While I'm fully aware that money can't buy happiness, I wouldn't mind being known as that melancholy guy who drives the red Lamborghini Diablo. -- George Olson
( Read more... )
That's conservative black/white oversimplification at it's best, sir.
So you seriously think that a person who sits in a room for six months planning on how to kill the black family next door to him because he wants to kill all the black people in the world should be treated the same as the guy who loses control of his car and hits another car killing the same black family? Or the guy who's heater's pilot light goes off and causes an explosion killing the family while he's out? Every one of those circumstances have the same end result. One family is deprived of their 'inalienable' right to life by the actions of one guy who lives.
There is a difference though, and this is why we have hate laws: In one of those circumstances the guy is significantly more likely to take more victims.
The crime isn't caused by the hatred of an individual or circumstance, but by the irrational hatred of the killer that created the circumstance to begin with. It also promotes fear in the populace and constitutes aggressive harrassment of a group of people. It's committing a crime against a group of people.
Killing Matthew Sheppard wasn't the goal of the kids who did it. It was to strike fear into the gay community. Lynching black people in the South wasn't to kill individual black people, it was to make sure the black people knew not to let the sun set on 'em.
It clearly deserves to be treated differently than an isolated individual-on-individual crime.
So you seriously think that a person who sits in a room for six months planning on how to kill the black family next door to him because he wants to kill all the black people in the world should be treated the same as the guy who loses control of his car and hits another car killing the same black family? Or the guy who's heater's pilot light goes off and causes an explosion killing the family while he's out?
A) In the second and third cases, the only way to reasonably put down a murder charge is if there was gross negligance that lead to the deaths. If there is? Nail them. Souldn't be drinking and driving. The driver was doing something stupid that killed a family. Hang him. Public execution, have a bake sale. See how quickly the DUI rate drops after a few of those. The landlord refusing to fix a faulty gas system? Fuck him. Hang him. On national TV. With cheerleaders. See how quick you get your landlord out for a dangerous problem then. I'm telling you, capital punishment is a wonderful deterrant.
B)It's committing a crime against a group of people. This is irrational and incorrect. No crime is being comitted against a group of people when a "Hate Crime" is being comitted against an individual. The victim is deprived of his/her life or property, not the group. The victim is beaten, or stabbed, or raped. Not the group. And that is the liberal, group herd mentality at it's best, sir. The individual is second (or not significant at all) to the group. The killing of one straight man isn't as important as the killing of a gay man, because the murder of the gay man threatens the group.
As for your 'a' response, you've taken a change of position. Whereas previously it was the effect of an action (a death), you're now saying that the crime was negligence, etc. Effectively, it's punishing a cause rather than, or along with the effect. In accident vs. intentional, the effect is the same (death), but the cause is different (intentional vs. unintentional). If that's your position, i'd like to know what you feel the differences are between 'intent', 'motive', and 'cause' of a murder. I think our actual disagreement lies in there.
To 'b', it most certainly is attacking a group. What is the purpose of 'making an example' of someone but to cause fear and panic in a target? The primary purpose isn't to kill the person you're making an example of. That's not why the Iraqi insurgents videotape and release the executions of hostages. It's to intimidate and strike fear in American contractors, military personel, and non-American companies who might want to get in on the reconstruction spoils (if they can subcontract it through Halliburton). I would consider those hate crimes as well. Same goes for a series of assassinations targeting government officials or officers. They're not personal and individual attacks, they're attacks against the group and the individual victim just happens to be the easiest way to get at them at the moment.
It has nothing to with majorities or minorities, either. If a group of militant gay men in San Francisco tortured and displayed the body of a straight man to scare others from moving into the neighbourhood, then that too would be a hate crime. Same thing for a white guy in a black neighbourhood or a man wandering into the Amazonian Women territories of Wyoming (fucking scary place, man).
No change of position, what I'm stating is that the motive is not the defining issue, nor should one motive carry a harsher or additional punishment than another. Whether a death occurs through the negligance of a person or a premeditated and planned killing, the result is the same - the murder of a human being.
Intent is the decision itself. "I'm going to do this."
Motive is why a person has the intent to do something. "I'm going to do this because..."
I would prefer any and all deaths caused through provable action or negligant inaction, regardless of intent or motive, to be considered on the same level and punishable as such.
Realistically, there needs to be that gradient, from willful, intentional murder, to murder through negligance, to murder through misadventure.
It's possible that what we're disagreeing on is this - I appreciate the fact that a killer who kills a gay man with the motive of causing fear to the community is affecting the community. He should be punished to the maximum amount that the law provides, to the death penalty in my preferance. But I cannot agree that a crime that takes a person away from his family and friends can or should be treated with any less severity than a murder that is defined as a hate crime (whether that crime is motivated by the fact that the victim is gay, black or whatever, or motivated by a desire to frighten the community they represent).
No change of position, what I'm stating is that the motive is not the defining issue, nor should one motive carry a harsher or additional punishment than another. Whether a death occurs through the negligance of a person or a premeditated and planned killing, the result is the same - the murder of a human being.
Intent is the decision itself. "I'm going to do this."
Motive is why a person has the intent to do something. "I'm going to do this because..."
I would prefer any and all deaths caused through provable action or negligant inaction, regardless of intent or motive, to be considered on the same level and punishable as such.
Realistically, there needs to be that gradient, from willful, intentional murder, to murder through negligance, to murder through misadventure.
It's possible that what we're disagreeing on is this - I appreciate the fact that a killer who kills a gay man with the motive of causing fear to the community is affecting the community. He should be punished to the maximum amount that the law provides, to the death penalty in my preferance. But I cannot agree that a crime that takes a person away from his family and friends can or should be treated with any less severity than a murder that is defined as a hate crime (whether that crime is motivated by the fact that the victim is gay, black or whatever, or motivated by a desire to frighten the community they represent).
So you seriously think that a person who sits in a room for six months planning on how to kill the black family next door to him because he wants to kill all the black people in the world should be treated the same as the guy who loses control of his car and hits another car killing the same black family? Or the guy who's heater's pilot light goes off and causes an explosion killing the family while he's out? Every one of those circumstances have the same end result. One family is deprived of their 'inalienable' right to life by the actions of one guy who lives.
There is a difference though, and this is why we have hate laws: In one of those circumstances the guy is significantly more likely to take more victims.
The crime isn't caused by the hatred of an individual or circumstance, but by the irrational hatred of the killer that created the circumstance to begin with. It also promotes fear in the populace and constitutes aggressive harrassment of a group of people. It's committing a crime against a group of people.
Killing Matthew Sheppard wasn't the goal of the kids who did it. It was to strike fear into the gay community. Lynching black people in the South wasn't to kill individual black people, it was to make sure the black people knew not to let the sun set on 'em.
It clearly deserves to be treated differently than an isolated individual-on-individual crime.
Reply
A) In the second and third cases, the only way to reasonably put down a murder charge is if there was gross negligance that lead to the deaths. If there is? Nail them. Souldn't be drinking and driving. The driver was doing something stupid that killed a family. Hang him. Public execution, have a bake sale. See how quickly the DUI rate drops after a few of those. The landlord refusing to fix a faulty gas system? Fuck him. Hang him. On national TV. With cheerleaders. See how quick you get your landlord out for a dangerous problem then. I'm telling you, capital punishment is a wonderful deterrant.
B)It's committing a crime against a group of people. This is irrational and incorrect. No crime is being comitted against a group of people when a "Hate Crime" is being comitted against an individual. The victim is deprived of his/her life or property, not the group. The victim is beaten, or stabbed, or raped. Not the group. And that is the liberal, group herd mentality at it's best, sir. The individual is second (or not significant at all) to the group. The killing of one straight man isn't as important as the killing of a gay man, because the murder of the gay man threatens the group.
Reply
To 'b', it most certainly is attacking a group. What is the purpose of 'making an example' of someone but to cause fear and panic in a target? The primary purpose isn't to kill the person you're making an example of. That's not why the Iraqi insurgents videotape and release the executions of hostages. It's to intimidate and strike fear in American contractors, military personel, and non-American companies who might want to get in on the reconstruction spoils (if they can subcontract it through Halliburton). I would consider those hate crimes as well. Same goes for a series of assassinations targeting government officials or officers. They're not personal and individual attacks, they're attacks against the group and the individual victim just happens to be the easiest way to get at them at the moment.
It has nothing to with majorities or minorities, either. If a group of militant gay men in San Francisco tortured and displayed the body of a straight man to scare others from moving into the neighbourhood, then that too would be a hate crime. Same thing for a white guy in a black neighbourhood or a man wandering into the Amazonian Women territories of Wyoming (fucking scary place, man).
Reply
Intent is the decision itself. "I'm going to do this."
Motive is why a person has the intent to do something. "I'm going to do this because..."
I would prefer any and all deaths caused through provable action or negligant inaction, regardless of intent or motive, to be considered on the same level and punishable as such.
Realistically, there needs to be that gradient, from willful, intentional murder, to murder through negligance, to murder through misadventure.
It's possible that what we're disagreeing on is this - I appreciate the fact that a killer who kills a gay man with the motive of causing fear to the community is affecting the community. He should be punished to the maximum amount that the law provides, to the death penalty in my preferance. But I cannot agree that a crime that takes a person away from his family and friends can or should be treated with any less severity than a murder that is defined as a hate crime (whether that crime is motivated by the fact that the victim is gay, black or whatever, or motivated by a desire to frighten the community they represent).
Reply
Intent is the decision itself. "I'm going to do this."
Motive is why a person has the intent to do something. "I'm going to do this because..."
I would prefer any and all deaths caused through provable action or negligant inaction, regardless of intent or motive, to be considered on the same level and punishable as such.
Realistically, there needs to be that gradient, from willful, intentional murder, to murder through negligance, to murder through misadventure.
It's possible that what we're disagreeing on is this - I appreciate the fact that a killer who kills a gay man with the motive of causing fear to the community is affecting the community. He should be punished to the maximum amount that the law provides, to the death penalty in my preferance. But I cannot agree that a crime that takes a person away from his family and friends can or should be treated with any less severity than a murder that is defined as a hate crime (whether that crime is motivated by the fact that the victim is gay, black or whatever, or motivated by a desire to frighten the community they represent).
Reply
Leave a comment