Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Santorum
And even if there is an element of redressing old wrongs, so what. Doesn't the state have an interest in telling targets of hate crimes that old wrongs will no longer be tolerated? To take the most obvious example, a cross burning on a black family's lawn is a symbol of hate because it communicates to the family that there are people out there that hate the family. It is also a reminder -- and is placed there as a reminder -- that not so long ago, the government countenanced cross burning, to say nothing of lynching, as well as other types of murders and other forms of terrorism directed at blacks. Shouldn't the government be able to tell black families that its "past wrong" of ignoring or participating in such crimes is a thing of the past, and that the government is now on the family's side?

I think there are separate laws for cross burning anyway. I thought we were talking about when you kill someone is it just murder or is there a second crime tacked on to make it more serious.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
And the horse is dead, I'll confess.

(But I really like horses so this wasn't motivated by bias.)

Au contraire, I find this thread to be far more interesting that the usual "Bush lied", "Kerry is a Douchebag" "pile-on Hello" hatemail.

[Santorum]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you seem to think our penal law should be applied according to "collective guilt"?

You'd make a good talk radio host or plaintiffs' lawyer. No, I don't think penal laws should be applied based on collective guilt, whatever the fuck that means, nor did anything in my post remotely suggest that I do. But nice sound bite.

It's entirely reasonable for citizens to want a statute on the books that requires punishment where a crime is committed because of the victim's membership in a class. This is particularly true where the same sorts of crimes went unprosecuted and unpunished until relatively recently. It was illegal to hang black people, and to bomb their houses, etc., in the 1950s and 1960s, but those crimes were not prosecuted, and the white killers went free. Why shouldn't the state now communicate to its citizens that times have changed and these crimes are now viewed as so serious that they justify extra punishment? Penal statutes enhance all sorts of extra-bad conduct, why not crimes directed at particular groups?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you send me into Florida are you sure I'll find billboards?

What you're saying now is, I didn't misrepresent anything, but even though there's a first-hand account of the billboard in Orlando and a photograph evidence confirming it, this evidence might be wrong. Well, no shit. But that's not what we were talking about, and you know it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Au contraire, I find this thread to be far more interesting that the usual "Bush lied", "Kerry is a Douchebag" "pile-on Hello" hatemail.

D'accord. I am not fully convinced that hate-crime legislation is a good idea, though I tend to lean that way. I do find it a little odd, though, that some of the folks on the other side of this one really don't see that a crime committed against a victim solely on the basis of his race (for example) affects the social fabric in a different way than another crime.

[SlaveNoMore]

Santorum
No, I don't think penal laws should be applied based on collective guilt, whatever the fuck that means... I

Why shouldn't the state now communicate to its citizens that times have changed and these crimes are now viewed as so serious that they justify extra punishment?

So rather than just prosecuting the crime, you add extra punishment to atone for the sins of old.

As I was saying...

edited to fix typo

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
D'accord. I am not fully convinced that hate-crime legislation is a good idea, though I tend to lean that way. I do find it a little odd, though, that some of the folks on the other side of this one really don't see that a crime committed against a victim solely on the basis of his race (for example) affects the social fabric in a different way than another crime.

which hurts society more-

Man kill child walking home from school-

white man kills black gay guy walking home from bar-

There are all sorts of murders for all sorts of reason- they're not equally bad or equally harmful but catagories are tough to draw.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
D'accord. I am not fully convinced that hate-crime legislation is a good idea, though I tend to lean that way. I do find it a little odd, though, that some of the folks on the other side of this one really don't see that a crime committed against a victim solely on the basis of his race (for example) affects the social fabric in a different way than another crime.

Crime is a crime is a crime is a crime.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Oh, well done.

Cheers!!!

(A special wonk just for you)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Okay. I have a bar fight with a stranger over some slight, call him a faggot (turns out he is) out of anger because he's wearing a too-cute shirt, then kill him. you're saying at my trial for a hate crime I could say the slur was ignorance- not hate?

No. What I'm saying is that if you could establish that you didn't attack him because he was gay, or, more properly, if the prosecutor couldn't prove that you attacked him because he was gay, then you shouldn't be found guilty of a hate crime.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. What I'm saying is that if you could establish that you didn't attack him because he was gay, or, more properly, if the prosecutor couldn't prove that you attacked him because he was gay, then you shouldn't be found guilty of a hate crime.

So i show i have a gay friend? wanna put odds on my chances of winning the point? point is, if you're accused of it you're guilty of it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
which hurts society more-

Man kill child walking home from school-

white man kills black gay guy walking home from bar-

There are all sorts of murders for all sorts of reason- they're not equally bad or equally harmful but catagories are tough to draw.

The categories may be tought, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But your hypothetical omits the facts that backers of hate-crime laws find important -- the motive. If a white man kills a black gay guy walking home from a bar because the guys owes a drug lord $$$ and isn't paying, that doesn't do the same thing to the social fabric that it would if he killed a gay he didn't know from Adam simply because he's gay and/or black. The latter affects other people more, and differently. Do you not see this at all?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The categories may be tought, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But your hypothetical omits the facts that backers of hate-crime laws find important -- the motive. If a white man kills a black gay guy walking home from a bar because the guys owes a drug lord $$$ and isn't paying, that doesn't do the same thing to the social fabric that it would if he killed a gay he didn't know from Adam simply because he's gay and/or black. The latter affects other people more, and differently. Do you not see this at all?

Of course I do- you know me well enough to not need ask that-

but does it hurt society more than little Billy being killed walking home from school, or high school honor student Mona- kidnapped geting into her car after work at the Piggily Wiggily- raped and strangled. that's the question.

PS Duke is playing state GTG.

[Santorum]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So rather than just prosecuting the crime, you add extra punishment to atone for the sins of old.

Where do you get the "atone for sins of the old" in my post, Rush? No, you add extra punishment to send a message: anybody who might go out and burn a cross on somebody's lawn because they don't want a different race in the neighborhood, or beat up a black guy because he's dating a white woman, knows that they can't get away with shit like that any more. Atonement has nothing to do with it. Did California "atone for the sins of old" by lowering the DUI blood alcohol level to from .1 to .08, or did it realize that too many drunks were on the road and change the law to try to fix the problem? What about three strikes laws? Are those atonements for sins of the old, or are they a recognition that too many recidivists were serial criminals?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The categories may be tought, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But your hypothetical omits the facts that backers of hate-crime laws find important -- the motive. If a white man kills a black gay guy walking home from a bar because the guys owes a drug lord $$$ and isn't paying, that doesn't do the same thing to the social fabric that it would if he killed a gay he didn't know from Adam simply because he's gay and/or black. The latter affects other people more, and differently. Do you not see this at all?

Really? Because if anything, the former perpetuates more crime and excerbates illegal drug trade.

However, I see no difference whatsoever. Both are murderers plain and simple.