.
and whether or not it affects the final sentencing is irrelevant.
.
No. It isn't irrelevant at all. The significance of hate crime legislaton is that crimes deemed to be such, carry stiffer penalties. For example, painting a swastika on the home of a Jewish family, will get someone in a lot more trouble than standard grafiti vandalism. It should. That is EXACTLY the relevance of hate crime legislation.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
You do know the biggest victim proportionally of crimes are male. Hate crime legislation does absolutely nothing to protect the largest contingent of crime victims. Hate crime legislation is like affirmative discrimination in my opinion, it's just plain wrong. All crime carries are large component of not caring about society and hating the victim. Victimizing certain groups make no sense to me.
and im sure you know that the biggest percentage of criminals are male.
im just wondering why all these other apparently specifically motivated crimes are classed as HATE crimes when crimes against woman are not. i didnt say whether i was for or against any of them being categorised as hate crimes.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Rape can lead to the disempowerment of a group of people. Catefrances is right that a crime against a woman can cause fear and intimidation in all women, however the punishment for rape has been deemed appropriate for the crime. In 2000, the law for hate crime (a crime against someone specifically because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability) needed to be strengthened to recognize the societal harm it causes.
Read again what the the New York State Legislature wrote:
..."Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."
No. It isn't irrelevant at all. The significance of hate crime legislaton is that crimes deemed to be such, carry stiffer penalties. For example, painting a swastika on the home of a Jewish family, will get someone in a lot more trouble than standard grafiti vandalism. It should. That is EXACTLY the relevance of hate crime legislation.
you said:
It would be more of a sick, twisted, perverse, manifestation of hatred towards his mother, perhaps, not women in general. Besides, once you've taken to multiple murders and dismemberings, you're pretty much fucked anyway. Tacking on "hate crime" chargers is not going to effect the sentence much.
i was referring to this post specifically, in relation to serial killers. nothing else. and certainly not intimidating and abusing jews with swastikas.
and i replied thusly:
his HATRED for his mother is manifested in his serial killing WOMEN. he transfers the specific HATE to the general female population. he's not killing just anyone, he's targetting WOMEN.
and whether or not it affects the final sentencing is irrelevant.
my point, obviously too obliquely stated, was that whether or not it would affect the sentence much is irrelevant. not that the actual sentencing is irrelevant.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It makes no sense to call a white on black crime a "hate crime" while calling a white on white crime (or other combinations) just a crime. Prosecute for the crime, not for the intent.
we prosecute for intent all the time. motive is integral to all criminal cases. do you think someone who lost control of a car on a snowy road and killed their friend in the passenger seat deserves the same penalty as a serial murderer? the crime is the same... they killed somebody.
I think the cultures, respectively, of men and women are evolving, society be damned, love will prevail.
of course, i'm a romantic, they say.
hate crimes are those that monitor the behavior of a free society. of all cultures. in this day and age of consumerism and pop capitalism, i think there is an equanimity in this particular battle of cultures.
i think you're scraping the bottom of the barrel on this. that isn't to say there aren't some twisted fucks in this world created by the system (i think there are), but i also don't subscribe to the notion a perfect society. i think the law is good, in the case for the betterment of civility and society.
if as you say hate crimes monitor the behaviour of a free society, then how can crimes against women be ignored as crimes specifically AGAINST women?
why can't crimes against women be acknowledged as crimes against women the same way in which crimes against jews or gays are? this is what im asking. this is all ive been asking.
sure the law is good, but it can be better.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah. catefrances may be onto something. still, there are the vagaries of
psychological imbalance that may supercede anything so general as a crime
against a particular culture, even if you want to call it the "culture" of women.
you said:
It would be more of a sick, twisted, perverse, manifestation of hatred towards his mother, perhaps, not women in general. Besides, once you've taken to multiple murders and dismemberings, you're pretty much fucked anyway. Tacking on "hate crime" chargers is not going to effect the sentence much.
i was referring to this post specifically, in relation to serial killers. nothing else. and certainly not intimidating and abusing jews with swastikas.
and i replied thusly:
his HATRED for his mother is manifested in his serial killing WOMEN. he transfers the specific HATE to the general female population. he's not killing just anyone, he's targetting WOMEN.
and whether or not it affects the final sentencing is irrelevant.
my point, obviously too obliquely stated, was that whether or not it would affect the sentence much is irrelevant. not that the actual sentencing is irrelevant.
My point was that whether you want to consider serial murder and dismembering "hate crimes" makes little difference. You want serial murder, rape, and dismemberment of women to be classified as "hate crime", fine, we'll take the seven consecutive life sentences given to the serial killer, and tack on an eighth life sentence for violation of hate crime legislation. Whoop de do!
When discussing the significance of hate crime legislation the issue of sentencing is not irrelevant.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
if as you say hate crimes monitor the behaviour of a free society, then how can crimes against women be ignored as crimes specifically AGAINST women?
why can't crimes against women be acknowledged as crimes against women the same way in which crimes against jews or gays are? this is what im asking. this is all ive been asking.
sure the law is good, but it can be better.
well, as with murder, not all rapes are of women. men rape men and so on and so forth. and as with murder, 'hate' in the hate crime sense may not be involved. a white guy can kill a black guy without it being a hate crime. it becomes a hate crime when he does it becos he hates blacks and wants to put them in their place. likewise, most of the time, the latter is the case with rapes. so i would say most rapes probably are hate crimes. but not all.
if as you say hate crimes monitor the behaviour of a free society, then how can crimes against women be ignored as crimes specifically AGAINST women?
why can't crimes against women be acknowledged as crimes against women the same way in which crimes against jews or gays are? this is what im asking. this is all ive been asking.
sure the law is good, but it can be better.
As I said you may be onto something. You may be ahead of your time on this.
My general sense of this is something along the lines of societal, family, or community attitudes run rampant, and in that sense, you certainly seem to have a case.
well, as with murder, not all rapes are of women. men rape men and so on and so forth. and as with murder, 'hate' in the hate crime sense may not be involved. a white guy can kill a black guy without it being a hate crime. it becomes a hate crime when he does it becos he hates blacks and wants to put them in their place. likewise, most of the time, the latter is the case with rapes. so i would say most rapes probably are hate crimes. but not all.
so is that agreeance i'm reading?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
pretty much. like i said, i don't think a blanket statement that every rape is automatically a hate crime is correct. but for the most part, yeah, rape is usually a hate crime.
pretty much. like i said, i don't think a blanket statement that every rape is automatically a hate crime is correct. but for the most part, yeah, rape is usually a hate crime.
well counsellor... i didnt say all rapes are hate crimes either.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if as you say hate crimes monitor the behaviour of a free society, then how can crimes against women be ignored as crimes specifically AGAINST women?
why can't crimes against women be acknowledged as crimes against women the same way in which crimes against jews or gays are? this is what im asking. this is all ive been asking.
sure the law is good, but it can be better.
The punishment for crimes against women has been fair, because the law recognized the impact that it had against all women in society. You agreed with that statement earlier in this thread.
The punishment for a hate crime, a crime against someone simply because they are gay for example, did not factor in the societal harm that it causes, and therefore needed to be strengthened. You agreed that crimes against women are already being punished appropriately, so why do you think they should be classified as hate crimes?
The punishment for crimes against women has been fair, because the law recognized the impact that it had against all women in society. You agreed with that statement earlier in this thread.
The punishment for a hate crime, a crime against someone simply because they are gay for example, did not factor in the societal harm that it causes, and therefore needed to be strengthened. You agreed that crimes against women are already being punished appropriately, so why do you think they should be classified as hate crimes?
where did i agree that the punishment for crimes against woman was adequate? or inadequate for that matter. that was never my focus.
go and read all my posts sequentially and you will see my reasoning.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
where did i agree that the punishment for crimes against woman was adequate? or inadequate for that matter. that was never my focus.
go and read all my posts sequentially and you will see my reasoning.
You're saying that violent crime against women in general should be covered in a hate crimes bill. The inference you make is that there are "crimes of hate" that are already prosecuted under different laws.
It doesn't seem to me that Hate Crimes are intended to be an all-encompassing law as you would like it to be.
You're saying that violent crime against women in general should be covered in a hate crimes bill. That is the inference that there are "crimes of hate" that are already prosecuted under different laws.
It doesn't seem to me that Crimes of Hate is intended to be an all-encompassing law as you would like it to be.
im asking why violent crime(ie rape torture serial murder et al.) against women isnt considered a hate crime. that's all.
im not talking about 'crimes of hate' being all encompasssing. you know sometimes a punch in the face is just a punch in the face. someone is annoying you, tis irrelevant whether they're a man or a woman imo. they piss you off you lash out. simple.
what i was talking about and im sure i made myself more than clear gue, is crimes that occur when the target is chosen solely because they are a woman and are seen as as an object of hatred because of it. and no im not talking bag snatches.
why are we talking in circles with this? did we not resolve all we had to, gue?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im asking why violent crime(ie rape torture serial murder et al.) against women isnt considered a hate crime. that's all.
im not talking about 'crimes of hate' being all encompasssing. you know sometimes a punch in the face is just a punch in the face. someone is annoying you, tis irrelevant whether they're a man or a woman imo. they piss you off you lash out. simple.
what i was talking about and im sure i made myself more than clear gue, is crimes that occur when the target is chosen solely because they are a woman and are seen as as an object of hatred because of it. and no im not talking bag snatches.
why are we talking in circles with this? did we not resolve all we had to, gue?
Read my post above. The punishment for rape and crimes against women is deemed appropriate as it factors in the fear and intimidation in can cause in all women.
Comments
No. It isn't irrelevant at all. The significance of hate crime legislaton is that crimes deemed to be such, carry stiffer penalties. For example, painting a swastika on the home of a Jewish family, will get someone in a lot more trouble than standard grafiti vandalism. It should. That is EXACTLY the relevance of hate crime legislation.
and im sure you know that the biggest percentage of criminals are male.
im just wondering why all these other apparently specifically motivated crimes are classed as HATE crimes when crimes against woman are not. i didnt say whether i was for or against any of them being categorised as hate crimes.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you think like a rapist.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You're the light of reason on this topic.
I appreciate your posts.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
you said:
It would be more of a sick, twisted, perverse, manifestation of hatred towards his mother, perhaps, not women in general. Besides, once you've taken to multiple murders and dismemberings, you're pretty much fucked anyway. Tacking on "hate crime" chargers is not going to effect the sentence much.
i was referring to this post specifically, in relation to serial killers. nothing else. and certainly not intimidating and abusing jews with swastikas.
and i replied thusly:
his HATRED for his mother is manifested in his serial killing WOMEN. he transfers the specific HATE to the general female population. he's not killing just anyone, he's targetting WOMEN.
and whether or not it affects the final sentencing is irrelevant.
my point, obviously too obliquely stated, was that whether or not it would affect the sentence much is irrelevant. not that the actual sentencing is irrelevant.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's so fun to think that a criminal is going to get thrown in
prison, isn't it? to be raped.. oh yeah, justice is served, isn't it cornifer?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
we prosecute for intent all the time. motive is integral to all criminal cases. do you think someone who lost control of a car on a snowy road and killed their friend in the passenger seat deserves the same penalty as a serial murderer? the crime is the same... they killed somebody.
i would tentatively say yes.
if as you say hate crimes monitor the behaviour of a free society, then how can crimes against women be ignored as crimes specifically AGAINST women?
why can't crimes against women be acknowledged as crimes against women the same way in which crimes against jews or gays are? this is what im asking. this is all ive been asking.
sure the law is good, but it can be better.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah. catefrances may be onto something. still, there are the vagaries of
psychological imbalance that may supercede anything so general as a crime
against a particular culture, even if you want to call it the "culture" of women.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
When discussing the significance of hate crime legislation the issue of sentencing is not irrelevant.
well, as with murder, not all rapes are of women. men rape men and so on and so forth. and as with murder, 'hate' in the hate crime sense may not be involved. a white guy can kill a black guy without it being a hate crime. it becomes a hate crime when he does it becos he hates blacks and wants to put them in their place. likewise, most of the time, the latter is the case with rapes. so i would say most rapes probably are hate crimes. but not all.
Look, man, i didn't say anything like that. Grow up and get your mindless ramblings straight.
As I said you may be onto something. You may be ahead of your time on this.
My general sense of this is something along the lines of societal, family, or community attitudes run rampant, and in that sense, you certainly seem to have a case.
I think.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
so is that agreeance i'm reading?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
pretty much. like i said, i don't think a blanket statement that every rape is automatically a hate crime is correct. but for the most part, yeah, rape is usually a hate crime.
well counsellor... i didnt say all rapes are hate crimes either.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Why thank you
The punishment for crimes against women has been fair, because the law recognized the impact that it had against all women in society. You agreed with that statement earlier in this thread.
The punishment for a hate crime, a crime against someone simply because they are gay for example, did not factor in the societal harm that it causes, and therefore needed to be strengthened. You agreed that crimes against women are already being punished appropriately, so why do you think they should be classified as hate crimes?
where did i agree that the punishment for crimes against woman was adequate? or inadequate for that matter. that was never my focus.
go and read all my posts sequentially and you will see my reasoning.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You're saying that violent crime against women in general should be covered in a hate crimes bill. The inference you make is that there are "crimes of hate" that are already prosecuted under different laws.
It doesn't seem to me that Hate Crimes are intended to be an all-encompassing law as you would like it to be.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
im asking why violent crime(ie rape torture serial murder et al.) against women isnt considered a hate crime. that's all.
im not talking about 'crimes of hate' being all encompasssing. you know sometimes a punch in the face is just a punch in the face. someone is annoying you, tis irrelevant whether they're a man or a woman imo. they piss you off you lash out. simple.
what i was talking about and im sure i made myself more than clear gue, is crimes that occur when the target is chosen solely because they are a woman and are seen as as an object of hatred because of it. and no im not talking bag snatches.
why are we talking in circles with this? did we not resolve all we had to, gue?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Hate and anger are not one in the same.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
never said they were.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
hmmm.
this is interesting because you have been approaching this topic
in a rather close to the vest manner. Almost angrily.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
By saying you "weren't debating that aspect" I thought you were saying you agreed with it. I may have misunderstood.
So, I'll ask then, do you think that punishment for crimes against women is fair?
hmm... interesting that you seem to think you are able to read my intentions.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no. by saying i wasnt debating that aspect i was saying it was not my focus. i was trying to keep it simple so i wouldnt get distracted. and also.....
... i am not familiar with what is meted out in regards to specific crimes, so i can not comment.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You have angry intentions?
I didn't say that.
But, you just did.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.