rich a "hate" crime? Or maybe because I'm a politician?

How about the thugs at the Niners/Raiders game? Is that a hate crime because of the team they like? Where and when does the classification of groups/people end?

I like to think that at some point, we can start seeing people as who they are without all of the tags.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

fife

pandora wrote:

"Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability."

"law enforcement agencies that participate in the national hate crime program collect details about an offender’s bias motivation associated with the following offense types: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism of property."

just wanted to show 311jj how the government defines a hate crime. being a 49 fans is not really a hated class in society.

cincybearcat

fife wrote:

pandora wrote:

"Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability."

"law enforcement agencies that participate in the national hate crime program collect details about an offender’s bias motivation associated with the following offense types: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism of property."

just wanted to show 311jj how the government defines a hate crime. being a 49 fans is not really a hated class in society.

Speak for yourself!!!!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

cincybearcat wrote:

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?

cincybearcat wrote:

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

that statement makes it sound like everyone who kills is equal, so yes, in essence, you did say that.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

Actually, if you make the number irrelevant then you are making the motive irrelevant.

I can by tougher sentences for someone that hurts/kills someone for a reason like their religion, color, sexuality, etc because it means they are likely to run across people in the future that they will also hurt/kill.

If you kill because of a specific argument with a specific person...while you may have arguments in the future, it's not as easy to see that you would do the crime again.

Does that make any sense?

no, it doesn't make sense. let's change my example. I used the name Hitler because it's easily identifiable with the motive. just use a blanket KKK member. same thing IN THIS CONTEXT. read, people.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

bgivens33 wrote:

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?

I'll be perfectly honest when I say you completely lost me with whatever point you were making here. All I was trying to illustrate was a common criminal who kills for drugs is different than someone who kills for race/religion/orientation/etc.

gangbanging is a crime against a person, hate crimes are crimes against society as a whole. much more dangerous.

Prince Of Dorkness

311jj wrote:

I like to think that at some point, we can start seeing people as who they are without all of the tags.

And, going back to the point of the thread, when lesbian mothers and their children are no longer attacked for being lesbian mothers... you'll be right.

Until then, people CAN'T start seeing "people" without the tags.

cincybearcat

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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?

cincybearcat wrote:

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

that statement makes it sound like everyone who kills is equal, so yes, in essence, you did say that.

Nope, you kill 1 you are not as bad as if you kill millions. Kinda a simple concept.

SundaySilence

cincybearcat wrote:

Nope, you kill 1 you are not as bad as if you kill millions. Kinda a simple concept.

It depends on whether your side wins or loses the war

cincybearcat

SundaySilence wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Nope, you kill 1 you are not as bad as if you kill millions. Kinda a simple concept.

It depends on whether your side wins or loses the war

Damn it!!! I thought it was simple!!!! :P

Hugh Freaking Dillon

cincybearcat wrote:

Nope, you kill 1 you are not as bad as if you kill millions. Kinda a simple concept.

don't be a smart ass. You know what I meant. If you didn't, then see my second (hopefully clearer) example.

cincybearcat

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

no, it doesn't make sense. let's change my example. I used the name Hitler because it's easily identifiable with the motive. just use a blanket KKK member. same thing IN THIS CONTEXT. read, people.

Who's the smart ass here?

You talking about this post? Sure you picked hitler to show someone that killed because of hate. Now you are picking another group known for killing A LOT (I can use caps too) of people because of hate. So, thanks for proving the point that numbers matter.

As for my post not making sense...what part? I was trying to say that perhaps "hate" crimes deserve a more severe punishment because the motive behind their killing would likely cause them to kill again. So, basically saying, that on that level, perhaps you are correct.

pandora

A person who has been victimized just wants justice.
They felt the hate and fear when the crime against them was being committed....
even if they don't fit into a special group.

Justice for all ... same penalties and harsh.



Having spent the last few days getting to know fellow jurors here in the South I will say
we are no more prejudice then anywhere else in the country...
if that was what was suggested by unfairness in the Bible Belt.
The South is judged by a few.... as every other section of the US.
I enjoyed the coming together... all nationalities, ages, religions, men and women
working just as human beings towards the same end ... justice.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

cincybearcat wrote:

you are correct.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

even if they don't fit into a special group.

sorry, but race and sexual orientation do not qualify as a "special group". it's called society.

:roll: