A hate crime....

example - cocaine and crack.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Effective for...?

Specifically to reduce crime in general or...?
Click to expand...

No, at achieving equal punishments for equal crimes. It really doesn't matter who hits who with a bat. Assaulting with a bat is the crime. I don't think any victim of a bat assault ever said. "Well, at least we were the same race."

I think it is a disservice to victims to say that their suffering is legally less important even though they suffered the same crime.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
 
jillio said:
Like I said, it is right there. Jumps out if you look at it with an open mind.

And I do believe, as you have demonstrated prior, that you have an open mind.
Click to expand...

That is why I cannot remember anything. :P
 
Jiro said:
right. that's what we're telling you. minimum and mandatory sentences have been used disproportionately and unfairly.

hence.... my post #262
Click to expand...

The Crack vs Cocaine issue is completely different than hate crimes. Totally unrelated.
 
TXgolfer said:
No, at achieving equal punishments for equal crimes. It really doesn't matter who hits who with a bat. Assaulting with a bat is the crime. I don't think any victim of a bat assault ever said. "Well, at least we were the same race."

I think it is a disservice to victims to say that their suffering is legally less important even though they suffered the same crime.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Click to expand...

Could you give us an operational definition of your idea of "equal". There appears to be something left out that the rest of us are including.

Do you see this as equal:

Two men get in a fight in a bar. One provoked the other. Assault charges were filed. Fine paid, no lasting effects on the quality of life of either.

Young gay man standing on the corner waiting for the light to change. Is attacked from behind, with no provocation, simply because he is gay. Young man develops an inability to walk home from his school because he suffers PTSD from his trauma of being attacked for his sexual orientation while minding his own business. Charges: assault. Fine paid. Perpetrators go on their merry way, no doubt to do it again to another innocent victim. Victim suffers life long consequences.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Apparently a majority of the women in prison were charged for violence against those who abused them. Really sad.
Click to expand...

You can offer no proof of this statement so good use of "apparently".
Someone else could say: Apparently a majority of the women in prison were charged
for drugs. And would be just as right as you. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Cheetah said:
Apparently it is, the problem was severe enough to get legislation on the books. And if it's bad enough to needs laws then it's even more important that we talk about it.

People need to be told that hate is wrong. And they need to be told why.

Ignorance only begets ignorance.
Click to expand...

That was not your original claim. If you have stats that back that up.... :cool2: If not you are still entitled to that opinion, I disagree and we can move on.
 
TXgolfer said:
No, at achieving equal punishments for equal crimes. It really doesn't matter who hits who with a bat. Assaulting with a bat is the crime. I don't think any victim of a bat assault ever said. "Well, at least we were the same race."

I think it is a disservice to victims to say that their suffering is legally less important even though they suffered the same crime.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Click to expand...

but.... it is "equal" if it's not racially-motivated.

Person A (white) hits Person B (black) with a baseball bat to rob him. Person A will be charged with aggravated robbery with deadly weapon.

Person A (white) hits Person B (black) with a baseball bat because Person B is a "n****r" and Person A has a known history of racist hatred. Person A will be charged with Hate Crime with equivalency of aggravated assault because in the past, he would have been charged with simple battery or simple assault charge with minimal sentence whereas in reversed role, Person B would have been charged with maximum sentence of whatever he's charged with.
 
TXgolfer said:
No, at achieving equal punishments for equal crimes. It really doesn't matter who hits who with a bat. Assaulting with a bat is the crime. I don't think any victim of a bat assault ever said. "Well, at least we were the same race."

I think it is a disservice to victims to say that their suffering is legally less important even though they suffered the same crime.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Click to expand...

I understand the bolded but...don't people say that anyway even without hate crimes? Everyone wants their perp to get the maximum. I just find hate crimes not that different from other methods to assess the degree of punishment.

For example, Perp A savagely beat up someone to get their wallet. Perp B also savagely beat up someone to get their wallet, except the perp planned on it, by following him, etc. Wouldn't the victim of Perp A be pissed that Perp B got more time than Perp A, JUST because he happened to be caught planning on it?

You have your opinion about hate crimes, but it just seems to me that it doesn't ONLY apply for hate crime.......
 
jillio said:
No it isn't. It is about inequitable application of laws.
Click to expand...

Completely different. Cocaine vs Crack is about sentences that address 2 different substances. Assault is a specific crime where any inequities could be addressed by a mandatory sentence. Nobody is saying assault and robbery should carry the same sentence.
 
jillio said:
Could you give us an operational definition of your idea of "equal". There appears to be something left out that the rest of us are including.

Do you see this as equal:

Two men get in a fight in a bar. One provoked the other. Assault charges were filed. Fine paid, no lasting effects on the quality of life of either.

Young gay man standing on the corner waiting for the light to change. Is attacked from behind, with no provocation, simply because he is gay. Young man develops an inability to walk home from his school because he suffers PTSD from his trauma of being attacked for his sexual orientation while minding his own business. Charges: assault. Fine paid. Perpetrators go on their merry way, no doubt to do it again to another innocent victim. Victim suffers life long consequences.
Click to expand...

If you applied this to drunk drivers, the bolded part, it reads almost the same. The only difference would be a DUI charge and a few other charges that would amount to aggravated assault in terms of punishment. Sad isn't it?
 
TXgolfer said:
The Crack vs Cocaine issue is completely different than hate crimes. Totally unrelated.
Click to expand...

"crack vs cocaine" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to societal rank & racial difference... hence Fair Sentencing Act was passed

"black vs white" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to racial difference.... hence Hate Crime law was passed

"women vs men" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to gender difference... hence Violence Against Women Act was passed...

"privileged vs nobody" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to societal rank difference... well that's just too bad :lol:
 
Daredevel7 said:
I understand the bolded but...don't people say that anyway even without hate crimes? Everyone wants their perp to get the maximum. I just find hate crimes not that different from other methods to assess the degree of punishment.

For example, Perp A savagely beat up someone to get their wallet. Perp B also savagely beat up someone to get their wallet, except the perp planned on it, by following him, etc. Wouldn't the victim of Perp A be pissed that Perp B got more time than Perp A, JUST because he happened to be caught planning on it?

You have your opinion about hate crimes, but it just seems to me that it doesn't ONLY apply for hate crime.......
Click to expand...

Not IMO. The above is about premeditation, assaulting someone over skin color is about motive. They would still judge whether such an assault was premeditated
 
Jiro said:
excellent example. let us look at how it was in the past before Hate Crime law came into existence..

Person A (white) beats up Person B (black) with a baseball bat. Person A gets minimal sentence.

Person B (black) beats up Person A (white) with a baseball bat. Person B gets maximum sentence or... life prison.
Click to expand...

Better example:

White person A(wealthier) beats up black person B(poorer). Wealthier person A affords expensive lawyer to get off lighter.

Black person B (think OJ) murders white woman B and white man C. Millionaire OJ affords expensive legal team, free of all charges.

If we're being honest it's a wealth disparity issue. Unfortunately there is a very large income gap between African Americans and Whites.

And it's getting worse.
 
TXgolfer said:
Not IMO. The above is about premeditation, assaulting someone over skin color is about motive. They would still judge whether such an assault was premeditated
Click to expand...

I understand the difference between motive and premeditation, but the victims are still upset about the difference in punishment. You said that hate crime was disrespectful to the victims due to the difference in punishment. See my point?

Obviously, some people believe that premeditation makes the crime "worse" hence the harsher punishment.

Same concept goes for hate crime. Some people believe that motive makes the crime "worse". Obviously, in this thread, some people believe that motive doesn't, whereas premeditation does.
 
Jiro said:
"crack vs cocaine" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to societal rank & racial difference... hence Fair Sentencing Act was passed

"black vs white" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to racial difference.... hence Hate Crime law was passed

"women vs men" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to gender difference... hence Violence Against Women Act was passed...

"privileged vs nobody" is the example of disproportionate use of justice due to societal rank difference... well that's just too bad :lol:
Click to expand...

Baseball is played with a ball.....it is a sport

Football is played with a ball....it is a sport

Are they the same (ask George Carlin :giggle: )

"hate crime laws" do nothing to insure equal justice racially or otherwise. Getting hit with a bat is getting hit with a bat and the criminals should serve equal (and long) sentences. "Hate crime laws" do nothing to make the sentences equal.
 
Back
Top