Hate Crime: A Savage Hypocrisy

Started by Alley Cat October 26th, 2011 5:25 PM
  • 3433 views
  • 34 replies

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
Hate crimes are wrong. They punish you for your opinions/beliefs.
You aren't entitled to an opinion when you kill/hurt/maim others based on their skin color or creed.

Ineffable~

DAT SNARKITUDE

Age 29
Female
Any ol' place really
Seen September 2nd, 2012
Posted December 27th, 2011
2,738 posts
14.8 Years
The way I see it, if you murdered someone you murdered someone, and whether that person is black or Asian or white or whatever, you should be going to jail for a very long time. It shouldn't matter if the person you killed happened to look slightly different from you. You're a murderer, get over it. I don't find white murderers killing other white people any less appalling than white murderers killing a tonne of black people.

You aren't entitled to an opinion when you kill/hurt/maim others based on their skin color or creed.
This.

#077: Ponyta - The Fire Horse Pokémon
Fire ~ Field eggs
3'03" ~ 66.1lbs ~ 50/50

Its hooves are 10 times harder
than diamonds. It can trample
anything completely flat in moments.

Abilities: Run Away or Flash Fire or Flame Body
Moves: Growl, Flame Wheel, Stomp, Agility
Locations: Pokémon Mansion

Cry

Other names:

jp: ポニータ (Ponyta)
de: Ponita
fr: Ponyta
cn: 小火馬 (Xiǎohuǒmǎ)


Age 30
Male
Ohio
Seen November 13th, 2011
Posted November 8th, 2011
17 posts
11.6 Years
Hate crimes are wrong. They punish you for your opinions/beliefs.
They don't punish you for your opinions/beliefs but your reasoning behind doing a crime. In most cases, I don't think why you committed a crime should matter. You should be punished equally despite your reasoning behind it.

Obviously there are exceptions, such as self defense. But motivation stemming from hatred should only be used by the prosecution as a reason why they'd do it, and only that.

I just don't see how having hate crimes does anything good besides further dividing people based on what they are.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


You aren't entitled to an opinion when you kill/hurt/maim others based on their skin color or creed.
When you kill/hurt/maim someone, you should be prosecuted for the act of killing/hurting/maiming someone. Additonal punishments for your opinions and beliefs are wrong and contrary to the 1st Amendment.

Zet

Age 33
Male
Brisbane, Australia
Seen September 29th, 2021
Posted May 16th, 2020
7,687 posts
15.7 Years
When you kill/hurt/maim someone, you should be prosecuted for the act of killing/hurting/maiming someone. Additonal punishments for your opinions and beliefs are wrong and contrary to the 1st Amendment.
Killing someone regardless of their skin is a crime; but killing someone because of the colour of their skin is a hate crime.

I think you should learn the difference between the two.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


Killing someone regardless of their skin is a crime; but killing someone because of the colour of their skin is a hate crime.

I think you should learn the difference between the two.
Motive has never really been a crime itself until the relatively modern concept of hates crimes. Sure, motive can be used in court to give the jury a reason that the defendant would have wanted to commit the crime, but it never really was an element of the crime itself.

This concept of hate crimes is really dangerous and opens the door to all kinds of different Orwellean ThinkCrimes.

Ineffable~

DAT SNARKITUDE

Age 29
Female
Any ol' place really
Seen September 2nd, 2012
Posted December 27th, 2011
2,738 posts
14.8 Years
Motive has never really been a crime itself until the relatively modern concept of hates crimes.
Being racist isn't a crime. Killing someone is a crime, so, we're not turning motive itself into a crime. We're turning killing into a crime (which it already is).

#077: Ponyta - The Fire Horse Pokémon
Fire ~ Field eggs
3'03" ~ 66.1lbs ~ 50/50

Its hooves are 10 times harder
than diamonds. It can trample
anything completely flat in moments.

Abilities: Run Away or Flash Fire or Flame Body
Moves: Growl, Flame Wheel, Stomp, Agility
Locations: Pokémon Mansion

Cry

Other names:

jp: ポニータ (Ponyta)
de: Ponita
fr: Ponyta
cn: 小火馬 (Xiǎohuǒmǎ)


FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years

Being racist isn't a crime. Killing someone is a crime, so, we're not turning motive itself into a crime. We're turning killing into a crime (which it already is).
Killing is already a crime. A hate crime is not a crime itself. It's an enhancement added onto an existing crime to punish the defendant harsher than other murderers because of his opinions and beliefs.

Mario The World Champion

Tepig!

Age 41
Male
Western Massachusetts
Seen April 17th, 2017
Posted March 15th, 2017
3,299 posts
18.4 Years
This concept of hate crimes is really dangerous and opens the door to all kinds of different Orwellean ThinkCrimes.
You may believe that hate crimes is wrong because like you said, it opens the door to all kinds of different Orwellean ThinkCrimes. The hate crime label tends to add into the stigma of hate, trying to make the offender look like he's Satan or associated with evil in an effort to get a solid conviction. But a lot of hate crimes are completely vicious in their own nature.

Have you heard of the case going on right now in Mississippi about this 18-year-old white kid who ran over a black man for no reason other than he was black? And this 18-year-old was notorious for being racist and looking for anyone who was black to assault, plus he even bragged about running the poor man over with no remorse? While motive itself is not a crime, being racist is not a crime and having different opinions and beliefs is not a crime also, he acted out and this man was brutally murdered because of his skin color. A strong belief like that can a driving force in their actions, especially when it's fueled by hatred of another race, orientation, or religion.

As to what Alley Cat is trying to point out with hate crimes possibly being hypocrisy, there are a lot of horrid crimes that happened and some of them aren't really labeled hate crimes. Take the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. 3 women were killed and the house torched by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky and I haven't heard anybody say this is a hate crime because the women who were killed were white. If the women were black, then those two men would have been executed by now.

Overall, are hate crimes justified? Maybe, but nobody is crying foul when a white person is killed by another white, but anybody killed for being different is wrong. I can see the hypocrisy in that. But you can't deny many hate crimes are completely vicious in their own right. Hate will drive people into doing inhuman acts of violence against anyone who is not like them.
3DS Friend Code: 0232-8258-5085
Friend Safari: - Meditite, Pancham, Riolu

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
You may believe that hate crimes is wrong because like you said, it opens the door to all kinds of different Orwellean ThinkCrimes. The hate crime label tends to add into the stigma of hate, trying to make the offender look like he's Satan or associated with evil in an effort to get a solid conviction. But a lot of hate crimes are completely vicious in their own nature.

Have you heard of the case going on right now in Mississippi about this 18-year-old white kid who ran over a black man for no reason other than he was black? And this 18-year-old was notorious for being racist and looking for anyone who was black to assault, plus he even bragged about running the poor man over with no remorse? While motive itself is not a crime, being racist is not a crime and having different opinions and beliefs is not a crime also, he acted out and this man was brutally murdered because of his skin color. A strong belief like that can a driving force in their actions, especially when it's fueled by hatred of another race, orientation, or religion.

As to what Alley Cat is trying to point out with hate crimes possibly being hypocrisy, there are a lot of horrid crimes that happened and some of them aren't really labeled hate crimes. Take the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. 3 women were killed and the house torched by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky and I haven't heard anybody say this is a hate crime because the women who were killed were white. If the women were black, then those two men would have been executed by now.

Overall, are hate crimes justified? Maybe, but nobody is crying foul when a white person is killed by another white, but anybody killed for being different is wrong. I can see the hypocrisy in that. But you can't deny many hate crimes are completely vicious in their own right. Hate will drive people into doing inhuman acts of violence against anyone who is not like them.
If someone runs someone over, that is a serious felony and would carry a serious prison term with or without the hate factor taken into account. I'm not proficient in Mississippi law, but being a conservative state, I'm sure they have a pretty Draconian penal system.

Hate crimes don't even cover all hate crimes, because I could hate you for disagreeing with me politically, for being a past lover who cheated on me, or for any other reason and be motivated to kill you based on that hate, yet it wouldn't be considered a hate crime.

You say that killing those who are different is wrong, while I say that killing anybody is wrong. If a family member of mine was killed, does our family deserve less justice just because the person who killed them wasn't racist, while some other family deserves more justice if the killer was a racist?

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
Freaky, you're still using a "Slippery Slope" argument, and that happens to be a strawman type argument which is thus rendered invalid when detected.

The first amendment protects your rights to THINK whatever you want to THINK and SAY whatever you want to SAY. It DOES NOT always protect your right to DO whatever you want to DO. I believe that if it can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt that IF YOUR ONLY MOTIVE WAS HATE then you SHOULD be punished more harshly for lacking control.

Thinking and believing is one thing. Acting on those is another beast entirely. The idea of hate crimes being punished more stiffly than regular crimes is to DISCOURAGE people from ACTING on certain beliefs in violent ways.

I for one believe that the moment you can justify the use of violence to spread your own beliefs and thoughts to others is the moment you've just invalidated your ENTIRE argument and thus do not deserve to be heard. So yes, I'm all for locking up people who commit violent crimes out of hatred alone for a little bit longer to safeguard the rights of ALL.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Freaky, you're still using a "Slippery Slope" argument, and that happens to be a strawman type argument which is thus rendered invalid when detected.

The first amendment protects your rights to THINK whatever you want to THINK and SAY whatever you want to SAY. It DOES NOT always protect your right to DO whatever you want to DO. I believe that if it can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt that IF YOUR ONLY MOTIVE WAS HATE then you SHOULD be punished more harshly for lacking control.

Thinking and believing is one thing. Acting on those is another beast entirely. The idea of hate crimes being punished more stiffly than regular crimes is to DISCOURAGE people from ACTING on certain beliefs in violent ways.

I for one believe that the moment you can justify the use of violence to spread your own beliefs and thoughts to others is the moment you've just invalidated your ENTIRE argument and thus do not deserve to be heard. So yes, I'm all for locking up people who commit violent crimes out of hatred alone for a little bit longer to safeguard the rights of ALL.
Actually, actions have been protected as speech by the Supreme Court. They way you act can be seen as a form of symbolic speech. Please see United States v. O'Brien (1968) 391 U.S. 367.

If actions are speech, surely that doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want claim free speech, right? That's correct, but the regulation of your actions by the government must be content-neutral and pay no heed to your viewpoints. (Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001) 531 U.S. 535)

Mr Cat Dog

Frasier says it best

Age 32
Male
London, UK
Seen September 29th, 2017
Posted July 12th, 2017
11,344 posts
19.1 Years
Please see (or, rather, watch) the episode of South Park entitled 'Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000' for my views on this subject. Or, you can just read the speech said by Stan, Kyle and Token plus some drivel by me. Your choice.

Yes, over the past couple of years, our great country has been developing new hate crime laws. If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime; but if somebody kills somebody of a different colour, it's a hate crime. And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime? If a person vandalises a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government? The motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing. So, it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crime laws do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites; that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos; that we aren't the same. But instead, we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crime and in that way, Cartman will be freed from prison and we will have a chance to win the sledding race on Thursday.
This whole issue reminds me of the thread a while back on domestic violence laws being repealed in Kansas. The main response was that "Oh no! Now men can go out and beat their wives up (or vice versa)"; However, repealing domestic violence laws (which seem to be a funny legal quirk of the US and not many other countries) didn't make assault or battery legal: it just removed some of the procedural elements that prevented early arrests of potential felons. Although that issue was to do with procedure, and this is to do with classification and sentencing, it bears a little bit of comparison.

That said, I understand why hate crimes are in operation: as Pachy has pointed out, the impetus is to prevent people from acting on their racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever beliefs. However, shouldn't the current system of criminal law be sufficient? There are already murder, manslaughter, assault, battery and other forms of violence-against-the-person laws that have been around since the dawn of criminal law. They have a mental element to them, but that with regard to intention to do the action, not to the motive behind the action. (Murder carries a larger sentence than manslaughter because the murderer intended to kill, irrespective of motive.)

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
On the idea that "all crimes are hate crimes": this is just a bit of semantics dance. "Hate crimes" ought to be called "Discriminatory hate crimes" since the idea is actually about certain groups being targeted because they are hated, not just that hatred was involved.

If people are committing crimes against people solely because they hate them, then either the current justice system or our society is inadequately dealing with this problem. If you can think of a better way of stopping hate crimes than with laws, then please, do share.

The way I see it, hate crimes laws are meant to address a disproportionate level of crime facing a particular group of people. So lets say that the amount of assaults against gay people was twice as high as that of assaults against any other group. Obviously there is something going on, but whatever it is it's ending up with more people being targeted. In order to try to stop this then you make the punishment for targeting a gay person worse than for targeting a random person. (Note: not just attacking someone who happens to be gay, but specifically singling them out because they are gay. Gay people are part of the general population and would still get attacked as much as everyone else if there were no hate-motivated attacks.) Theoretically it would mean people would think twice about targeting that group of people and that would cause fewer overall attacks against them.

The assumption behind the whole having hate crimes laws is, I think, that some crimes are only committed because of hatred and not just cases of "Well, they'd still attack someone even if it wasn't someone who was ________." I would agree with this. I think that some people, stripped of their hateful prejudices, would not commit crimes in the first place. Therefore singling out their beliefs is valid as far as I'm concerned.

tl;dr if your personal belief (or hatred) causes you to attack someone then that belief shouldn't be protected anymore and should be punished because it pushed you to commit a crime when you wouldn't otherwise. It's like the difference between attacking someone with your fists and attacking someone with a weapon. Only the weapon this time is a hateful belief.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
On the idea that "all crimes are hate crimes": this is just a bit of semantics dance. "Hate crimes" ought to be called "Discriminatory hate crimes" since the idea is actually about certain groups being targeted because they are hated, not just that hatred was involved.

If people are committing crimes against people solely because they hate them, then either the current justice system or our society is inadequately dealing with this problem. If you can think of a better way of stopping hate crimes than with laws, then please, do share.

The way I see it, hate crimes laws are meant to address a disproportionate level of crime facing a particular group of people. So lets say that the amount of assaults against gay people was twice as high as that of assaults against any other group. Obviously there is something going on, but whatever it is it's ending up with more people being targeted. In order to try to stop this then you make the punishment for targeting a gay person worse than for targeting a random person. (Note: not just attacking someone who happens to be gay, but specifically singling them out because they are gay. Gay people are part of the general population and would still get attacked as much as everyone else if there were no hate-motivated attacks.) Theoretically it would mean people would think twice about targeting that group of people and that would cause fewer overall attacks against them.

The assumption behind the whole having hate crimes laws is, I think, that some crimes are only committed because of hatred and not just cases of "Well, they'd still attack someone even if it wasn't someone who was ________." I would agree with this. I think that some people, stripped of their hateful prejudices, would not commit crimes in the first place. Therefore singling out their beliefs is valid as far as I'm concerned.

tl;dr if your personal belief (or hatred) causes you to attack someone then that belief shouldn't be protected anymore and should be punished because it pushed you to commit a crime when you wouldn't otherwise. It's like the difference between attacking someone with your fists and attacking someone with a weapon. Only the weapon this time is a hateful belief.
The weapons enhancement is a valid enhancement, because a weapon is capable of more physical harm than a fist fight. I undestand completely the reasoning behind hate crimes, and while they are well-intentioned, I can't get over the constititional and Orwellean issue of being punished for your thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Hate is constitutionally protected (Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S.). That leads me to the conclusion that while someone who commits a crime against someone based on hate, the harmful act is criminal, and worthy of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, the hateful motive behind it is an belief/opinion they hold, and cannot be a basis for further punishment.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
The weapons enhancement is a valid enhancement, because a weapon is capable of more physical harm than a fist fight. I undestand completely the reasoning behind hate crimes, and while they are well-intentioned, I can't get over the constititional and Orwellean issue of being punished for your thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Hate is constitutionally protected (Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S.). That leads me to the conclusion that while someone who commits a crime against someone based on hate, the harmful act is criminal, and worthy of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, the hateful motive behind it is an belief/opinion they hold, and cannot be a basis for further punishment.
I would be interested in your reply to this part of Scarf's post:

If you can think of a better way of stopping hate crimes than with laws, then please, do share.
I'm honestly ambivalent on hate crimes but I can see how this is certainly more effective than doing nothing, and I can't see another way to reduce hate crimes other than making a harsher punishment for them. What solution do you have that reduces hate crimes without going into the gray area we're in with the current laws?


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Mr Cat Dog

Frasier says it best

Age 32
Male
London, UK
Seen September 29th, 2017
Posted July 12th, 2017
11,344 posts
19.1 Years
I'm honestly ambivalent on hate crimes but I can see how this is certainly more effective than doing nothing, and I can't see another way to reduce hate crimes other than making a harsher punishment for them. What solution do you have that reduces hate crimes without going into the gray area we're in with the current laws?
The only solution I can really advocate is better education and tolerance with regards to diversity issues such as the victims of hate crimes. I know that's a wishy-washy and horribly vague cop-out, but increasing the sentencing of already existing crimes doesn't seem like much of a deterrent.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
The only solution I can really advocate is better education and tolerance with regards to diversity issues such as the victims of hate crimes. I know that's a wishy-washy and horribly vague cop-out, but increasing the sentencing of already existing crimes doesn't seem like much of a deterrent.
As far as hate goes, I'd be open to an enhacement on a hateful act, just not a hateful motive. For example, if the defendant did soething additionally heinous like lynching a black person or sexually violating an LGBT person.

I authored a bill that began lessons in LGBT issues on our campus, with an opt-out provision for conscientious objectors.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
The only solution I can really advocate is better education and tolerance with regards to diversity issues such as the victims of hate crimes. I know that's a wishy-washy and horribly vague cop-out, but increasing the sentencing of already existing crimes doesn't seem like much of a deterrent.
Yes, a bit wishy-washy, but probably the only real solution in the long term.

As far as hate goes, I'd be open to an enhacement on a hateful act, just not a hateful motive. For example, if the defendant did soething additionally heinous like lynching a black person or sexually violating an LGBT person.
Based on your other responses I would have thought you would just call something like this a sexual assault and say something like "sexual assault is already a crime." I'm confused as to the reason why you would be open to calling something like this a hate crime. Is it because there is a clearer indication that it was hate motivated or something else?

I authored a bill that began lessons in LGBT issues on our campus, with an opt-out provision for conscientious objectors.
Am I being judgmental in feeling like it would be the people who object to these kinds of lessons who would be the ones more likely to commit hate crimes? I mean, it's not as useful to have programs like these if you don't make them mandatory.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Yes, a bit wishy-washy, but probably the only real solution in the long term.


Based on your other responses I would have thought you would just call something like this a sexual assault and say something like "sexual assault is already a crime." I'm confused as to the reason why you would be open to calling something like this a hate crime. Is it because there is a clearer indication that it was hate motivated or something else?


Am I being judgmental in feeling like it would be the people who object to these kinds of lessons who would be the ones more likely to commit hate crimes? I mean, it's not as useful to have programs like these if you don't make them mandatory.
It's not a hate crime per se, but an enhancement because their crime was especially more heinous, violent, and degraded.

Well, a Democrat member of the House authored the original bill, which failed to pass the Repiblican-controlled Senate with all Republicans, including myself, voting Nay, along with two Democrats. The version with the opt-out provision garnered 4 Republican Aye votes, and one of the aforementioned 2 Democrats voted in favor. The 1 Democrat who always votes against LGBT interets represent Muslim students, btw. I have a 97% liberal votong record on LGBT issues, and that Nay vote is what deducted 3%. It's also the only area that I have a liberal voting record above 10%.
Seen April 16th, 2012
Posted April 12th, 2012
788 posts
11.9 Years
As Freaky said, hate crimes only instill more hate. But, it is within that person's right to hate. Just because you do not agree with their hate, that does make it any less valid. All these hate crime laws do is objectify race/creed/orientation. In a hate free world, something as trivial as the aforementioned wouldn't even be considered in the sentencing of a crime.

@Scarf: I do not think that just because they objected to hearing about LGBT issues would make them more prone to committing a hate crime. Just because the hate/dislike the LGBT "lifestyle" DOES NOT mean that they wish to bring harm to a LGBT individual. Imagine a John Doe that hates gays, but he is a very peaceable person, and would NEVER EVER hurt another human being physically/emotionally/mentally. Now say we have a Jane Doe that hates gays, and is VERY aggressive. Say Jane Doe get's the brilliant idea to attack a gay man/woman. She get's arrested and charged for assault AND hate crime. But wait, John Doe hates gay people just as much Jane Doe does, shouldn't he be charged with a hate crime too? Essentially, they are just charging Jane Doe with an extra charge for the SAME thing that John Doe did. Now, of course Jane Doe was charged because she assaulted someone. But she should be charged for doing just that, assaulting someone. Not for having an opinion or belief that is "immoral" by legal standards

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years


You aren't entitled to an opinion when you kill/hurt/maim others based on their skin color or creed.
So if someone decides they hate old white straight men and goes out and kills one they'll be charged with a hate crime? =D

No. They won't. Hate crimes exist purely to convict people that commit crimes against minorities without the normal due process of law. =|

Being charged with a hate crime is as simple as having an opinion against a minority and committing a crime against that minority regardless of intent.

We'd all better support the popular opinion, if we know what's good for us. >=/

Drama aside, we /are/ entitled to our opinions. These laws are an abomination of the legal system that infringe on what /should/ be covered under free speech with a purpose that blatantly interferes with the execution of due process of law. Not only do they make punishments for these people harsher, but they make it a lot easier to convict said person than if they were given a normal fair trial.

The mere fact that you can get locked up easier and with a more harsh sentence for doing the exact same crime to a homosexual or black person is a contradiction of equality at best. If we want to punish the people that hurt minorities more, we should punish /everyone/ more. Instead we're just instilling more reverse racism and heterophobia into our very courtrooms in an attempt to try to /force/ people to be more like our view of perfection.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends