It's Time That He Lets it Go

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Oh, come on. The NAACP isn't seeking to bar people from interracial dating.

No, they just support giving people criminal punishment for what they think while committing a crime.

 

MUCH better.

-=Mike

Such as?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yeah, good luck getting THAT one passed.

Too bad it will...

Wanna bet?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I never bet my money, only my life. And since mine is worth more than yours...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I never bet my money, only my life. And since mine is worth more than yours...

I'll throw in the lives of 3 hamsters and a myotonic goat. That's my final offer.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I don't need any more hamsters, at least until fluffy has passed away in the confined space he's living in right now...

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, come on. The NAACP isn't seeking to bar people from interracial dating.

No, they just support giving people criminal punishment for what they think while committing a crime.

 

MUCH better.

-=Mike

Such as?

The whole hate crime legislation bullshit.

-=Mike

[Perfxion 0]

All hate crime legislation is now filed under laws in the "War on Terror". So I don't see you point. And the NAACP represents the black population as the KKK represents the white population.

[Guest MikeSC]

All hate crime legislation is now filed under laws in the "War on Terror". So I don't see you point.

"The War on Terror" has squat to do with hate crime legislation, which is nothing more than thought crime legislation.

And the NAACP represents the black population as the KKK represents the white population.

The Democrats pay homage to the NAACP.

 

Nobody pays homage to the KKK.

-=Mike

..You don't see Republicans respecting race baiters like Al Sharpton...

[Some Guy 0]

I didn't read through the whole thread so if this has been said already, I apologize.

 

If they were to make election day a federal holiday I think it would actually decrease voter turnout. Giving people a Tuesday off is basically begging them to take a 4 day weekend.

 

And if people are too stupid to not know that everybody votes on the same day then they are too stupid to make an informed decision as to who to vote for and should not be voting in the first place. And by saying that this happened in Democrat areas they are basically admitting that their supporters are retarded.

[sfaJack 0]

One other reason to not make Election Day a holiday or move it to another day of the week is early/absentee voting. I can't say how much of an option it is in other parts of the country, but in Texas there are at least two or three weeks/weekends where polls are open and voting can be done before Election Day. It eliminates any possibility of using the "lack of time" excuse.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"The War on Terror" has squat to do with hate crime legislation, which is nothing more than thought crime legislation.

Hold on, you're not going to actually defend people who do something illegal because of an irrational dislike for some random aspect, are you? If someone decides to kill someone just because they're black, or they're gay, or they're Jewish (hello, that ought to ring some bells) should their be no recourse for actually acting on those impulses? It's not so much the impulse that's illegal, but the decision to act on it.

[Guest MikeSC]

"The War on Terror" has squat to do with hate crime legislation, which is nothing more than thought crime legislation.

Hold on, you're not going to actually defend people who do something illegal because of an irrational dislike for some random aspect, are you?

Are you going to claim that a white man killing a black man because he's racist is worse than a white killing a black man because he is simply blindly firing a gun at people?

 

Crime is crime. Why should somebody be punished MORE for killing somebody out of racial prejudice rather than out of simple irrational hostility? If I assault you, does what I think matter one fucking bit in the entire scheme of things?

 

Besides, good luck proving thought.

 

And when we see blacks brought up on hate crime charges in ratios that even approach what whites get charged with, we can talk.

If someone decides to kill someone just because they're black, or they're gay, or they're Jewish (hello, that ought to ring some bells) should their be no recourse for actually acting on those impulses?

Yes, it's called MURDER IS ILLEGAL. They'd be brought up on charges for acting on their impulses BECAUSE MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

 

Throwing in "Well, he hates gays TOO" is immaterial and, quite frankly, idiotic.

It's not so much the impulse that's illegal, but the decision to act on it.

And your thought process in committing a crime should matter for what reason, exactly? Is an anti-gay murder more tragic than just a random shooting?

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Then I guess you are againt genocide provisions in international law, too?

[Guest MikeSC]

Then I guess you are againt genocide provisions in international law, too?

Int'l law is a joke to begin with.

 

And, thought crime is irrelevant. It boggles my mind that people think that a man killing a guy due to some racial hatred is worse than just randomly killing people.

 

I don't care if a regime slaughters people due to their religion (Nazis), because they might oppose them (Soviets), or because they're fucking inept (Mao's Chinese). They've done wrong and should be punished.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

Then I guess you are againt genocide provisions in international law, too?

Why is me killing a black guy because he's black worse then me killing a white guy?

[Guest MikeSC]

Then I guess you are againt genocide provisions in international law, too?

Why is me killing a black guy because he's black worse then me killing a white guy?

Hell, what if you're one of those "self-loathing" types? Would suicide be considered a hate crime then?

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Two thoughts.

 

What's a hate crime? What's a like crime?

 

 

How can Democrats claim to be the educated superior party when their voters are fooled by "no, Democrats vote on Wednesday"?

[Guest MikeSC]

Especially, since by all accounts, that "vote on Wednesday" story is from The Onion.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

I thought someone really told some Democrats they have to vote on Wednesday and they believed it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Then I guess you are againt genocide provisions in international law, too?

Why is me killing a black guy because he's black worse then me killing a white guy?

I didn't say anything about whether I supported the hate crime legislation or not. Please don't put words in my mouth, little guy.

 

I just said that if you are against hate crime legislation then you should, out of consistency, be against genocide treaties. Genocide is the targeted killing of a racial, ethnic, national, or cultural group.

 

I think conservatives (including some on this board) got pissed off at the UN because the Darfur killings weren't labeled "genocide." Well, they weren't genocide. The Janjaweed was killing all sorts of people.

 

It is inconsistent to bemoan hate crimes legislation and then moan (further) over something not being labeled as genocide.

[Guest MikeSC]

Then I guess you are againt genocide provisions in international law, too?

Why is me killing a black guy because he's black worse then me killing a white guy?

I didn't say anything about whether I supported the hate crime legislation or not. Please don't put words in my mouth, little guy.

 

I just said that if you are against hate crime legislation then you should, out of consistency, be against genocide treaties. Genocide is the targeted killing of a racial, ethnic, national, or cultural group.

 

 

Not necessarily. POLITICAL genocide is very much a form of genocide.

I think conservatives (including some on this board) got pissed off at the UN because the Darfur killings weren't labeled "genocide."  Well, they weren't genocide.  The Janjaweed was killing all sorts of people. 

It was political --- which makes it genocide.

It is inconsistent to bemoan hate crimes legislation and then moan (further) over something not being labeled as genocide.

No, it's inconsistent to say we need hate crime legislation --- but then claiming that genocide isn't genocide if it targets only political opponents.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Also, I'm undecided on hate crimes stuff. I do think it is reprehensible to attack someone out of hate for their "group," but I'm not sure if the laws are really necessary.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, though, this site has some decent rebuttals to arguments against hate crimes legislation.

 

http://www.commonplacebook.com/features/hatecrimes2.shtm

 

Should egging a house be punished equally with egging a Jewish household in a pattern so that the yolks spell out "Die Jew!"? They're both just vandalism...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You're still punishing the perpetrator for what they were thinking when they conducted the mass killings.

[Guest MikeSC]

Also, I'm undecided on hate crimes stuff. I do think it is reprehensible to attack someone out of hate for their "group," but I'm not sure if the laws are really necessary.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, though, this site has some decent rebuttals to arguments against hate crimes legislation.

 

http://www.commonplacebook.com/features/hatecrimes2.shtm

*yawn*

 

This again?

 

Fine, here goes:

"All identical criminal acts are the same, regardless of motivation."

 

Under Indiana law, crimes are treated differently according to their victim, their impact, and their intent. Indiana law already provides for enhanced penalties when the victim of battery is deemed to be among society's vulnerable (under the age of 12, over the age of 65, or mentally or physically infirm) or when the battery is deemed especially injurious to public peace (battery on a police or corrections officer.) (HB1011 does not provide for enhanced penalties.) That which may be legal (a job action or a false statement) becomes illegal if improper motivation is involved (bias against an employee's race or intent to defame or defraud).

 

Though battery arguably is battery, the House passed without a single opposing vote in this session a measure (HB1192) that would provide for a special fine in the case of domestic battery, with that fine going to fund education and training to prevent domestic abuse. This legislation represents a model: providing an enhanced penalty that reinforces a State measure seeking to prevent through education such crimes from occurring. (HB1011 does not provide for enhanced penalties.)

 

Further, testimony provided in the House established that crimes of bias are qualitatively different. For instance, vandalism promoting a school rivalry does not produce the terror, loss of confidence in personal safety, or threat to all other similar citizens that sharp racial, religious, or sexual derision produces when etched on the property of an isolated minority member of a community. Nor is it meant to.

 

Conservative George Will acknowledged this point in a column written in 1998. "Some motives for seemingly similar deeds are so much worse than others that they make some deeds different not only in degree of odiousness but in kind: Painting 'Beat Michigan' on a bridge is not quite the same offense as painting 'Burn Jews' on a synagogue. Surely the criminal law can take cognizance of such distinctions."

Bad law is no excuse for MORE bad law.

 

Crime is crime. The REASON behind it is irrelevant and, I might add, impossible to prove.

"To target specifically one type of crime diminishes the victims of other crimes."

 

This argument is raised in objections only to legislation targeting crimes resulting from prejudice. In the debate on domestic battery (HB1192) in the Indiana House, no representative rose to object that targeting and assessing an additional fine for domestic battery "diminishes the victims of other batteries." The bill passed unanimously. Rather, to identify, isolate, and combat specific types of crime must be considered among the most effective and accepted approaches to reducing crime in general.

Again, bad law is no excuse for more bad law.

"Hate crime legislation is a threat to First Amendment rights to freedoms of expression."

Ever heard of a "straw man"?

 

That's this argument, as nobody has EVER stated this as a problem with hate crime legislation.

"Hate Crime legislation is redundant to existing legislation."

 

On a fundamental level, there are miscreants in society who believe that some groups do not fall within the protection of the laws. This belief, more subtle today than previously, is exemplified by lynch law prevalent in Indiana within the memory of living Hoosiers. Minor or alleged offenses by African Americans prompted the public lynching of them, often with the consent and participation of local authorities. Some criminals still consider that there are minorities who fall outside of the pale of the protection of the law in Indiana. Testimony before the House Judiciary established the public nature of some assaults.

 

Testimony before the House Judiciary committee also established that in some instances, some law enforcement officers have indeed actively discouraged victims of bias-motivated assault from pressing charges. Mandatory reporting enables the State to compare independent reports with those provided by law enforcement authorities and raise questions should an incident appear to have gone unreported, thereby encouraging authorities to take such incidents seriously.

Seeing as how LYNCHING is illegal and would lead to a death sentence REGARDLESS, this is ANOTHER pointless argument.

 

And I'd like to see ACTUAL proof, not "testimony" alone.

"Hate crime legislation amounts to an unusual and unwarranted intrusion into the thinking process of the accused."

 

Both civil and criminal law regularly require an often difficult assessment of motivation, intent, and understanding. In the case of fraud, for instance, a false statement is not a false statement. An accused must be shown to have known that a statement was untrue and to have made it with the intent to defraud.

 

Rape, a crime already recognized and targeted as an especially egregious form of assault, threatening to the long term mental and physical welfare of its victims and to our society's underpinnings, receives specific and harsh sentencing based on a finding of the absence of consent understood between victim and assailant.

 

It is noteworthy that an anonymous rapist is often especially pursued by law enforcement, because he is recognized not only as a repeat threat to the victim, but a possible threat to all women in the community. Thus, while those not of the same class, notably men in this case, may feel no threat, the entire class of victims (women) feels the threat acutely. The same is true of all crimes of bias, and explains why one racist attack can afflict the sense of public safety of all members of a given race in that community. (Laws that specifically target the form of assault called rape provide a sound template for the understanding of hate crime legislation, as well as for the educational measures likely to reduce the occurrence of such crimes in our communities.)

 

Finally, regarding acts motivated by bias against classes of people, 1964 civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" already establish that enforcement must assess the thought processes of the accused. Indeed, these laws make an action which might have been legal, such as denying a promotion, illegal if the denial was on the basis of a person's religion, race, etc. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Wisconsin V Mitchell, "motive plays the same role under the Wisconsin Statute as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws, which we have previously upheld as constitutional."

Again, using THIS logic, an intricately planned out murder of a white man by a black man is worse than an intricately planned out murder of a black man by another black man.

 

Well, actually, it wouldn't be, since blacks are so rarely prosecuted for hate crimes.

"It is difficult to determine what a hate crime is."

 

This assertion is generally not true. First, the criminals perpetrating bias-motivated crimes typically enunciate in some form the reason for their attack. In the instance of aggravated assault in Muncie in 1999, before commencing their murderous attack, the assailants announced their intent publicly in a local establishment to kill a gay man.

Read up on the cross burning case that the libs went so nuts about in regards to Judge Pickering.

 

Again, let's say that the guys at Muncie DID say they want to kill a gay man. Is the gay man MORE dead now because they killed him due to his sexual orientation and not because, say, they just wanted to kill some random dude?

"The determination of a hate crime makes a law enforcement officer a judge."

 

Provided guidelines are in place, the judgement required is no more onerous, and has less impact, than others levied by this legislature in past and current sessions. The police officer is making a judgement of a hate crime only for reporting purposes for the UCR; The UCR Program specifically collects data on known offenses and persons arrested or charged by police departments; findings of a court, coroner, jury, or the decision of a prosecutor are never recorded since the intent of the data collection is specifically to assist in identifying the law enforcement problem. Under HB1011, the officer's judgement as no further impact.

 

Further, law enforcement officers are frequently asked to stand in judgment in some manner that has far more impact than mere reporting. HB1192 concerning domestic battery passed the House unanimously, and empowers a police officer to arrest a person in the absence of a judge's warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that person has committed domestic battery. Under previously passed law, the officer may rely upon an affidavit executed on the spot by an individual alleged to have direct knowledge of the incident in order to establish probable cause. Law enforcement officers are also, in lieu of a warrant, empowered to arrest a person they believe may be involved in stalking or in an invasion of privacy, both of which require the officer to collect facts and render a judgment.

You can definitively prove somebody PLANNED to kill somebody.

 

You cannot definitively prove that somebody planned to kill somebody because they were gay alone.

 

Hell, let's say a Klansman wore a blindfold and started shooting at people randomly. He wouldn't know what race anybody was when he was doing this.

 

Let's say he shot a black man.

 

It couldn't be due to racial animus, since he wouldn't know the race.

 

He'd STILL be charged with a hate crime.

"The inclusion of sexual orientation places the State on slippery slope to the legitimization of same sex relationships."

Yet another straw man.

"Hate Crime legislation would not prevent a single crime."

 

Although some isolated studies are now becoming available that show some impact of such legislation, experts believe it is too soon to demonstrate the positive impact of such legislation. First, hate crime legislation provides for gathering and reporting of statistics not previously systematically available; some time must pass before law enforcement reaches necessary scope and efficiency in its reporting. In early years, reported incidents will grow in numbers, reflecting increased reporting efficiency, not increased number of incidents. Second, many years are required for the impact of legislation establishing the rights to safety of citizens regardless of status to influence the consciousness of the segment of the population disposed to think otherwise. (Tending to range in ages from 12 to 22 years of age, perpetrators of hate crimes are more influenced by their perceptions of social acceptability of such acts.)

 

Nevertheless, hate crime legislation is considered by many law enforcement authorities to be an important tool in enforcement and crime reduction. Treating a 15-year-old vandal more seriously for spray painting an epithet establishes in his mind society's protections for those he may seek to isolate and threaten. Such a message to a 15-year-old graffiti vandal is important to discouraging him from becoming a 16-year-old destroyer of property.

 

We are able to present testimony from Indiana law enforcement authorities who consider that even the reporting provisions will prove helpful. A law enforcement officer, addressing youths suspected of targeting a minority citizen with low-level vandalism, would be able to advise them that Indiana views such acts differently from mere youthful indiscretion and that reports of such acts must be provided to the State and attract the attention of the FBI. Such treatment would assist in preventing the escalation of the crime into more serious property damage or physical attack. (Indeed, it is in the treatment of lesser crimes that hate crime legislation has its greatest force. By the time of a murder, a hate-inspired criminal career has already culminated.)

 

For these reasons, hate crime legislation is supported by the Indiana Prosecutor's Association, the National Sheriff's Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association for Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Police Foundation, the US Conference of Mayors, Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.

So WHAT if the police groups think this law is peachy?

 

And you do realize the inherent problem in pure slippery slope arguments, right?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

You're still punishing the perpetrator for what they were thinking when they conducted the mass killings.

No, I'm not. As I said, I don't CARE why they killed untold thousands or millions of people.

 

They killed them REGARDLESS.

 

Whether they did it for racial hatred, political hatred, etc is immaterial. They are still dead and the perps should be punished, harshly, for it.

-=Mike

...Using your hate crime logic, the US is well within its rights to punish ALL Muslims because they committed such a massive "hate crime"...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

"Hate crime legislation is a threat to First Amendment rights to freedoms of expression."

Ever heard of a "straw man"?

 

That's this argument, as nobody has EVER stated this as a problem with hate crime legislation.

 

Two Pennsylvania-based conservative values groups, both of them critics of the "homosexual lifestyle," want to change the state's hate crime law, saying it discourages free speech

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05039/454339.stm

 

"The inclusion of sexual orientation places the State on slippery slope to the legitimization of same sex relationships."

 

Yet another straw man.

 

"Gay rights” is indeed a slippery slope. First comes homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” and “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination laws. Then pro-gay activists apply them to schools (or push for separate school nondiscrimination laws); this leads to more openly homosexual teachers in the classroom, who encourage GLBTQ kids to organize. (That stands for “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning” youth.) Next comes “domestic partnership” ("civil union") laws and homosexual adoption advocacy, which places very young children unnecessarily in unhealthy and intentionally fatherless or motherless environments. Lastly, we see calls for “gay marriage” and powerful homosexual legal groups challenging the right of even religious-oriented groups like the Boy Scouts to live by their own moral code.

 

http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledis...goryid=cfreport

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You're still punishing the perpetrator for what they were thinking when they conducted the mass killings.

No, I'm not. As I said, I don't CARE why they killed untold thousands or millions of people.

 

They killed them REGARDLESS.

 

Whether they did it for racial hatred, political hatred, etc is immaterial. They are still dead and the perps should be punished, harshly, for it.

-=Mike

...Using your hate crime logic, the US is well within its rights to punish ALL Muslims because they committed such a massive "hate crime"...

Er, I thought you were arguing before that genocide charges should be made. Misunderstanding.

 

...Using your hate crime logic, the US is well within its rights to punish ALL Muslims because they committed such a massive "hate crime"...

 

All Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks?

 

OH yeah, and I can CAPITALIZE words AS well as you CAN.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Hate crime legislation is a threat to First Amendment rights to freedoms of expression."

Ever heard of a "straw man"?

 

That's this argument, as nobody has EVER stated this as a problem with hate crime legislation.

 

Two Pennsylvania-based conservative values groups, both of them critics of the "homosexual lifestyle," want to change the state's hate crime law, saying it discourages free speech

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05039/454339.stm

 

"The inclusion of sexual orientation places the State on slippery slope to the legitimization of same sex relationships."

Yet another straw man.

 

"Gay rights” is indeed a slippery slope. First comes homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” and “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination laws. Then pro-gay activists apply them to schools (or push for separate school nondiscrimination laws); this leads to more openly homosexual teachers in the classroom, who encourage GLBTQ kids to organize. (That stands for “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning” youth.) Next comes “domestic partnership” ("civil union") laws and homosexual adoption advocacy, which places very young children unnecessarily in unhealthy and intentionally fatherless or motherless environments. Lastly, we see calls for “gay marriage” and powerful homosexual legal groups challenging the right of even religious-oriented groups like the Boy Scouts to live by their own moral code.

 

http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledis...goryid=cfreport

Ah, so now we can use ANY statements from any fringe group with no real pull?

 

Got it.

 

This could be REALLY fun now.

 

Did you know that the left wanted us to do NOTHING in retaliation for 9-11? It's true!

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

You're still punishing the perpetrator for what they were thinking when they conducted the mass killings.

No, I'm not. As I said, I don't CARE why they killed untold thousands or millions of people.

 

They killed them REGARDLESS.

 

Whether they did it for racial hatred, political hatred, etc is immaterial. They are still dead and the perps should be punished, harshly, for it.

-=Mike

...Using your hate crime logic, the US is well within its rights to punish ALL Muslims because they committed such a massive "hate crime"...

Er, I thought you were arguing before that genocide charges should be made. Misunderstanding.

 

Nope, genocide should be charged. I don't give two flying shits WHY they slaughtered untold thousands and it takes a real heartless fuck to try and split hairs over what the definition of genocide is.

...Using your hate crime logic, the US is well within its rights to punish ALL Muslims because they committed such a massive "hate crime"...

 

All Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Muslims generated a fear in the American community, making ALL treatment of terrorists at Gitmo and Abu Gharib perfectly acceptable.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Ah, so now we can use ANY statements from any fringe group with no real pull?

 

nobody has EVER stated this as a problem with hate crime legislation