Parents of murdered gay man have a question for the GOP

124

Comments

  • Posts: 2,130
    catefrances wrote:
    .
    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."
  • Posts: 29,003
    surferdude wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 5,515
    cornnifer wrote:
    [size=+50]???[/size]


    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.
  • Posts: 5,515
    JD Sal wrote:
    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."

    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.
  • Posts: 2,130
    gue_barium wrote:
    you think like a rapist.
    Whatever.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Posts: 29,003
    cornnifer wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 5,515
    cornnifer wrote:
    Whatever.

    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.
  • Posts: 13,202
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • Posts: 13,202
    catefrances wrote:
    okay then..so by that rationale, ALL RAPE and SERIAL KILLING of women,
    should be considered a hate crime.

    i would tentatively say yes.
  • Posts: 29,003
    gue_barium wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 5,515
    soulsinging wrote:
    i would tentatively say yes.

    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.
  • Posts: 2,130
    catefrances wrote:
    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."
  • Posts: 13,202
    catefrances wrote:
    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.
  • Posts: 2,130
    gue_barium wrote:
    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?

    Look, man, i didn't say anything like that. Grow up and get your mindless ramblings straight.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Posts: 5,515
    catefrances wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 29,003
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 13,202
    catefrances wrote:
    so is that agreeance i'm reading?

    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.
  • Posts: 29,003
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • Posts: 790
    gue_barium wrote:
    You're the light of reason on this topic.

    I appreciate your posts.

    Why thank you :)
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • Posts: 790
    catefrances wrote:
    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?
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories