But why should it be up to a jury to decide what was going on in someone's head when they committed a crime? What if someone kills a black guy because he stole his wife, but before it happens he spouts off some racial slurs. Either way it was murder why should a jury have to decide what the guy was thinking. Even your idea of race is subjective. If someone says I am going to kill all black people, someone could easily say "I am only part black". As far as group identity what if someone kills an alcoholic in AA, there is definitely a group identity among those people. Everyone belongs to some group or another so to really be fair you would have to look at every case and decide if the person on trial hated the victims group.
becos that is what juries do. the term is "mens rea." any time there is a crime committed, juries weigh the perpetrator's mental state. you cannot try someone for murder without trying to figure out their motive. there is nothing new or alarming in this concept. otherwise someone who kills someone in a car accident gets the same sentence as a serial killer, becos you have no way to tell whether or not they meant to do what they did, all you can judge is that someone died and it's the other person's fault. does that seem fair? the guy says it was an accident, but maybe he's lying? we can't guess his state of mind, only what happened. maybe he meant to wreck his car and kill someone.
juries weigh motive all the time. if the guy killed the black dude over his wife, he can testify about it and juries will see it.
race is not subjective. nobody is going to say "i'm only part black" and think they're not at risk. alcoholics, like big eared people, are self-selecting. it's not a genetic imperative placing you in a group. not yet anyway. you can stop being an alcoholic. you cannot stop being black. you can convince yourself your ears aren't that big. you cannot convince yourself you are not latin. if it were subjective, the data wouldn't be on the us census. you don't say "im feeling kinda mexican today, but becos there's a hater out there, i'll be more native american instead."
My problem is how do you decide which groups get the protection under hate crime legislation? Sure black people and other visible minorities might be obvious choices, but what about white people of different ethnic backgrounds, what about fat people or skinny people, stupid people, people with disabilities? What about people that are fans of a specific sports team or drunks or drug addicts? What about university students? The problem is that you can classify pretty much anyone into a variety of different categories and there are always going to be people who hate other groups of people for whatever reason. And since everyone is supposed to have equal protection under the law how is it fair that some groups are going to be better protected by having people who attack them get harsher punishment?
In all due respect, i think you make a real stretch here. Terms like "fat" or "skinny" besides being completely relative (Black is not at all relative to Ku Kluxer regardless of any degree of skin hue), are not categories that generally and historically have been discriminated against or hated. "Weightism" is not the problem racism is. If someone spraypaints the weightwatchers logo on the home of an obese person, you may have a case. Sports fanatics are an even larger stretch. If i beat the shit out of a cubs fan, not only is it not a hate crime... its completely justified.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
My problem is how do you decide which groups get the protection under hate crime legislation? Sure black people and other visible minorities might be obvious choices, but what about white people of different ethnic backgrounds, what about fat people or skinny people, stupid people, people with disabilities? What about people that are fans of a specific sports team or drunks or drug addicts? What about university students? The problem is that you can classify pretty much anyone into a variety of different categories and there are always going to be people who hate other groups of people for whatever reason. And since everyone is supposed to have equal protection under the law how is it fair that some groups are going to be better protected by having people who attack them get harsher punishment?
you define it by groups that are not self-selecting. you can stop being a university student (an aside, that makes me think you are european becos here they're called college students. i see no need for hate crime legislation in europe. you guys simply do not understand the social dynamics and racial tensions here in the US. no offense). if you are an addict you can sober up. if you are fat you can diet and if you are skinny you can weight gain.
disabilities would count. once you are crippled or mentally retarded, you can't just stop being crippled or mentally retarded. you can't just stop being gay or black or jewish (if you want to argue that religion is chosen, religion is an integral part of your personality and a fundamental right). it's not that hard to do. if you want to come up with 100 different groups i can easily tell you why or why not they would fall under these statutes but we'd be here all day and it would solve nothing. i think you see what i'm getting at.
In all due respect, i think you make a real stretch here. Terms like "fat" or "skinny" besides being completely relative (Black is not at all relative to Ku Kluxer regardless of any degree of skin hue), are not categories that generally and historically have been discriminated against or hated. "Weightism" is not the problem racism is. If someone spraypaints the weightwatchers logo on the home of an obese person, you may have a case. Sports fanatics are an even larger stretch. If i beat the shit out of a cubs fan, not only is it not a hate crime... its completely justified.
My examples might be a bit of a strech but how do you decide which catergories have been "historically discriminated against" enough to warrant an attack on them being a hate crime?
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
In all due respect, i think you make a real stretch here. Terms like "fat" or "skinny" besides being completely relative (Black is not at all relative to Ku Kluxer regardless of any degree of skin hue), are not categories that generally and historically have been discriminated against or hated. "Weightism" is not the problem racism is. If someone spraypaints the weightwatchers logo on the home of an obese person, you may have a case. Sports fanatics are an even larger stretch. If i beat the shit out of a cubs fan, not only is it not a hate crime... its completely justified.
Or do the same with a Yankee fan....lol
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
My examples might be a bit of a strech but how do you decide which catergories have been "historically discriminated against" enough to warrant an attack on them being a hate crime?
For most, its rather ovious.
Besides, again for obvious reasons, under civil rights legislation, "fat", "skinny", "big eared" and, perhaps my favorite "stupid", do not fall under the category of "protected groups.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
you define it by groups that are not self-selecting. you can stop being a university student (an aside, that makes me think you are european becos here they're called college students. i see no need for hate crime legislation in europe. you guys simply do not understand the social dynamics and racial tensions here in the US. no offense). if you are an addict you can sober up. if you are fat you can diet and if you are skinny you can weight gain.
disabilities would count. once you are crippled or mentally retarded, you can't just stop being crippled or mentally retarded. you can't just stop being gay or black or jewish (if you want to argue that religion is chosen, religion is an integral part of your personality and a fundamental right). it's not that hard to do. if you want to come up with 100 different groups i can easily tell you why or why not they would fall under these statutes but we'd be here all day and it would solve nothing. i think you see what i'm getting at.
But isn't that like saying some forms of hate are more ok than others? Plus the isn't the whole idea of "if you don't want to be attacked because you are a fat, then don't be fat" kind of like saying the victim was asking for it?
For most, its rather ovious.
Besides, again for obvious reasons, under civil rights legislation, "fat", "skinny", "big eared" and, perhaps my favorite "stupid", do not fall under the category of "protected groups.
Ok then what about people of different hair colours? Sure it might be a little out there for people to attack someone for their hair colour, but how is it not equal protection under the law if someone getting attacked for their hair colour gets a lesser sentence than someone attacked for their skin colour?
But isn't that like saying some forms of hate are more ok than others? Plus the isn't the whole idea of "if you don't want to be attacked because you are a fat, then don't be fat" kind of like saying the victim was asking for it?
no, it isn't. you're quite the pc warrior today aren't you? it is like recognizing that some forms of hate are more damaging and pose greater threats to society, due to their focused and specific nature. it has nothing to do with saying some hate is ok. no hate is ok. but some pose greater threats to social stability. and your last sentence is ridiculous. since when did hate crime legislation mean that ONLY hate crimes get prosecuted? don't be an idiot.
Ok then what about people of different hair colours? Sure it might be a little out there for people to attack someone for their hair colour, but how is it not equal protection under the law if someone getting attacked for their hair colour gets a lesser sentence than someone attacked for their skin colour?
o.k. Now you've gone completely off the deep end. All i can suggest,at this point, is if you seriously don't see the ridiculousness of some of your reasoning, and you would like to see a certain hair color, weight level, ear size, or IQ deficiency protected under civil rights legislation, weighted the same as race, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation, then maybe you should write a letter to your congressperson.
good luck with that.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
becos that is what juries do. the term is "mens rea." any time there is a crime committed, juries weigh the perpetrator's mental state. you cannot try someone for murder without trying to figure out their motive. there is nothing new or alarming in this concept. otherwise someone who kills someone in a car accident gets the same sentence as a serial killer, becos you have no way to tell whether or not they meant to do what they did, all you can judge is that someone died and it's the other person's fault. does that seem fair? the guy says it was an accident, but maybe he's lying? we can't guess his state of mind, only what happened. maybe he meant to wreck his car and kill someone.
juries weigh motive all the time. if the guy killed the black dude over his wife, he can testify about it and juries will see it.
race is not subjective. nobody is going to say "i'm only part black" and think they're not at risk. alcoholics, like big eared people, are self-selecting. it's not a genetic imperative placing you in a group. not yet anyway. you can stop being an alcoholic. you cannot stop being black. you can convince yourself your ears aren't that big. you cannot convince yourself you are not latin. if it were subjective, the data wouldn't be on the us census. you don't say "im feeling kinda mexican today, but becos there's a hater out there, i'll be more native american instead."
In all due respect, i think you make a real stretch here. Terms like "fat" or "skinny" besides being completely relative (Black is not at all relative to Ku Kluxer regardless of any degree of skin hue), are not categories that generally and historically have been discriminated against or hated. "Weightism" is not the problem racism is. If someone spraypaints the weightwatchers logo on the home of an obese person, you may have a case. Sports fanatics are an even larger stretch. If i beat the shit out of a cubs fan, not only is it not a hate crime... its completely justified.
you define it by groups that are not self-selecting. you can stop being a university student (an aside, that makes me think you are european becos here they're called college students. i see no need for hate crime legislation in europe. you guys simply do not understand the social dynamics and racial tensions here in the US. no offense). if you are an addict you can sober up. if you are fat you can diet and if you are skinny you can weight gain.
disabilities would count. once you are crippled or mentally retarded, you can't just stop being crippled or mentally retarded. you can't just stop being gay or black or jewish (if you want to argue that religion is chosen, religion is an integral part of your personality and a fundamental right). it's not that hard to do. if you want to come up with 100 different groups i can easily tell you why or why not they would fall under these statutes but we'd be here all day and it would solve nothing. i think you see what i'm getting at.
My examples might be a bit of a strech but how do you decide which catergories have been "historically discriminated against" enough to warrant an attack on them being a hate crime?
Or do the same with a Yankee fan....lol
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
For most, its rather ovious.
Besides, again for obvious reasons, under civil rights legislation, "fat", "skinny", "big eared" and, perhaps my favorite "stupid", do not fall under the category of "protected groups.
But isn't that like saying some forms of hate are more ok than others? Plus the isn't the whole idea of "if you don't want to be attacked because you are a fat, then don't be fat" kind of like saying the victim was asking for it?
Ok then what about people of different hair colours? Sure it might be a little out there for people to attack someone for their hair colour, but how is it not equal protection under the law if someone getting attacked for their hair colour gets a lesser sentence than someone attacked for their skin colour?
no, it isn't. you're quite the pc warrior today aren't you? it is like recognizing that some forms of hate are more damaging and pose greater threats to society, due to their focused and specific nature. it has nothing to do with saying some hate is ok. no hate is ok. but some pose greater threats to social stability. and your last sentence is ridiculous. since when did hate crime legislation mean that ONLY hate crimes get prosecuted? don't be an idiot.
No. I do not believe in the concept of a hate crime.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
o.k. Now you've gone completely off the deep end. All i can suggest,at this point, is if you seriously don't see the ridiculousness of some of your reasoning, and you would like to see a certain hair color, weight level, ear size, or IQ deficiency protected under civil rights legislation, weighted the same as race, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation, then maybe you should write a letter to your congressperson.
good luck with that.