A hate crime....

jillio said:
If you don't support lesser punishment then you must support hate crime laws. You are contradicting yourself.

There are special category of law for domestic violence crimes. It adds time to the sentence. There are special categories for various types of murders that increase the sentencing. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Like I said, intent always is a factor in criminal charges. Why should that be less so for marginalized populations?
Click to expand...

No jillio, with all due respect, domestic violence has a sentence for domestic violence.

I have a problem creating a "protected class." Not in theory, because nothing is more disgusting to me than bigotry.

Just in practice. In terms of overzealous prosecutors. Once a law is on the books it becomes very easy to abuse.

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr? The Handicapper General?
 
DaveM said:
No jillio, with all due respect, domestic violence has a sentence for domestic violence.

I have a problem creating a "protected class." Not in theory, because nothing is more disgusting to me than bigotry.

Just in practice. In terms of overzealous prosecutors. Once a law is on the books it becomes very easy to abuse.

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr? The Handicapper General?
Click to expand...

A class protected from what?
 
DaveM said:
No jillio, with all due respect, domestic violence has a sentence for domestic violence.

I have a problem creating a "protected class." Not in theory, because nothing is more disgusting to me than bigotry.

Just in practice. In terms of overzealous prosecutors. Once a law is on the books it becomes very easy to abuse.

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr? The Handicapper General?
Click to expand...

Hate crime laws do not create a protected class. They equalize justice in an area where justice has historically been unequal. We already have a protected class in this country.

So, because there might be an "over zealous prosecutor" out there somewhere, we should provide lesser justice to those that have historically received, and still often to this day, disproportional judgement in our legal system?

No. If an "over zealous prosecutor"" abused the law, then that over zealous prosecutor needs to be charged and dealt with.
 
DeafCaroline said:
What jillio is saying is that punishment for offenders against gays, prostitutes, addicts and minorities tend to be less severe because of biases against them. Hate crime laws were designed to ensure they receive equal attention and justice. For example, black women getting beaten is often ignored by cops. They think it's typical ghetto behaviour. But a white woman getting beaten? They'll come to her aid, if she's not a working street girl that is.

If people were truly equal under the eyes of the law - they'd be receiving equal attention to their cases, and be given equal priority and equal right to fair counsel. But that's not the case. Because they are marginalized by society.

It's not an issue of comparing similiar crimes and saying they are equally horrible. They're horrible no matter what, the issue is the discrepancy in justice between them.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with your assessment of inequality of minorities, DeafCaroline! I also respect your opinion.

I think we just disagree about the role that government should play in trying to equalize.

But that's what I love about diversity of opinion - the best form of diversity!
 
DaveM said:
I certainly agree with your assessment of inequality of minorities, DeafCaroline! I also respect your opinion.

I think we just disagree about the role that government should play in trying to equalize.

But that's what I love about diversity of opinion - the best form of diversity!
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe that society will equalize these situations? Society created them.:lol:
 
DaveM said:
I understand the concept and the well meaning aspect of a hate crime, jillio. Often times well meaning legislation has unintended negative consequences.



I don't like ANYONE being given less justice. Who is the arbiter of what constitutes "marginalized"? Justice should be equal for all. Hate crimes come close to being very Orwellian and in some cases border on "thought" crimes.

A woman being assaulted in a park alone is just as disgusting as someone beating or assaulting a gay person.
Click to expand...

DaveM said:
I certainly agree with your assessment of inequality of minorities, DeafCaroline! I also respect your opinion.

I think we just disagree about the role that government should play in trying to equalize.

But that's what I love about diversity of opinion - the best form of diversity!
Click to expand...

since you agree with her assessment of inequality of minorities and since you admitted that that you don't like anyone being given less justice.... then you are in direct support of "hate crime". It's to equalize EVERYONE especially the minorities with EQUAL justice.
 
Jiro said:
since you agree with her assessment of inequality of minorities and since you admitted that that you don't like anyone being given less justice.... then you are in direct support of "hate crime". It's to equalize EVERYONE especially the minorities with EQUAL justice.
Click to expand...

:ty: He is contradicting himself.
 
jillio said:
:ty: He is contradicting himself.
Click to expand...

That's koko but I believe DaveM is an intelligent individual and he can be reasoned with so he just simply needs a guidance in understanding this complex issue.
 
Jiro said:
That's koko but I believe DaveM is an intelligent individual and he can be reasoned with so he just simply needs a guidance in understanding this complex issue.
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen..
 
jillio said:
Do you actually believe that society will equalize these situations? Society created them.:lol:
Click to expand...

Jillio, let me give you an example of what happens whan government seeks to equalize people.

In 1990 George HW signed the ADA. We're familiar with this, of course. It was a brave and bold piece of legislation with great intentions.

Well by 1995 the employment rate of the disabled DROPPED. There were 10% fewer disabled in the workforce.

By creating a "protected" class(which includes me) the unintended negative consequences were that people like myself became a liability in the work place. Employers were less prone to take a chance hiring me, because firing me could bring about a lawsuit.

Well meaning legislation, unintended negative consequences. Was the ADA worth fewer disabled in the workplace, because it makes us feel better to say we're equalizing?

I hope you understand where I'm coming from when I speak about government overreach.
 
Last edited:
DaveM said:
Jillio, let me give you an example of what happens whan government seeks to equalize people.

In 1990 George HW signed the ADA. We're familiar with this, of course. It was a brave and bold piece of legislation with great intentions.

Well by 1995 the unemployment rate of the disabled DROPPED. There were 10% fewer disabled in the workforce.

By creating a "protected" class(which includes me) the unintended negative consequences were that people like myself became a liability in the work place. Employers were less prone to take a chance hiring me, because firing me could bring about a lawsuit.

Well meaning legislation, unintended negative consequences. Was the ADA worth fewer disabled in the workplace, because it makes us feel better to say we're equalizing?

I hope you understand where I'm coming from when I speak about government overreach.
Click to expand...

The ADA did not create a protected class. We already have a protected class or legislation like the ADA would never be necessary.

Are you actually stating that the ADA was responsible for the poor employment rate of the disabled? Please tell me you aren't.

I understand exactly where you are coming from. You are articulating it quite nicely.
 
Jiro said:
That's koko but I believe DaveM is an intelligent individual and he can be reasoned with so he just simply needs a guidance in understanding this complex issue.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your vote of confidence, Jiro!

It is a complex issue and an emotional one too!
 
Personally, I find it extremely strange that this man got a lot of flak from the gay community for being conservative. I definitely have encountered a lot more straight people who have complained about gay Christians than gay people complaining about gay conservatives/Christians. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard of a gay person being upset over a gay Christian. Confused? Yes. Upset? Nope.

Honestly.... I think there's more to the story. (Isn't there always?)

However, I think it's awful that he got a beating. Hate crime? Sigh... I am pretty sure I know where you are going with this. If someone says "No it's not a hate crime." Then you obviously are waiting in the bushes to come out going "AH HA!! HYPOCRITE!!!" You probably do have another response if someone does answer "Yes, it's a hate crime". pfft.

That's why you are not answering the "yes or no" questions now. You are waiting till people respond so that you can "prove" something.

Don't feel like answering your question. :D
 
jillio said:
The ADA did not create a protected class. We already have a protected class or legislation like the ADA would never be necessary.

Are you actually stating that the ADA was responsible for the poor employment rate of the disabled? Please tell me you aren't.

I understand exactly where you are coming from. You are articulating it quite nicely.
Click to expand...

Creating a harsher punishment for firing someone like me, has prevented employers from taking the chance in the first place. It's true. Employment went down for the disabled after ADA was passed.

Lawyers refer to it as "rolling lawsuits."

That's not to say that there aren't good parts to it, which there are.

But sometimes the unintended negative consequences of a well meaning law outweighs the positive.
 
DaveM said:
Jillio, let me give you an example of what happens whan government seeks to equalize people.

In 1990 George HW signed the ADA. We're familiar with this, of course. It was a brave and bold piece of legislation with great intentions.

Well by 1995 the unemployment rate of the disabled DROPPED. There were 10% fewer disabled in the workforce.

By creating a "protected" class(which includes me) the unintended negative consequences were that people like myself became a liability in the work place. Employers were less prone to take a chance hiring me, because firing me could bring about a lawsuit.

Well meaning legislation, unintended negative consequences. Was the ADA worth fewer disabled in the workplace, because it makes us feel better to say we're equalizing?

I hope you understand where I'm coming from when I speak about government overreach.
Click to expand...

Everything has negative consequences. Honestly, it's a matter of which way/choice has less consequences. Would we have been better off without the ADA? What should have been different?

By the way, I think you made a mistake in the bolded. Did you mean unemployment rate increased? or the employment rate dropped?

Edit: Wanted to add more... have you checked the employment rate of the disabled TODAY? Is it still lower than before the ADA days?

Edit Again: Okay maybe not TODAY since unemployment rate in general is very high, but before the recession.
 
Back
Top