View Full Version : Equal justice for all is out the window...
SUBMAN1
04-29-09, 08:29 PM
And people say special interest is not taking over this country....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE53S8IM20090429
Now we have special rights for Mexicans to Muslims. If you are white, male, and an upstanding citizen, criminals get a reduced sentence for attacking you, assaulting you, robbing you. If you are gay, female, black, or Muslim, they get double the sentence.
Welcome to the special interest country of America! The land of the decreasingly free! The land that used to be! The land that is at its end.....
-S
GoldenRivet
04-29-09, 09:14 PM
They wont survive to get sentences if it were me. :nope:
but this special interest stuff is major league bull sh*t
UnderseaLcpl
04-29-09, 09:57 PM
Well it's nice to know that violent crimes against W.A.S.P.S. aren't commited out of hate. I guess we're just that swell:up:
Max2147
04-29-09, 10:14 PM
Well it's nice to know that violent crimes against W.A.S.P.S. aren't commited out of hate. I guess we're just that swell:up:
Where does the law say that crimes against WASPs can't be hate crimes? If somebody kills me for no reason other than the fact that I'm white, then it's a hate crime under this law.
SUBMAN1
04-29-09, 10:21 PM
Where does the law say that crimes against WASPs can't be hate crimes? If somebody kills me for no reason other than the fact that I'm white, then it's a hate crime under this law.
Wong answer! You are white and male, correct? Sorry - no dice then. Your criminal attacker will get a reduced sentence automagically! It is written in a way to say that they will get an increased sentence for attacking speicific groups, but in reality, that is really a reduced sentence for attacking you.
I little clue - call yourself muslim and then things become equal once more. I read the original bill and it is said to have not changed, so this will work.
-S
Max2147
04-29-09, 10:48 PM
Wong answer! You are white and male, correct? Sorry - no dice then. Your criminal attacker will get a reduced sentence automagically! It is written in a way to say that they will get an increased sentence for attacking speicific groups, but in reality, that is really a reduced sentence for attacking you.
I little clue - call yourself muslim and then things become equal once more. I read the original bill and it is said to have not changed, so this will work.
-S
Well, as much as you may want me to feel oppressed, I just don't feel it. If you're that desperate to feel oppressed, go ahead.
Onkel Neal
04-30-09, 01:12 AM
And people say special interest is not taking over this country....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE53S8IM20090429
Now we have special rights for Mexicans to Muslims. If you are white, male, and an upstanding citizen, criminals get a reduced sentence for attacking you, assaulting you, robbing you. If you are gay, female, black, or Muslim, they get double the sentence.
Welcome to the special interest country of America! The land of the decreasingly free! The land that used to be! The land that is at its end.....
-S
That does it. I've decided to remain white, male, and an upstanding...mainly the first two. I find that also gets me a special discount on my electric bill.
This reminds me about what South Park (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151788) said on this issue in the episode "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman's_Silly_Hate_Crime_2000). :know: And now you know, and entertained!:yeah:
Tribesman
04-30-09, 03:30 AM
If you are white, male, and an upstanding citizen, criminals get a reduced sentence for attacking you, assaulting you, robbing you. If you are gay, female, black, or Muslim, they get double the sentence.
What parts of the law don't you understand Subman ?
All of them by the looks of it . But don't worry , that muppet Smith doesn't understand them either .
So to sum up there is no reduction of sentence , there is also no doubling of sentence for crimes.
What it means is that if you burn down a church you will be getting the sentence for arson , but if you burn down a church because you hate Chritianity you will get a sentence for arson and a seperate sentence for commiting a hate crime
SUBMAN1
04-30-09, 08:58 PM
Hardly the case Tribesman - all you have to do as a victim is say 'hate crime' - which is why it was never acting into law by sensible government officials until now.
Read up on it. You might be a bit shocked what you come across.
-S
rubenandthejets
04-30-09, 10:34 PM
One phrase in Arabic and this problem is solved!
Just convert to Islam and enjoy the special entitlements that you profess it offers in the USA. It's certainly a lot easier (and cheaper) than having a sex change.
C'mon Subman, you know you want to!
Max2147
04-30-09, 10:43 PM
Hardly the case Tribesman - all you have to do as a victim is say 'hate crime' - which is why it was never acting into law by sensible government officials until now.
Erm, no. There have been federal hate crime laws for a long time now, to say nothing of local laws.. This one just broadens the scope of existing laws.
Erm, no. There have been federal hate crime laws for a long time now, to say nothing of local laws.. This one just broadens the scope of existing laws.
Existing laws or not they violate the right to equal protection under the law. Murder should be murder regardless of the motivation.
Max2147
04-30-09, 11:29 PM
Existing laws or not they violate the right to equal protection under the law. Murder should be murder regardless of the motivation.
Murder is still murder in all circumstances regardless of hate crime laws. It's not like people who murder white folks are suddenly going to get off easy because of these laws.
If the hate crime laws aren't invoked for people killing WASPs, that means one of two things. First, it could mean that people don't kill WASPs for who they are. Second, it could mean that there's a problem of enforcement. Either way, it's not a problem with the law itself.
Murder is still murder in all circumstances regardless of hate crime laws. It's not like people who murder white folks are suddenly going to get off easy because of these laws.
If the hate crime laws aren't invoked for people killing WASPs, that means one of two things. First, it could mean that people don't kill WASPs for who they are. Second, it could mean that there's a problem of enforcement. Either way, it's not a problem with the law itself.
If you kill someone you hate them by definition. Attempting to make motive a crime will result in uneven and unfair application of the law.
Onkel Neal
05-01-09, 12:17 AM
If you kill someone you hate them by definition. Attempting to make motive a crime will result in uneven and unfair application of the law.
Yeah, I agree and cannot see how anyone can label one murder a hate crime and another murder...a non-hate crime?
UnderseaLcpl
05-01-09, 12:57 AM
If you kill someone you hate them by definition. Attempting to make motive a crime will result in uneven and unfair application of the law.
That's not technically true. After all, look at the difference between second and first degree murder. The penalty is usually less for 2nd degree.
The justice system now focuses upon criminal intent, not just criminal acts.
That being said, it would be hard to build a case for the murder of a white male as a "hate crime" in most circumstances. I was joking (not much of a joke) when Max responded with this
Where does the law say that crimes against WASPs can't be hate crimes? If somebody kills me for no reason other than the fact that I'm white, then it's a hate crime under this law.
Even though he has a valid point, there are certain nuances of criminal intent that are not taken into consideration.
If, for instance, a white male is killed and robbed, but he was chosen as a target because he was white (possibly percieved as being wealthy, or perhaps as an oppressor, or both), how would a jury treat that case?
It's pretty easy to construct a defense where this would be treated as 2nd-degree murder. After all, armed robberies occur all the time, and sometimes go wrong.
However, if a white male kills a minority, the defense first has to overcome the jury's prediliction towards considering it as a hate crime. In such a case, there is a societal mentality that considers the white person as the oppressor. The defendant would, for all intents and purposes, have to prove that he does not have a hate-based motive. Examples are difficult to find in criminal law, but easy to find in civil law. Just look at the number of civil lawsuits involving race as a proportion of the whole. (anyone can call me on that "fact" because I'm not going to delve back into tort law texts to find that damn graph and my first 3 google searches yielded the wrong stuff. If you disagree with that assesment, I'll probably yield the point, depending on the source)
The main concern, imo, amongst opponents of this kind of legislation is that the justice system will be twisted into providing more justice for minorities. One only has to look at the extreme measures that private and public interests go to to avoid percieved racial offences to see that that this could indeed be a valid concern. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
Personally, I'm concerned for two reasons. Firstly, I don't particularly like the system of using criminal intent to effect variances in judgement. While such a system has its' merits, the fact of the matter is that it leaves too much up to the legal representation. Everyone hates lawyers because they are percieved as being dishonest, almost more than any other profession (except politician, in some cases:nope:). Basically, you can commit a capital offense, and if you leave enough wiggle room in the evidence department, you can get off with a lighter sentence. Perhaps criminal intent should not be a factor? I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the issue, because my legal education is not extensive enough to decide one way or the other.
Secondly, I think this is a political move to court minority favor. Much like favoring amnesty for illegal immigrants, I think it is aimed solely at garnering votes. While I don't think that most politicians who favor this type of legislation have some evil agenda, I do believe that they are catering to their constituencies at the expense of equality under the law.
Such a phenomenon is certainly not without precedent.
As Max points out, hate crime laws are already in place, but I do not think that this makes their exsistence or expansion any more valid.
Personally, I would favor an infraction-based system of punishment for crimes rather than one that so heavily factors criminal intent, at least at the local and state levels. This whole country is based upon the idea of taking responsibility for one's own actions, and reaping the harvest of the same. Intent-based justice like this has a lot of potential to upset and imbalance that system, and it has before. Imo, the justice system, and the legal professionals that drive it, need to be as limited and strictly defined in scope as possible. Otherwise, they use it for personal gain at the expense of others.
UnderseaLcpl
05-01-09, 01:00 AM
Yeah, I agree and cannot see how anyone can label one murder a hate crime and another murder...a non-hate crime?
To paraphrase and repeat my last post, even though you couldn't possibly have read it by now; Lawyers can do that. Special interests and voting blocks can do that. And you can rest assured that they will use it to their advantage where it suits them in many cases.
Tribesman
05-01-09, 02:39 AM
Hardly the case Tribesman - all you have to do as a victim is say 'hate crime'
Don't be silly , you have to prove in a court of law that it was indeed a hate crime
AngusJS
05-01-09, 07:39 AM
If you kill someone you hate them by definition.
Baloney. You're saying that if a thief attempting to burglarize a house runs into its owner and kills him in the ensuing struggle, he must hate the owner? Even if he didn't even know him, and would have vastly preferred never meeting him in the first place?
antikristuseke
05-01-09, 07:49 AM
If you kill someone you hate them by definition.
that is not strictly true. Several murders lack any kind of emotional motivation. Killing soneone for money is the first things that comes to mind.
that is not strictly true. Several murders lack any kind of emotional motivation. Killing soneone for money is the first things that comes to mind.
That's debatable. I like money but I don't hate people enough to be willing to kill them for it.
antikristuseke
05-01-09, 07:59 AM
I don't see why you would need to hate someone to kill them, simply your love for money would have to overcome your respect for the life of another human being while your feelings towards that individual could be completely neutral or nonexistant.
But true ennough, this is all debatable and difficult to view objectively.
mookiemookie
05-01-09, 09:15 AM
It's actually kind of cute to see you all get in such a tizzy about things. It really is. All the hand wringing and proclamations of doom.
To understand what hate crimes legislation is about, you first have to understand the idea of mens rea, or "guilty mind". Mens rea considers the mindset of the person commiting the actus reus, or the actual act. Our legal system has done this forever, so quit whining about the downfall of American society.
Take a concrete example. Situation 1: A husband suffocates his wife with a pillow while she slept in order to collect insurance money. Situation 2: A husband suffocates his wife with a pillow while she slept out of mercy to end her life because she was dying of cancer. Which one is more guilty? Which one deserves the harsher sentance?
Which is worse? A tagger's name spraypainted on a bus stop or swastikas on a synagogue wall? Which one does more to disrupt society as a whole?
The law doesn't make it any more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim than it does to rob a white male. What it does do is make it more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim BECAUSE they're black, gay or muslim. The mens rea in that case is different and therefore deserves a different sentancing.
Look at the FBI's hate crime statistics for 07: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_05.htm
You'll see "anti-white" listed as a hate crime category. Shocking, right? It's because hate crime legislation is designed to give everyone equal protection under the law, as everyone has a race, creed, color, etc. You're all hung up on the idea that this kind of law establishes protected classes. It doesn't. It's about taking into account MOTIVES, not protecting classes.
It's actually kind of cute to see you all get in such a tizzy about things. It really is. All the hand wringing and proclamations of doom.
Who are you talking to, and is this type of comment really necessary?
The law doesn't make it any more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim than it does to rob a white male. What it does do is make it more of a crime to mug a black person, a gay person or a muslim BECAUSE they're black, gay or muslim. The mens rea in that case is different and therefore deserves a different sentancing.
Semantics. The main crime is the murder or the mugging etc. That's what the criminal should be tried for. Hate crime legislation is just a feel good sideshow that has enormous potential for abuse.
antikristuseke
05-01-09, 11:20 AM
Semantics. The main crime is the murder or the mugging etc. That's what the criminal should be tried for. Hate crime legislation is just a feel good sideshow that has enormous potential for abuse.
I second this.
mookiemookie
05-01-09, 11:30 AM
Semantics. The main crime is the murder or the mugging etc. That's what the criminal should be tried for. Hate crime legislation is just a feel good sideshow that has enormous potential for abuse.
A feel good sideshow? Hate crimes go further than an attack on a single victim. They're an attack on a community, be it racial or religious, or what have you and do damage to the overall community as a whole. Look at Jasper, TX.
Hate crimes are by definition a worse form of crime than the underlying actus reus and should be treated as such.
A feel good sideshow? Hate crimes go further than an attack on a single victim. They're an attack on a community, be it racial or religious, or what have you and do damage to the overall community as a whole. Look at Jasper, TX.
Hate crimes are by definition a worse form of crime than the underlying actus reus and should be treated as such.
Hate is worse than murder? Sorry, I disagree.
mookiemookie
05-01-09, 02:00 PM
Hate is worse than murder? Sorry, I disagree.
Not at all what I said. A murder motivated by hatred towards a humanistic trait is worse than a murder at random.
Max2147
05-01-09, 02:11 PM
Hate is worse than murder? Sorry, I disagree.
Hate + Murder is worse than either hate or murder.
Not at all what I said. A murder motivated by hatred towards a humanistic trait is worse than a murder at random.
I still disagree. It is the murder itself that is significant, not the reason(S) for committing it. I might be willing to consider mitigating circumstances like in the assisted suicide example you posted as meriting a lesser punishment but guilty of murder is guilty of murder and nothing should be allowed to cloud that.
Sailor Steve
05-01-09, 05:05 PM
I agree - murder is murder. But it doesn't sound like they're talking about murder. The word I saw was "attack". Murder committed during a robbery is still murder, as is murdering someone because they are a fill-in-the-blank. But there is a difference in holding up someone on the street and beating a person half to death because you don't like his fill-in-the-blank.
I'm not sure what I think of this at the moment, but attacks on people done simply because they are your "wrong" kind of people may well be worth special punishment.
Another thing about this that bugs me is the shear subjectivity of it. Any crime can be cast as a hate crime if the perpetrators and victims happen to be from different races, religions, cultures, creeds, genders or any other, as mookie puts it, "humanistic" difference.
I just hate this piling on of charges. A crime like assault or murder for some reason is no longer worthy of prosecution on it's own, it must be buttressed by an entire host of secondary charges.
There's the crime itself, the conspiracy to commit the crime, the conspiracy to commit conspiracy, the location of the crime, who the victim was, where the perp came from and now the motive itself becomes a crime as well?
It's just fodder for lawyers. It does nothing to deter crime or provide justice for its victims.
Tribesman
05-01-09, 06:20 PM
I just hate this piling on of charges.
Why?
If someone breaks into your house should he only be charged with burglary even if he broke other laws too .
How about if someone steals a wallet and also uses the cards in it fraudulently , should he just be charged with the theft or the fraud or should he be charged with both?
The thing I hate with "piling on of charges" is when they make the sentences concurrent instead of consecutive .
Max2147
05-01-09, 07:53 PM
If somebody mugs me because they hate white people, I think that's worse than them mugging me because they want my money. That doesn't mean that mugging me to steal my money isn't bad. Somebody who does that deserves to be prosecuted and punished. But I'm less scared of them than the person who mugs me because they hate me for who I am.
Hatred is a lot more damaging to our society and difficult to cure than the other things that motivate crimes.
SteamWake
05-01-09, 07:56 PM
that is not strictly true. Several murders lack any kind of emotional motivation. Killing soneone for money is the first things that comes to mind.
Wait till the nexus gets ahold of that post ! :rock:
Buddahaid
05-01-09, 08:15 PM
I just hate this piling on of charges. A crime like assault or murder for some reason is no longer worthy of prosecution on it's own, it must be buttressed by an entire host of secondary charges.
.
It's the way all things get done now. Get a traffic ticket and you pay the fine plus a whole list of other fees for the honor of being processed.
Buddahaid
antikristuseke
05-01-09, 08:44 PM
Wait till the nexus gets ahold of that post ! :rock:
Could use a job:yep:
Buddahaid
05-01-09, 08:58 PM
Could use a job:yep:
:gulp:
Buddahaid
mookiemookie
05-01-09, 10:16 PM
If somebody mugs me because they hate white people, I think that's worse than them mugging me because they want my money. That doesn't mean that mugging me to steal my money isn't bad. Somebody who does that deserves to be prosecuted and punished. But I'm less scared of them than the person who mugs me because they hate me for who I am.
Hatred is a lot more damaging to our society and difficult to cure than the other things that motivate crimes.
This is the point exactly. The punishment needs to proportionally fit the damage that the crime does to the community as a whole.
It's just fodder for lawyers. It does nothing to deter crime or provide justice for its victims. Deterrence is not really the main thrust of a law. If you wanted to go down that road you could say that statutes against murder of theft don't do anything to deter murderers of thieves, so why have them?
A law expresses something that we as a people see as unacceptable due to the harm it does to our society. And when you look at the motivation for someone committing a hate crime, I bet they'd say something along the lines of they were defending their community or their identity or taking a stand against some kind of foreign unwelcome invading force. That's why we as a people need to take that away from people who would do these things and say "no, you don't speak for us and we don't condone that." And the way to do that in a legal sense is through hate crime legislation.
How about if someone steals a wallet and also uses the cards in it fraudulently , should he just be charged with the theft or the fraud or should he be charged with both?
You're talking about two different acts, two different crimes Tribesman. A closer analogy would be:
A charge for stealing the wallet
A charge for thinking about stealing the wallet
A charge for the reason for stealing the wallet
A charge for using the wallets credit cards
A charge for thinking about using the wallets credit cards
A charge for the reason for using the wallets credit cards
Then pile on a hate crime charge on top of all that because the thief and the victim happened to have humanistic differences.
7 charges for what should be two. I just don't see the benefit to anyone except lawyers.
Mookie, I see your point but in most cases true motivations are not easily deduced and I do fear that hate crime laws will be arbitrary and unfairly applied.
If somebody mugs me because they hate white people, I think that's worse than them mugging me because they want my money. That doesn't mean that mugging me to steal my money isn't bad. Somebody who does that deserves to be prosecuted and punished. But I'm less scared of them than the person who mugs me because they hate me for who I am.
Hatred is a lot more damaging to our society and difficult to cure than the other things that motivate crimes.
It's not going to be cured by criminalizing human emotions.
Like I said criminal motivations are not so easily quantified. What if your mugger mainly wants money and only kinda dislikes white people? You could look at it as a hate crime while he only sees it as not crapping in his own back yard. The prime motivation was money but a sharp lawyer could make this a racial issue as well. That's not justice.
UnderseaLcpl
05-01-09, 11:01 PM
As stated in my previous post, I tend to agree with August that there is a valid concern as to whether the justice system will use these laws in an appropriate manner.
Mookie (as always) makes some excellent points. However, I'm always skeptical of things that seem too good to be true, so to speak. Criminal intent is a good example. It seems like a great idea on the face of it, but it has a history of being abused by defense attorneys. Discrimination suits are also fraught with abuse by legal professionals and spurious charges.
Furthermore, this type of law makes unequal treatment under the law much more possible, because it relies upon the skills/morals of attorneys.
In general, I am against further complication of the Justice system. It has already built an empire that does tremendous economic damage while producing nothing. Usually, I am in favor of combatting that legacy.
I'm not totally decided one way or the other, but I think that August's position deserves significant consideration.
Freiwillige
05-01-09, 11:39 PM
True story. William was a Skinhead. Although not the brightest of choices William had commited no crimes prior to this incedent in his 17 years of life. In fact william had a history of volunteerism and straight A grades before becoming politicaly involved in things that were politically incorrect.
Then one drunken night William and his neo-nazi buddies Decided to shoplift a case of beer from their local supermarket. William had just purchased his first firearm the night previously, a .22 caliber pistol.
William waited in the car as his neo buddies ran out of the store with a case of beer but before reaching the vehicle a group of young men 8 in total chased and tackled the small beer theiving group. A fight insued in the parking lot as the 8 young men attacked, kicked and punched the younger group of two Nazi kids. William jumped out of the vehicle and fired his pistol into the air, the group attacking fled and william and his group fled the scene. The next day William turned himself and his firearm over to the police.
It turns out the 8 men attacking his friends turned out to be plain clothed security. 7 of the 8 security forces were minoritys.
William had claimed that he could not see the people attacking his friends as it was dark and he was at some distance from the altercation. William also argued that he was not attemting to hurt anybody and was just trying to scare the guys attacking his friends.
Williams proceedings lasted for 7 months by which time he had turned 18 years old. His official charges were accesory to theft and discharging a firearm within city limits. Just after williams 18th birthday the new District Attourney reveiwed his case and decided to persue it as a hate crime do to the fact that William had a Swastika on his jacket and that the victoms were minoritys.
Although William could not see the race of the assailants he was found guilty for being politically incorrect. William was looking at 3 months in jail and 5 years probation before the hate crime charges piled on. Once the DA took the case he ended up getting 5 years the absolute maximum plus a mandatory 2 years on top of that for it being a hate crime. 7 years with no chance of parole because he was on the wrong side of politically correct thinking back in 1998.
The charges against the security for the assault of two minors were dropped.
Max2147
05-01-09, 11:45 PM
It's not going to be cured by criminalizing human emotions.
Like I said criminal motivations are not so easily quantified. What if your mugger mainly wants money and only kinda dislikes white people? You could look at it as a hate crime while he only sees it as not crapping in his own back yard. The prime motivation was money but a sharp lawyer could make this a racial issue as well. That's not justice.
Of course, there's always a chance that it will be misused. But just because it can be misused doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. There's a huge potential for guns to be misused, but our Constitution protects our right to own them.
I personally think that hatred and hate crimes are a major threat to the fabric of our society, so I'm glad that the law recognizes them as a major problem that needs to be dealt with.
Onkel Neal
05-01-09, 11:54 PM
that is not strictly true. Several murders lack any kind of emotional motivation. Killing soneone for money is the first things that comes to mind.
Well, if you kill then because you hate them and the color of their skin, or you kill them because they resisted you when you tried to rob them, they are still dead. What's the difference?
Max2147
05-01-09, 11:57 PM
Well, if you kill then because you hate them and the color of their skin, or you kill them because they resisted you when you tried to rob them, they are still dead. What's the difference?
In the former case, they're more likely to carry on killing. They're a greater threat to society.
UnderseaLcpl
05-02-09, 12:06 AM
In the former case, they're more likely to carry on killing. They're a greater threat to society.
But not as much of a threat as unequal law, which has done more than enough harm in many forms already.
CaptainHaplo
05-02-09, 12:07 AM
Max - wouldn't it be easier to apply a standard to murder? If you kill someone - whether with "hate", mere intent for something like money, or by "accident" during the commission of another violent crime, like robbery, the same punishment should apply.
Simply put - murder demands a blood price. Yes - capital punishment. That way, there is no need to question the motivation, and they get the same punishment as they gave to their victim. Seems like common sense... And the bonus - we don't have to worry about if the murderer would be a future danger to society, now would we?
Somehow, we have lost that admirable quality of common sense. Has anyone seen it?
In the former case, they're more likely to carry on killing. They're a greater threat to society.
I think if any criminal is allowed a second chance to kill, regardless of motive, it is a failure of the society that gave him that second chance.
UnderseaLcpl
05-02-09, 01:36 AM
Simply put - murder demands a blood price. Yes - capital punishment. That way, there is no need to question the motivation, and they get the same punishment as they gave to their victim. Seems like common sense... And the bonus - we don't have to worry about if the murderer would be a future danger to society, now would we?
You're a bloodthirsty one, aren't you CH;)
I, for one, am against capital punishment. As long as you're talking about common sense, let's discuss the common sense behind capital punishment.
No matter what belief one subscribes to regarding spirituality or the afterlife, capital punishment only accelerates an inevitable (and usually eternal) fate, whatever that fate may be.
There is a more productive use for these people in the form of sufficiently miserable prison labor. They could pay their debts to the victims and society,(through a prison profit-sharing system) while the wrongly accused could be preserved and compensated if exonerated.
CaptainHaplo
05-02-09, 08:41 AM
Undersea - bloodthirsty? Not at all - I value human life as high as possible. However, I value the human life of the good higher than I do the bad. I value it higher when its a civilized society than when its a backwards, repressive one that ignores the freedom and equality of its people and those of the rest of the world.
The problem with "lifetime incarceration" is that it is costs more to maintain the lifers than they "produce". I have yet to ever see a prison system that can show a "net profit" after housing, feeding and clothing its inmates over the course of their natural lives.
Hard labor? What's that? There isn't a single prison system in the US that still does this to my knowledge. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. Heck, taking away their cable tv is often claimed to be cruel and unusual punishment.
Then add in the judicial costs - the years and years of appeals, motions, etc. Your not going to see a profit.
However, if you have a standard for judgement, a specified fastrack system of appeals, followed by the execution of the sentence in the case of appeals failing, then you offer the accused every reasonable opportunity to defend himself, while keeping the taxpayers from paying for a murderer to live out his life with some personal freedoms restrictions.
Now - to get back to the question at hand - if a man shoots another man for being a different color, race, religion or sexual orientation - vs a man that shoots another because he was caught robbing the victim's home - why should one get a stiffer sentence than the other? Both have deprived another human being of their right to live. There can be no more serious crime than that.
Intent should only come into play when your dealing with accidental deaths. Accidental isn't "well I was robbing his house and he walked in and I shot him" - accidental is "My car slid out of control and ran into the other lane, killing the driver of the oncoming car". That isn't a crime - its an accident.
Oh - and just so we are clear - you make the decison to drink and drive and end up taking a life - it might have not been "intended" - but your decision to do something you knew was wrong still took the life of another human, and so I see very little difference between that wrong that took a life, and the wrong of a robbery that went wrong and did the same.
Call me harsh - but think of the symbol of justice. A set of scales, weighed by a blindfolded woman. Why? Justice is supposed to be blind - and equitable. Does the punishment fit the crime? Does it judge on what is shown as fact?
How is adding a hate crime charge make things "blind"? How does it insure the punishment is equitable to the crime itself? If anything - a "hate crime" charge does nothing more than play upon the emotions and fears of the humans who sit in juries and on the bench. Its DESIGNED as a charge based upon fear, and I would submit that no judge or jury can decide a case and provide "blind justice" while being tugged at using emotions or fear.
Now if you want to have a discussion on capital punishment, I am more than willing. *I do think I said there isn't any topic I won't touch - and if I haven't before - I just did!
But hate crime laws are a real travesty. I don't care WHY you killed your wife or neighbor *unless we are talking accidental or mercy killings - and I have a distinct thought on those*. The other person is dead - you deprived them of life. Why is a murderers life to be held more sacred than that of the victims? Equitable justice means you pay a price equal to your crime. In the case of murder - the only equal measure is your life forfeited.
Buddahaid
05-02-09, 10:18 AM
Undersea - bloodthirsty? Not at all - I value human life as high as possible. However, I value the human life of the good higher than I do the bad. I value it higher when its a civilized society than when its a backwards, repressive one that ignores the freedom and equality of its people and those of the rest of the world.
The problem with "lifetime incarceration" is that it is costs more to maintain the lifers than they "produce". I have yet to ever see a prison system that can show a "net profit" after housing, feeding and clothing its inmates over the course of their natural lives.
The punishment should fit the crime ideally, however, I put no faith in eyewitness accounts to peg the right person. And that is the reason I can't support capital punishment.
Buddahaid
Frame57
05-02-09, 10:29 AM
Yeah it all makes about as much sense as if someone kills a police dog and they convicted of killing a police officer. Tell you what if a police dog ever errantly came after me it is a dead dog. I can just imagine myself being a cell mate with Charlie Manson for killing a dog, but that is America. The land where the two party system has deliberatly played to special interest and not their constituants. One part shipwrecks the whole deal and the other party get voted and they toss this ball back and forth decade after decade. The people must like it because they keep allowing it, so you get what you pay for in life.
Platapus
05-02-09, 10:34 AM
The punishment should fit the crime ideally, however, I put no faith in eyewitness accounts to peg the right person. And that is the reason I can't support capital punishment.
Buddahaid
I agree. I support the idea of the Death Penalty, but a conviction has to be based on scientific data, not eye witnesses.
Witnesses are just too fallible... and sometimes it is unintentional :nope:
I agree. I support the idea of the Death Penalty, but a conviction has to be based on scientific data, not eye witnesses.
Witnesses are just too fallible... and sometimes it is unintentional :nope:
The way I see it even scientific data can be faked or misinterpreted. That's why I oppose the death penalty.
Nor do I think incarcerating prisoners should be a profitable venture for the state. I think prison should be a lot more spartan existence than it has been allowed to become but it's wrong to execute prisoners just to save the state some money.
Platapus
05-02-09, 12:37 PM
The way I see it even scientific data can be faked or misinterpreted.
Absolutely agree. This is also why I believe that the scientific data used for death penalty cases needs to be verified by an independent source.
Data can definitely be misinterpreted.. and like with witnesses, it may be unintentional.
:D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.