I was suggesting a note would be one way that you could establish a pattern of intimidation or hate against a group of people. In that example, a note was the method. Other methods might include (but aren't limited to): threatening phone calls, fliers, physical intimidation, things of that nature.

If the murderer (for instance) hated blacks but didn't engage in a specific activity to terrorize the community as a whole then that (to me) is different. The intimidation aspect just makes it that much more of a heinous crime and deserves a harsher penalty in my opinion.

I get that you think hate crime legislation is arbitrary at best. Fine. I don't think any further dialogue on this issue is going to be beneficial to either one of us.

_________________
[quote="Bunz"]A cosign from you is good because you hate everything. [/quote]

Apparently we have something in common:



Why you would support these laws is baffling.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM

There is certainly a distinction between an individual attack and one intended to threaten or terrorize a whole community. Whether this type of crime deserves harsher sentencing and what evidence is sufficient to determine such a motive are separate questions.

The punishment should fit the crime.

The only intent I'm concerned about is premeditated as opposed to accidental.

What is the point in acting like this?

Why do you act the way you do? All up in my ass on the reg, bro.

People who cannot explain their support of dangerous ideas that exist within the law confuse me.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM

I've explained why I support hate crime legislation. You disagree. Cool.

_________________
[quote="Bunz"]A cosign from you is good because you hate everything. [/quote]

CSB.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM

I don't buy the notion that the intent of most "hate crimes" is to terrorize an entire group of people. The intent is to terrorize/harm the victim. A whole group of people may become fearful as an ancillary effect, but this is no different from the members of a particular neighborhood becoming fearful after a rash of robberies on their block.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM

Not so fast. What about a case where the intent _is_ to terrorize a community? Is this a more severe crime that deserves differential sentencing?

I'm playing devil's advocate here as I am opposed to hate crime legistlation. I'm not set in my ways though, and jamrage's argument has done much to convince me.

You don't think that people who perpetuate these crimes don't ever think about the effect that the crime will have have on the community the victim belongs to? I totally disagree.

Someone whose house is robbed is worrying about where they live, not who they are. They don't have to worry about being caught unawares on the street. It's completely different in my opinion.

_________________
[quote="Bunz"]A cosign from you is good because you hate everything. [/quote]

No, I don't. Most so-called "hate crimes" that I read about are crimes of passion born of a sudden rage against the victim. And even if they did "think about the effect that the crime will have have on the community the victim belongs to" (something that is impossible for anyone to prove, by the way), so what? If I murder a guy in the street so I can steal his sneakers and I pause to think about how his kids will grow up without a father, should I also be charged with endangering the welfare of his children? Should I not be charged with endangering the welfare of his children if his kids never cross my mind? Your argument makes no logical sense.



A group of citizens fearing for its safety is a group of citizens fearing for its safety. Whether the group falls along racial, religious, gender, geographic, or some other lines shouldn't matter. Wanting to impose additional penalties for committing crimes against one of these groups over another is to create protected classes of citizens, and that's wrong.

^How about the recent Iraqi murder. Note left near the body allegedly said "Go back to your country. You're a terrorist".

Or if someone spraypaints "fuck off gays/coons/whatever" on the wall after murdering someone. Is that potential evidence that the attack was designed to effect the wider community?

There is some of the most obtuse thinking I have ever seen.

While I'm not for hate crime legislation, saying that when a gay dude is killed by a group and they yell a bunch of "faggots" and other hateful gay shit that its not aimed at the group. Same with skinheads. Its almost terroristic in nature which is why I suppose the law was put into place. Your analogy about what you might think about when it comes to a person's family during the course of a murder is not the same.

A group of citizens fearing for their safety because of crime in their area is not what the "hate crimes" are intended to cover.

You don't have to want "hate crime" legislation to understand what is covered under it. A crime is a crime. Killing a person because they owe you money should face the same punishment as killing a person because you don't like their race.

What group? Unless an entire enclave of homosexuals is there to witness the crime, the comments are directed at the victim and only the victim.



I know. My point is that no group is worthy of special consideration over another and thus "hate crime" legislation should not exist.

I'll say that Moolah's cartoonish example of hateful graffiti is a different beast because the graffiti is presumably in a place where it can be viewed by the public at large. I think the charge for something like that should be "public menacing" or something to that effect, and it would apply to "GET OUT UV HEAR U JEWZ" the same as it would apply to "ALL LONGBOARDERZ MUST DYE." Keep the racial shit out of it or you're creating protected classes.

Its about the EFFECT and the INTENDED EFFECT. Which is why I linked it to terrorism.

It would all be a moot point if when you murdered someone you got life or the death penalty regardless of if you did it for race/sexual orientation/etc. or because you wanted the insurance money.

What moolah said is a good example because it shows obvious intent to terrorize a community. Can we agree that whether or not it warrants differential sentencing, this type of crime is different in nature from a robbery killing?

Sure. But do you think it warrants different sentencing?

There are two distinct cases I can think of:

1- A racist or homophone attacks a person who he's biased against with no further complication to the case. There may even be evidence that the bias contributed to his motives as in the story employee posted about the note. To me the racial motivation is no worse than another equally violent but nonracial motive so no differencial sentencing is warranted.

2- The attack is committed in a deliberately public manner accompanied by some message like moolah described. In this case the intent to terrorize augments the crime.

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying the intended effect in your hypothetical example was to terrorize an entire gay community?

combo, what if a group of people decided to go out and go kill a black/jew/gay/etc and does so. You don't see that as an attempt to terrorize an entire group of people? Going out with that intent is different then killing someone with the motive of getting their money and then while doing so thinking about their family. You didn't kill them so their family would suffer, you did it for their money. If you went out and killed someone because you hate their race/religion/sexual orientation that is very different thing.

I am not saying I think hate crimes should or should not be treated differently, but to say basically hate crimes are only done to individuals and not geared towards a group is crazy.

That's been covered to (pardon the pun) death already.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM

Do you ever give a response to the actual question? Or just deflect, call names, and post jpgs?

^This is how I feel about hate crimes. It is a blanket statement. Read it and memorize it, you retarded motherfucker:

_________________
SYFFAL.COM

Oh.. Didn't know you spoke for combo. Question was directed at him and in response to HIM saying:

No, I don't. Most so-called "hate crimes" that I read about are crimes of passion born of a sudden rage against the victim. And even if they did "think about the effect that the crime will have have on the community the victim belongs to" (something that is impossible for anyone to prove, by the way), so what? If I murder a guy in the street so I can steal his sneakers and I pause to think about how his kids will grow up without a father, should I also be charged with endangering the welfare of his children? Should I not be charged with endangering the welfare of his children if his kids never cross my mind? Your argument makes no logical sense.

I don't think it should be treated differently from any other run-of-the-mill random killing. If random people in my neighborhood are getting killed for no reason, I'm going to fear for my safety whether I'm the same race as the victim or not.

That is not the question though.

You don't see that as an attempt to terrorize an entire group of people? And you do not see difference in robbing and killing for money and killing for race/religion/etc.?

I am not arguing one should have harsher penalties or not, but I just found it crazy that you can't see that as an attempt to terrorize a group of people.

i think hate crimes deserve larger penalties. if you can establish bigotry that is connected to the crime, yes, absolutely.

If someone honestly response, "they don't understand or that doesn't make any sense" then I am positive that any further responses are trolling.

Now if you disagree that's different, but at this point its seems pretty clear that a most of us think that the sentencing should be the same, but that there is a difference in why someone can kill another person and one of those reasons can be to send a message.