The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 02:05 PM
The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Here we have yet another example of Orwellian doublespeak designed to direct your attention off into a wild tangent.

“Hate Crime”. Really?? Would you feel better about it, if the guy who killed you LIKED you? Why does anyone care about how a criminal feels about his victim? Does it make you more dead, if the murderer really hated you?

A criminal, is a criminal. A victim, a victim.

What we’re seeing here - is a tier system designed to make some people “more victimized”.

It’s called prejudice.

I thought we were trying to get RID of that shit, not promote it.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
16-02-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Well, technically, the reason is important. The killer's motivations are important. Legally, socially, psychologically. It's science.

If we didn't care about a murderer's motivations and feelings, we would need to have the exact same sentence for every murder possible. A criminal's motives define whether he is a psychopath or not, whether he can change and live as a normal person again and what the real causes behind the crime are.

It's not that simple.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like undergroundp's post
16-02-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
I can see underground’s point.

We have hate crimes, crimes of passion, crimes of opportunity, premediated crimes and so on. Each is a bit different than the other.

A hate crime has very specific connotations regarding bigotry and intolerance.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
16-02-2015, 06:21 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
I'm 100% with underground on this point. The entire idea of "hate crimes" is ridiculous. Murder is murder. Battery is battery. A victim is no less a victim because the crime is motivated by money than if it's motivated because of his skin color or religion or sexuality. I assume the impetus for this thread was the announcement that the FBI was getting involved in the horrible murders in North Carolina last week of the 3 Muslim students. Does it really matter if they were killed for their religion as opposed to a parking space dispute? Are they less dead if it was over a parking space? Are they somehow less worthy of justice of it's over a parking space? Are their families less aggrieved if they died over a parking space? Is it less horrific? I'm pretty sure the answer to all those questions is "no". But, yet, if they were actually murdered over a parking space dispute, the interest of the government in how the prosecute this is impacted. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

There is also something fundamentally wrong with the idea that we are criminalizing ideas as opposed to actions. That some people are hateful bigot is, believe it or not, all part of the cost of living in a free society. People have rights to have contrary opinions, even hateful and abhorrent ones. You are allowed to hate blacks because they are black. You are allowed to hate Jews because they are Jews. You are allowed to hate gays because they are gay. You are allowed to shout your ignorant hatred from the highest peaks of our society. That much is, as far as the law in at least the US is concerned, a given. So, the idea that acting on those hatred is more of a crime than acting for more mundane reasons flies in the face of the right of free speech and free expression.

We don't need hate crime laws. They are nothing more than political appeasement.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 06:30 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 06:34 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
(16-02-2015 02:05 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  “Hate Crime”. Really?? Would you feel better about it, if the guy who killed you LIKED you? Why does anyone care about how a criminal feels about his victim? Does it make you more dead, if the murderer really hated you?

A Hate Crime, has symbolic significance. It brings to light the prejudices and biases that are part of the larger community that has some part in all this, sort of the way in which Mathew Shepherd's death brings to light the cost of homophobia. It brings to light our treatment of our most vulnerable communities.

It raises a senseless death, to be a death which held some significance, striking a nerve in something we've just brushed under the rug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
16-02-2015, 06:34 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 06:43 PM by Blackout.)
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Full circle answered correctly. Hate crimes are labelled as such because there are bigoted reasons to do it. Someone who kills a black person because he/she believes whites are superior is committing a hate crime. If I commit genocide against an ethnic group that's a racist hate crime. The reason why we distinguish is because there are different sentences and different rehabilitation methods. Someone who kills the wife out of passion and anger doesn't need the same rehab method as someone who killed 10 blacks because they were blacks. Additionally, a bigoted person is dangerous to society because he/she believes blindly that a group of people is less/inferior.

In my country, the leader of a far right party connected with the European Hammerskins (kinda like the Aryan Brotherhood) was arrested for killing a few black people. He confessed to be a white supremacist (using indirect sentences) - He got a heavier sentence because of that.

Putting it simply, a crime is denying the law and the values implied on the law (Thou shall not murder, etc). When someone murders for race (just a random example) they are violating two rules - The rule that "You will not murder" and the rule of "you will not discriminate based on race" - At least in my country anti-racism is a constitutional principle and it's written on the law

BnW, I'm sorry but you show an uninteresting position particularly because you reveal little to no knowledge on how and why criminal law operates. Knowing the reasons are important because the law is preventive, not just punitive - Someone is not less dead or more dead because the crime was committed out of religious hatred, but that same crime reveals an underlying hatred for a specific religion that could spread to the rest of society and needs to be punished. A hate crime shows a higher level of hate, intolerance, cruelty and "evil", and that's all relevant for the sentence for reasons I already explained. If we ignored this we could as well sentence everyone who commits murder to the same prison time because it's not relevant - But that's not how it works. I'm a supporter of adapting every sentence and correspondent rehabilitation procedure to the criminal's personality and faults - Someone who is heavily bigoted needs more rehab and possibly a higher punishment since society disapproves the crime twice - Once for murder and twice for religious hatred (something that is not acceptable socially and constitutionally)

Hate crimes are also a label created to show the rest of society that these prejudices being punished are not correct and should be rejected. The reason for the crime are RELEVANT in any civilized legal system. If I kill for money it will be a heavier sentence than killing out of uncontrollable anger - Because the individual who kills for money places human life on the same level as money bills, therefore he needs heavier rehab/sentence/punishment. The reasons are always relevant if you can find them out, if you premeditate it is more serious because you rationalized it, if it's "spontaneous" then it's not as serious, etc

Criminal law is my passion and I plan to have my master's thesis related to criminality, criminology and criminal law. Online Biker, I'll tell you a little something - If you want to "prove" that hate crimes are a legal fallacy you'll need a very elaborated and coherent dissertation to counter the predominant opinion. Posting it on TTA will not change facts

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Blackout's post
16-02-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Well, I've never been called "uninteresting" before here, so that's a forum first for me.

That aside, a few points on your response:

First, anti-discrimination laws are about societal equality. They are not criminal laws. The goal is to prevent people from not being able to get jobs, housing, service, etc. due to reasons dealing with race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. All good and proper uses of the law in my opinion. But, that has nothing to do with criminal law. I'm not a lawyer in the EU, much less Portugal, but I do know that EU law is based on the same general model penal codes that have been around for several decades, and are similar to the ones that I studied when I was in law school in the early 90s. Perhaps there is some crazy nuance in Portugal where anti-discrimination laws are also used as the basis for criminal law but I seriously, seriously doubt it. The EU charter has a lot to say on civil rights and while it doesn't meet the threshold of what is in the US Constitution, I'm fairly confident that "thought crimes" would raise some serious questions within the EU governing body about any country that tried to do that. So, I'm pretty confident you are wrong on that point.

And, that brings me to point two: the purpose of criminal law depends on who you ask, but most countries do tend to claim it is with a focus more on the preventive than the punitive (with the US with a much, much heavier focus on the punitive than it's European cousins). But, when we talk about "preventive" we are talking about preventing acts. Not thoughts. We are talking about preventing murders and assaults, not murders and assaults based on race or religion. The idea is to stop the criminal act.

This brings me to point 3.

First, a little background on how criminal law generally works. English based common law (from which many of the modern penal codes, including I believe those utilized by the EU, are built) contemplates two distinct parts to a crime; the actus reus which is the criminal act itself; and the mens rea, which is the criminal intent. So, for example, if you hit a pedestrian with your car and the collision results in the death of that person, do you have a crime? And, what crime do you have? The actus reus is the act of hitting the person. No matter what the reason, the fact is that you hit someone with your car, and that person died. But, that doesn't tell us the whole story. The question of "why" is relevant, the mans rea determines what, if anything, you are guilty of. Did you see the person and say "hey, I'm going to hit that guy" and hit him? Or, did you think "I'd slow down and avoid him but he's black" and run him down. What if you thought "holy shit! Someone just stepped in front of my car!" and you stood on the break and tried to stop, but couldn't and hit him anyway. There are endless permutations you can go through here but, the point is, your intent when you hit the person with your car has a big impact on whether or not you are guilty of a crime.

So, getting back to your points on hate - I agree that hate can be important in understanding intent. But, it's not a crime in and of itself. And, you are not even arguing that it is. What you are arguing about is sentencing, not criminality. Sentencing is a completely different animal. For there to be a sentence, there must first be a conviction. If you are arguing that hate should be a factor in sentencing, that I can sort of see. But, within limits. I am perfectly ok with hate being a considering in deciding which of different penalty choices you are going to give someone. What I'm absolutely not ok with is hate being considered for a sentence that would not be given without it being due to hate. When you do that, what you are effectively doing is creating special classes of people, which is the exact opposite of what anti-discrimination laws purport to be about.

Someone mentioned above Mathew Shepard. For those not familiar, he was a gay man in Wyoming who hit on two locals. They were rather upset about it so they kidnapped him, beat him up, and tied him to a fence post out in the middle of nowhere. He ended up dying due to a combination of his injuries and exposure. The two scumbags that did it were arrested and indicted for murder, and faced the death penalty. One of them copped a plea deal where in exchange for his guilty plea he served life in prison. The other guy decided to roll the dice in court, figuring he had nothing to lose. He went to trial and he lost, and was convicted. He very likely would have been given the death penalty but Shepard's own parents intervened on his behalf and asked for him to get life in prison. After this trial, the state of Wyoming tried to pass Hate Crime legislation, but it was shot down.

Two important things to take from the Shepard case:
1. the two killers denied his being gay was the motivation and said they simply wanted to rob him. They claimed they had never intended to kill him.
2. Justice was served without any hate crime laws at all. One of them cut a deal to spend the rest of his useless, miserable life in jail. The other would have been likely put to death if it wasn't for the mercy shown to him by the victims own parents.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 08:32 PM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
We dont have hate crime laws in Germany.

As a result, a person who lynched a a black person because of that persons skin colour, get`s just as much time as a person who murderd his wife in an argument.

And in a country where murder doesnt always result in a life sentence, that DOES matter!!!

There is actualy a far right neo nazi activist in east Germany who spent 10 years in jail for being part of a mob that lynched an Indian.

And now he runs arround free on the streets spewing his bullshit.

Also: In a hate crime case the federal prosecuter runs the prosecution and not the state prosecuter.

That is relevent because if you google it, various states in the US south like Alabama, Kentucky, Lousiana, Texas, Georgia and especialy Mississipi abused this!

By employing a state prosecuter who didnt give a shit about or was to incompetent to win a case in which Cletus and Clebus were charged with lynching a black man.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 06:51 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Rethink, people.

As BNW shows - the fact that you hate someone for whatever reason is irrelevant - it's intent that's important.

If hate is such a crime - when do we start arresting people for the simple offense of hate???????

We are falling for making thoughts criminal.

How long till the Thought Police come to your door?

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: The Fallacy of “Hate Crimes”
Quote:Murder is murder.

I disagree.
A teenage boy hitting his abusive stepfather over the head with a shovel, killing him, while the stepfather was beating the boys mother again is very different to a Muslim walking into a newspaper and unloading an ak which is very different to a white man killing a black guy because he's black.

Context matters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: