Crime Why the narrative that a "hate crime" is somehow worse?

[Koro_11]

I'm trying to keep my questions pretty straightforward so that I can address what your specific concern is, which is about what makes hate crimes "worse" and to do that, I'm trying to nail down what specific differences you're concerned about in the context of our entire legal jurisprudence. I don't need examples, I'm asking about your impression/understanding of the legal concepts.

So, once again (with a little clarity):

You're fine with differentiation in the criminal justice system, but you disagree with differentiation based on this type of prejudice - race, gender, age, nationality, citizenship?

Do you oppose those exceptions in all aspects or only in the criminal justice system?

Again, yes I'm fine with differentiation that is logical. It's perfectly logical to conclude that one should not be judged as harshly if at all if they happen to kill someone in self defence. I think this part we should all be able to agree on, do you agree with this?

I also think one should be judged less harshly for a murder committed in the heat of the moment, as in the example I mentioned earlier, man comes home to find another man in bed with his wife, in a moment of rage he pushes him out the window and the other guy dies. Is it still murder? Of course. Should he still face the consequences and go to prison? Definitely. But he should be judged less harshly than the cold blooded murderer.

And when you get into cold blooded murder, such as a contract killing or a random shooting, or what some would call a hate crime committed against an individual who has done nothing to you but just happens to belong to a group of people you happen to dislike... to me this is all in the same category. This is all cold blooded murder and should be judged with equal harshness and carry the same penalty. I don't see why I should feel more sympathy for some lowlife that killed an innocent man for monetary gain, vs some other lowlife who killed an innocent man because of his skin colour.

As for my specific concern, well it's that the narrative does absolutely nothing other than sow more division between different groups of people, in a time where it's the last thing we need.

 

[Mack Yancy]

What thread, wtf are you talking about, and who brought up race?

The thread I just linked to you and now just tagged you in you smoothbrained tit.

 

[William Munny]

What thread, wtf are you talking about, and who brought up race?

this dude is trolling you. place him on ignore. watch, he'll end up tagging you in random threads or no reason. he's a fucking loser.

 

[ShadowRun]

this dude is trolling you. place him on ignore. watch, he'll end up tagging you in random threads or no reason. he's a fucking loser.

Just a race baiting troll , don’t feed

 

[Koro_11]

this dude is trolling you. place him on ignore. watch, he'll end up tagging you in random threads or no reason. he's a fucking loser.

Just a race baiting troll , don’t feed

Yeah, it’s becoming pretty clear, my first interaction with the clown so gave him the benefit of the doubt, thanks for the heads up.

 

[djacobox372]

But that doesn't ring true with all lesser crimes.

For example stealing from big corporations seems less odious than just stealing from random places which could sometimes turn out to be small mom and pop shops that are struggling to make ends meet.

How is stealing from a big corporation a "hate crime?"

I think you're missing the point of motivation. Most people "steal" because they want money, not because they hate the person their stealing from.

For something to be considered a "hate crime" it has to be shown that hate was a large part of the motivation. And no just general hate, but hate against a protected class (race, gender, religion, age, etc.)

 

[Koro_11]

How is stealing from a big corporation a "hate crime?"

I think you're missing the point of motivation. Most people "steal" because they want money, not because they hate the person their stealing from.

For something to be considered a "hate crime" it has to be shown that hate was a large part of the motivation. And no just general hate, but hate against a protected class (race, gender, religion, age, etc.)

There is that other stupid word again that makes no sense... wtf is a "protected class"??

Is that to say that one religion is protected, while another is not?

If they're all protected, then the word is completely pointless because it means everybody.

Is one gender protected, while another is not?

This is what I'm talking about, just stupid made up words that mean nothing.... "protected class", "hate crime".

How about instead of going through the mental gymnastics of saying something stupid like "a hate crime was committed against a protected class", just speak plainly and say "a crime was committed against a human being".

There are already laws against committing crimes against other people, we don't need special fucken categories for every single subset of the human population.

 

[terrapin]

Again, yes I'm fine with differentiation that is logical. It's perfectly logical to conclude that one should not be judged as harshly if at all if they happen to kill someone in self defence. I think this part we should all be able to agree on, do you agree with this?

I also think one should be judged less harshly for a murder committed in the heat of the moment, as in the example I mentioned earlier, man comes home to find another man in bed with his wife, in a moment of rage he pushes him out the window and the other guy dies. Is it still murder? Of course. Should he still face the consequences and go to prison? Definitely. But he should be judged less harshly than the cold blooded murderer.

And when you get into cold blooded murder, such as a contract killing or a random shooting, or what some would call a hate crime committed against an individual who has done nothing to you but just happens to belong to a group of people you happen to dislike... to me this is all in the same category. This is all cold blooded murder and should be judged with equal harshness and carry the same penalty. I don't see why I should feel more sympathy for some lowlife that killed an innocent man for monetary gain, vs some other lowlife who killed an innocent man because of his skin colour.

As for my specific concern, well it's that the narrative does absolutely nothing other than sow more division between different groups of people, in a time where it's the last thing we need.

It sounds like you think that because there is division in this country presently we should not consider this division as a motivation when prosecuting crimes.

That doesn't make good sense to me. You recognize the problem and you think it's a big problem, but you don't think we should ever consider it when considering crimes committed in the name of that problem.

You're more worried about the feelings that get stirred up in people as the result of being reminded that there is division than you are about crimes like murder committed in the very name of that division.

I think your priorities are backwards here.

 

[Scheme]

It's to add a degree of control for the prosecutors to selectively target harsher penalties wherever they want. It's flawed because how can you determine whether someone "hates" someone or not?

 

[Koro_11]

It sounds like you think that because there is division in this country presently we should not consider this division as a motivation when prosecuting crimes.

That doesn't make good sense to me. You recognize the problem and you think it's a big problem, but you don't think we should ever consider it when considering crimes committed in the name of that problem.

You're more worried about the feelings that get stirred up in people as the result of being reminded that there is division than you are about crimes like murder committed in the very name of that division.

I think your priorities are backwards here.

Why would this need to be considered? Have you thought it through at all?

If a person has committed some terrible crime, there is already laws in place and punishment that is appropriate for such a crime.

To throw these stupid words around like "hate crime" and "protected class" is to just add unnecessary theatrics into it.

Just lock the person up and be done with it. Adding some subjective bullshit word as if one can read inside a person's head is just pointless, just endless theatrics and virtue signalling.

 

[terrapin]

Why would this need to be considered? Have you thought it through at all?

If a person has committed some terrible crime, there is already laws in place and punishment that is appropriate for such a crime.

To throw these stupid words around like "hate crime" and "protected class" is to just add unnecessary theatrics into it.

Just lock the person up and be done with it. Adding some subjective bullshit word as if one can read inside a person's head is just pointless, just endless theatrics and virtue signalling.

I don't consider this a response to what I wrote so I would ask you just read what I wrote again and respond to my points. But I will rephrase it if it helps.

You feel like the issue is a big enough deal to not mention if it's a hate crime at all because you don't want to stir up trouble in the populace, which means you already recognize there is trouble. But you are more concerned about the emotional trouble someone might feel to hear about hate crimes than you are about someone actually getting killed abused etc over that very hate...

Your position is contradictory but also upside down in the way it evaluates the gravity of two situations.

Motive always factors into crime and punishment on every single level. It sounds like in order to not hurt people's feelings when they hear about hate crimes, you would rather get rid of considering motivation as a factor and that's just a ridiculous statement.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Maybe he hates everyone?

Nope. He only hates pedestrians. This is the worst kind of hate and needs to be stopped at all costs.

 

[koquerelle]

I know you're pretty slow. But check out my thread on the front page regarding the killing of Scott Jenks. He was beaten to death for 79 mins by a racist simply because he was a white man. Now are you telling me if you remove the 'hate' from this crime the outcome would be exactly the same?

Crime - “F*ck you! F*ck your white life! White motherf*cker !” Man was told as he was beaten to death for 79 mins.

Kristoff A. King (36) beat father of one Scott Jenks (48) for over an hour before he died outside of St Petersburg bar. Audio from security footage captured the details of the killing. King can be heard kicking Jenks on the ground for an hour and 19 minutes while Jenks begged for his life...

forums.sherdog.com

Was he beaten because he was white or was it a crime of opportunity?

Does it matter?

 

[Mack Yancy]

Was he beaten because he was white or was it a crime of opportunity?

Does it matter?

He was beaten to death because he was white, that's been proven.

 

[Mack Yancy]

Media love the baiting with hate crime talks. They think people fall for it and the sensation sells. That’s why the actor faked a hate crime, they change Zimmerman pic to make him look more white etc… it’s ok both sides

Is this a racist statement in your opinion?

 

[koquerelle]

He was beaten to death because he was white, that's been proven.

It was?

I know he was screaming racial slurs while beating him, but I haven't seen anything else. Is there?

 

[Kingz]

I would do away with hate crime enhancements completely. On thing I could agree with some Soros prosecutors on. I think Gascon is LA wanted to get rid of enhancements like hate crime or a crime being worse if it was gang related or whatever. Turns out the left really liked them though so he was pressured to keep some enhancements.

Also, the new thing where the DOJ adds federal “civil right violation” enhancements. Often used to prosecute people who didn’t violate any laws or based on state law only have a small penalty. All of a sudden there is a federal case. They use this in cops who had been cleared of wrong doing.

The constitution is solely a check on government. I don’t think regular citizens have the capacity to violate civil rights in a unique way no different from all criminals.

Plus these things are obviously political and unevenly evaluated and applied.