- 02-11-2004, 06:38 PM
This is not a debate about them but rather a question on what a hate crime really is.
Let me put forth this idea and I encourage you to think about it.
What crime is not a hate crime? When is a violent crime committed that some form of hate is not involved?
I view the majority of crimes to be driven by hate in someway or another. Consequently, I have a problem labeling specific crimes as "hate crimes".
How about you?
- 02-11-2004, 07:09 PM
When I hear "hate crime" I think of a crime commited against a person or a group of people because of something they do, feel, act, practice, etc. I don't think the person commiting the hate crime has to know the individual at all....
Funny this thread came up, I just saw an old friend the other night and I asked him whats hes been doing (havn't seen him in a few years). He looked at me, smiled, and said " You didnt hear? I beat the **** out of some ***ots in Orlando. I just got out jail." After talking to some of his friends, turns out he jumped some homos at UCF for no reason.
02-11-2004, 07:45 PM
I've often thought the same thing. I don't believe, for example, there should be any difference between the punishment for someone who is convicted of assault and battery in say a mugging, versus another criminal who is convicted of assault and battery in say a religious persecution situation. BOTH should be punished severely!
BTW, what should the punishment be for this guy Joseph Smith, who appears to be the guilty party in the abduction and murder of young Carli Bruscia just recently, in Sarasota FL?
I have a solution: Give him his trial. If convicted, throw him in an enclosed pen at the local zoo with hungry lions, or even bears, etc. There you go tough guy, let's see how tough you are now?! The scum deserves to be torn limb from limb while screaming for his life.
02-11-2004, 07:49 PM
Actually, if one thinks about it, even being convicted for possession of AS is really a hate crime. The guy (or girl) bought the stuff with the intention of becoming bigger and stronger, because they HATE being smaller & weaker ......
02-12-2004, 12:11 AM
Dietrying...I tihnk you may have missed the point I was trying to make.
PC1...Your AAS possession is an example of why this idea of a hate crime does not make sense to me.
Another example, I walk in to my home and find someone robbing me. I attack him b/c I am angry and hate him fro stealing from me. He was robbing me b/c he does not care for me and he hates his living conditions. Should not these be considered a hate crime also? The actions are based on hate.
My point is, the majority of crimes are rooted in hate so how can one identify only certain actions as being "hate crimes"
02-12-2004, 12:18 AM
By naming it a "hate crime" they have misnomered it.. it should be prejudiced crime or something but you and PC are right, why do we need a different set of punishments? Just be tough on the crimes that are committed
02-12-2004, 12:19 AM
02-12-2004, 12:22 AM
02-12-2004, 05:09 AM
Hate crime is a nice PC term that makes absolutely no sense. It's premise is that a crime against one group of people is worse than another. It tries to take into account the meanings behind the crime. In doing so it creates a group of special people and also creates a group of second class citizens. I would think it is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection under the law provision.Take two crimes, In one a group of blue eyed people beat up a green eyed guy and in the other, a group of green eyed guys beat up a blue eyed guy. Lets say that in both cases the injuries to the men were the same and they were severely hurt. In the case of the group of blue eyed guys doing the beating they all get 5 extra years because it was considered a hate crime. In the case of the green eyed guys doing the beating they get half the time the blue eyed guy did. Why because everyone knows that the green eyed group are "oppressed minorities" which every one knows means they are incapable of have any prejudice them selves. What hate crimes laws say that it is worse to beat up a green eyed guy that a blue eyed guy or as Orwell says "some animals are more equal than others". Welcome to the brave new world.
02-12-2004, 10:12 AM
02-12-2004, 04:02 PM
I think this country is headed in the wrong direction if not a dangerous one. You know there is a problem when you can draw parellels to Orwell's novels.It looks like Cambridge has invaded the rest of the state of Massachusetts and the rest of the country is next. Get your Birkenstocks out. lol
02-12-2004, 04:19 PM
Vanilla and PC1......I am glad you see the light.
I honestly wish more people adopted your views and recognized the injustices that are slowly being constructed in the USA and other countries throughout the world.
02-12-2004, 04:37 PM
I wish I would never have read 1984. Scares the crap out of me to whenever I draw similarities..Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
02-12-2004, 08:51 PM
Cambridge, what a place. I worked there for a couple of years. Definitely the fruit and nut center of the universe. Not as outrageous as Provincetown, but is like Northampton X 10 !Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
02-12-2004, 08:57 PM
... Repented, seen the light and made the switch!Originally Posted by size
You wouldn't know it but MOST people who live in the suburbs of Massachusetts are actually moderate to conservative, whether or not they're democrat or republican. That doesn't include the college towns of Amherst/Northampton of course. It's the more metropolitan areas that veer toward the left.
It seems to be a trend around the U.S. as well.
Kind of a running joke that if John Kennedy were a young man starting off in politics today, he'd be a moderate republican insofar as political alignment is concerned.
02-16-2004, 12:13 PM
Make him fight Mike Tyson with one arm tied behind his back. This ****er should be tortured if he did it. Nothing pisses me off like crimes against children. The death penalty would be way to easy for this guy, I don't know who was the genius that thought it would be better to let murders get killed as punishment, life in prison is much worse. Bubba can make good use of this guy prison for years to come.Originally Posted by PC1
02-16-2004, 12:38 PM
What difference does it make whether the person he killed is a child or an adult? How is one worse than the other? Dennis Miller put it best, those that are against abortion but in favor of the death penalty, it must all be in the timing.
Killing someone if it isn't in self defense of yourself, someone you love, or in war, isn't right period. Making it seem worse when done to a child than to an adult just doesn't make sense to me.
02-16-2004, 01:40 PM
Well, killing a child in my mind is far worse. Reason being a child is young, naive, and innocent. A child has not lived life. A child can't defend themselves.
02-16-2004, 02:48 PM
02-17-2004, 04:33 AM
Provincetown and Northampton are prob. worse than cambridge. To make a long story short- We went to a concert out in northampton, got kind of lost, decided to pull over and ask these to guys for directions. The problem is they weren't guys.....as a matter of fact I don't recall seeing any guys there at all. I don't think I have seen so many lesbains in one place in my life. I know a lot of guys think lesbains are kind of cool but you need to see some real lesbains.
02-17-2004, 04:39 AM
The thing is most people who are going to get the death penalty have done some pretty horrific things. Some people view it not as punishment but protection. If the guy manages to get out of jail he will prob. kill again.those that are against abortion but in favor of the death penalty, it must all be in the timing.
09-13-2006, 02:43 PM
09-13-2006, 03:08 PM
As mentioned earlier - A crime is a crime - whether driven by hate, greed, lust, or whatever - it's still the same - a crime.
In fact, that label (Hate crime) is biting people in the ass now. Now if anything happens, baam, pull the race card to try and get an easy off, even if the party crying 'hate crime' is guilty.
Anyone see the South Park episode where Cartman gets accused and jailed for a "hate crime" against Token? That show's the best because it shows how flawed and "pussified" our North American social system has become.
09-13-2006, 03:57 PM
It comes down to motive because motive plays a part in the punishment.
Would you agree shooting your wife's lover when you caught them in bed together is different than shooting a guy because he's gay?
Both are murder. However, under US law they are different in their punishment.
09-13-2006, 04:37 PM
The crime is still the same, murder. Hate/anger/etc is still the driving force for the action, so if the driving force is the same should they not be treated the same?Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Mr.A catches his wife having sex with a man. He is angry at the action of the man and kills him. Murder.
Mr.A sees a gay man with a man. Jo is angry at the action of the gay man and kills him. Murder.
09-13-2006, 05:45 PM
True the law treats them differently, but I disagree with that distinction. Or perhaps I should say I don't think it's the correct distinction. I would say the question should be: Is there a difference between killing someone because they are gay or killing someone because you feel like it, or killing someone because you want their money, etc.? That is, is there a discernable difference, or one that matters, between murders that are not crimes of passion?Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
If that's the question then hate crime legislation is self defeating. If you want people to stop hating each other and to value each other equally it is contradictory to enact a law that will put a higher value on one person's life than another based on the same arbitrary criteria upon which people discriminate now. And that will be the end result of such legislation. I see no difference between two idiots randomly killing a guy and lashing him to a fence and the same idiots deciding to do the same thing to a gay guy. Both acts are equally arbitrary and brutal and deserve the same punishment. Malice and brutality towards other people for any reason is just that. They don't need their definitions parsed for reasons of political correctness.
09-13-2006, 06:04 PM
the government shouldn't punish you for what you think ... if they are going to punish the action that's one thing but to punish someone for their thoughts is unconstitutional in my mind
09-13-2006, 07:22 PM
so are you saying that someone that accidentally runs over and kills a kid playing in the street should recieve the same jail sentence as someone who premeditated it and purposefully ran down and killed a kid?Originally Posted by glenihan
09-14-2006, 08:18 AM
09-14-2006, 09:46 AM
No, he's saying that one arbitrary and assinine motive is the same as another and hsould not be treated differently by the government. The examples you and Jay presented were off point, because there's a difference between an accidental killing, a crime of passion killing and a premeditated murder. In that latter category, premeditation, he and I are saying there should be no distinction drawn between motives. One, such a law would be applied unequally across ethnic lines and thuis racist in itself. Derrivative of that it places a higher value on some lives than others. Two, it punishes thoughts. Three, it parses premeditation when it shouldn't. There is no more or less justified reason for killing someone in cold blood. Doing it to collect the insurance, because they are gay, because they called you gay, because they are black or white or yellow or whatever is irrelevant. There is no 'slightly more justifiable' reason for killing someone in cold blood.Originally Posted by OmarJackson
Similar Forum Threads
- By Beelzebub in forum PoliticsReplies: 73Last Post: 09-20-2005, 09:15 AM
- By size in forum General ChatReplies: 20Last Post: 02-17-2004, 04:39 AM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 71Last Post: 07-30-2003, 11:54 PM
- By chi_town in forum AnabolicsReplies: 24Last Post: 05-20-2003, 07:54 AM
- By C-bizzle in forum General ChatReplies: 267Last Post: 05-03-2003, 10:53 PM