Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 12, 2004 but you admit that someone w/ a violent agenda such as violent racism, homophobia, sexism, errr any -ism is more likely to repeat an offence than one who doesn't have any of these things? It's too difficult to prove, in all honesty. They assume most white-on-black violence is a hate crime, when it is not always the case. Ditto violence against gays. And it's worse because when gays or blacks commit the same crimes, they don't seem to be viewed as being evil by a large portion of the community. And, there are plenty of racists who will never act on their hatred. While I can say that it makes SENSE that they might be more likely to be violent --- I can't say that there is a definite and undeniable link. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 but you admit that someone w/ a violent agenda such as violent racism, homophobia, sexism, errr any -ism is more likely to repeat an offence than one who doesn't have any of these things? What does it matter? If such a person kills someone, they're either going to die or spend the rest of their lives in jail. The system can handle violent bigots without tacking on extra penalties for what people were thinking when they committed a crime. Why is it a "hate crime" when a group of white guys beat a black guy to death, but it's not when a bunch of black guys beat a white guy to death? Are minorities incapable of hate? What if some gay guys torture and kill one of those wacko hardcore gay-hating preachers? That wouldn't be a hate crime, but a few straights killing a gay guy is. I have two serious problems with the concept of "hate crimes." 1. We shouldn't be policing people's thoughts. 2. They're double standards, which are inherently unconstitutional. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Hate crimes are bullshit, and are in and of themselves a form of discrimination by assigning a punishment based on the race, ethnicity, etcetera of the victim, instead of the crime itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Although I agree with the anti-hate crimes crowd for the most part, I'll play devil's advocate: "Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. They also point out that all laws are subjective, and that if society can determine that one crime deserves more punishment than another (i.e. murder vs. involuntary manslaughter) then it can also determine what motivations deserve harsher punishments. Some supporters reason that one who can be moved to violence by hatred of a class of people presents greater danger to society than one who merely hates an individual. They posit that if normal punishments are inadequate deterrents, then additional punishments may deter crimes motivated by hate. Other proponents of hate crime legislation consider that politically correct or socially sanctioned hate is a problem, and that legislation will need to explicitly cover those often deemed less worthy of protection, such as men. Another argument sometimes advanced by supporters of hate-crime laws is that violent acts motivated by political or similar reasons are characteristic of less-civilized, Third World countries, and must not be tolerated in a developed country, lest the developed country sink to their level. Proponents point out that it is not unusual to make thoughts or states of mind elements of a crime. For example, the distinction between first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter depends on the degree to which the killing was deliberate or premeditated. The definition of fraud requires that the perpetrator knowingly defraud the victim." Source: wikipedia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 First of all, Tom, I specifically avoided the crime of murder in my post because murder is murder and should get the maximum penalty. Look at my vandalism reference. 2nd of all, if a bunch of black guys kill a guy cuz he's white then that would be a hate crime, no? It's based upon racism... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 12, 2004 First of all, Tom, I specifically avoided the crime of murder in my post because murder is murder and should get the maximum penalty. Look at my vandalism reference. 2nd of all, if a bunch of black guys kill a guy cuz he's white then that would be a hate crime, no? It's based upon racism... Eric, I can't think of examples where they'd be charged for it. They just aren't as a general rule. Same reason "racism sensitivity" classes that corporations used to love sending its employees to were only done for the white employees. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Ha. During the Cincinnati riots a few years back, these black kids pulled a white couple out of their vehicle and beat the living shit out of them -- they got charged with ethnic intimidation... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...did=167#STUDIES Is there evidence that is does deter violent crime? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...did=167#STUDIES Is there evidence that is does deter violent crime? Yup. The perp doesn't commit it again after being executed. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...did=167#STUDIES Is there evidence that is does deter violent crime? Yup. The perp doesn't commit it again after being executed. -=Mike Ah, brilliant. I would expect nothing less. I actually think rotting away in prison for life would be worse than the death penalty. We just need to make prisons a whole lot shittier. That way at least if evidence comes out later that the perpetrator was innocent at least they're not dead already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...did=167#STUDIES Is there evidence that is does deter violent crime? Yup. The perp doesn't commit it again after being executed. -=Mike Ah, brilliant. I would expect nothing less. I actually think rotting away in prison for life would be worse than the death penalty. We just need to make prisons a whole lot shittier. That way at least if evidence comes out later that the perpetrator was innocent at least they're not dead already. If it was worse --- why do so many perps bend over backwards to get life instead of the death penalty? You'd think they'd beg for the death penalty, if life in prison is SO much worse. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...did=167#STUDIES Is there evidence that is does deter violent crime? Yup. The perp doesn't commit it again after being executed. -=Mike Ah, brilliant. I would expect nothing less. I actually think rotting away in prison for life would be worse than the death penalty. We just need to make prisons a whole lot shittier. That way at least if evidence comes out later that the perpetrator was innocent at least they're not dead already. I'm sure it's a great reassurance to so many families who lost their loved ones that the man who killed them is still alive, even if imprisoned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 I actually think rotting away in prison for life would be worse than the death penalty. We just need to make prisons a whole lot shittier. That way at least if evidence comes out later that the perpetrator was innocent at least they're not dead already. the "isn't a life term worse" argument makes no sense on its own grounds anyway, because the whole basis of argument against the death penalty is that it's cruel & unusual punishment. if the death penalty is cruel and unusual and life is worse, then why should a prisoner get life either? and if you want the punishment to be worse, why the hell should the death penalty even be an issue? I'm sure it's a great reassurance to so many families who lost their loved ones that the man who killed them is still alive, even if imprisoned. this is true. but frankly, the purpose of the law is ultimately justice, not making the victims' families feel better. if a guy killed my goddaughter, i'd be very reassured if someone chopped off the protruding parts of his body and fed them to him till he choked to death on them, but that doesn't make it just. the law is supposed to be impartial and rational, and the views of the victims' familes, while very understandable and human, are usually irrational and inherently biased. this isn't to say we can't take them into account; but the law is there for keeping society safe and orderly, not for revenge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 the whole basis of argument against the death penalty is that it's cruel & unusual punishment That's not the basis of my argument. If I had the choice of being put out of my misery or sitting around and getting rammed in the caboose all day I'd choose the former. Plus, with life sentences, you don't accidentally kill an innocent person. If evidence comes out later that they're innocent, you can get them out of prison--you can't bring them back from the dead. That being said, I would support the death penalty for someone who we are absolutely positive is guilty of doing all sorts of terrible things--like a Saddam Hussein. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...did=167#STUDIES Is there evidence that is does deter violent crime? Yup. The perp doesn't commit it again after being executed. -=Mike Ah, brilliant. I would expect nothing less. I actually think rotting away in prison for life would be worse than the death penalty. We just need to make prisons a whole lot shittier. That way at least if evidence comes out later that the perpetrator was innocent at least they're not dead already. If it was worse --- why do so many perps bend over backwards to get life instead of the death penalty? You'd think they'd beg for the death penalty, if life in prison is SO much worse. -=Mike Yeah, maybe you're right. I just know for me, life in prison seems worse. I can only speak for myself, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 Plus, with life sentences, you don't accidentally kill an innocent person. If evidence comes out later that they're innocent, you can get them out of prison--you can't bring them back from the dead. But if it takes too long, their lives are wasted all the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 Plus, with life sentences, you don't accidentally kill an innocent person. If evidence comes out later that they're innocent, you can get them out of prison--you can't bring them back from the dead. But if it takes too long, their lives are wasted all the same. Tru. Better than bein' dead, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 13, 2004 I'm for the death penalty, but only in cases where there is absolutely NO shadow of a doubt who committed the crime. If there is even 1% doubt, that's 1% too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 Personally I'm against the DP for some of the reasons mentioned previously. Too expensive, inherently. I don't think it's a real deterrant (sp) (people only seem to say 'aw jeez I'm gonna get the chair for this!' in the movies) Life in prison seems to be just as useful in preventing crime as executions. As previously mentioned, we shouldn't kill people just so the family of the deceased can watch with a sick smile on their face, or crying, or whatever else they're feeling. It's not for them. And even if hate crimes are one way in practice, that doesn't mean that they're wrong inherently, just executed wrongly. Work on that. But strong evidence of a likelihood of repeat crime would cause a higher penalty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 Others support hate crime laws, stating that by enacting them individuals would face greater discouragement from committing hate crimes. Yet these are probably the same pseudo-hippies that claim the death penalty doesn't perform the same thing... For the record, I'm mostly against the death penalty unless there is proof beyond belief that the perp did the crime (videotape, etc.). Otherwise I'd be content with a life sentence of hard labor. Problem is the ACLUs of the world get their panties in a bunch over criminals getting punished, so I totally understand when some victim's family wants the sub-human monkey that killed their loved one is spared his or her life. Personally, I don't see what's so hard about getting Bubba from Cell Block C to shank said perp in the shower for a carton of smokes and some nudy magazines -- subcontracting to the private sector is the better alternative in most, if not all, cases... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 I'm against the death penalty because I think it's wrong. I don't think it's right to take the life of a person when they're in your hands, so to speak. Killing them is, wait for it, inhumane. The only time the taking of another person's life is acceptable is when you are defending your own. A person in prison is no threat to you, therefore doesn't need to die, regardless of what they did. You think it's to stop them for committing a crime again? Make the laws on prison sentences stricter, to ensure they don't get out. You're going to the extreme to stop them, when there is another, more humane solution to stopping them. I'm right with you guys emotionally, I think people that normally deserve the death penalty, under your reasoning anyway, were bastards that knew what they were doing and cannot be rehabilitated. They knew exactly the kind of crimes they were committing, knew what their victims were feeling, and felt no remorse. That still doesn't give you the right to kill them when they're in your custody, and locked up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 Immanuel Kant says murder should be punished by death, and damned if I'm gonna argue with him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 Cops should just shoot them and say they tried a prison break. Save us all time and money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2004 With all the apparent trouble that some people have undergoing lethal injection and the gas chamber, sometimes I wonder if one bullet to the back of the head is seriously the most painless and efficient way to carry out the death penalty. I mean, it's not cruel and unusual. People are always getting killed by guns! That's pretty fuckin' usual to me. Let me tell you what IS unusual, sticking some cat in a room with cyanide gas and not letting him out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2004 Immanuel Kant says murder should be punished by death, and damned if I'm gonna argue with him Immanuel Kant is not the best source on ethics. Then again, I'm a big opponent of most post modern philosophy. Besides, most of what I say is relevant, you can't just take the name of some famous person and 'appeal to authority'. Sorry for making this serious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2004 Appeal to authority! You took that right off my list of twenty logical fallacies that I keep posted above the computer! Man, you called me on my bullshit. And don't ever try to make a thread serious again. Not on my watch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted November 14, 2004 I do not agree with the death penalty for the simple fact that innocent people could be killed, albeit a small number. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2004 Why do they still pursue this "it's a deterrent" bullshit? I'm 100% perfectly happy with the death penalty being used as simple punishment and / or REVENGE. And shit, I don't think we use it ENOUGH. When I'm Prez, I'm making rape & child molestation capital crimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
