jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
She might except she'll probably get beat up.
By whom? You, Twinkles?
She might except she'll probably get beat up.
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?
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?
Yes or no?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
He is contradicting himself.
Do you actually believe that society will equalize these situations? Society created them.
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.
Do you actually believe that society will equalize these situations? Society created them.
That remains to be seen..
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.
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.
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.
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.