The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14054)

rkzenrage 09-29-2007 10:52 PM

The worst thing about it for me is that a possible assault crime is now a FEDERAL case investigated by the FBI.
So stupid, moronic, inane that it numbs my mind!!!!
Not only that the point of this is because the idiots say that some sheriffs or cops are not enforcing laws for blacks or gays...
If that is the case WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO CALL THE FBI YOU MOUTH BREATHER?

piercehawkeye45 09-30-2007 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon (Post 390598)
The simple flaw in hate crime laws is that it makes murder of one person more serious than murder of a different person. Why would a gay/black/policeman/muslim/white person be more valuable to society than anyone else.

The argument behind hate crimes are not, or at least shouldn't be, that blacks or gays are more important to society than straight whites, just that killing someone just because of their skin color or sexuality is worst than killing someone for another reason.

Whether you agree with a hate crime being worst than regular manslaughter or not, when it comes to murder the justice system does judge by intent so it does follow the pattern. If I kill someone in self-defense, kill someone by accident, and kill someone in cold blood I'm going to get different time in jails for each if any jail time at all.

xoxoxoBruce 10-01-2007 04:20 AM

Well if the court is already taking intent into consideration, why more legislation? Why more complicated rules? Why more pressure on the DA to decide rather than the court?

piercehawkeye45 10-01-2007 08:08 AM

No idea, I'm agnostic on this issue.

I'm assuming because they think that extra work is justified but who knows.

Happy Monkey 10-01-2007 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 390902)
Well if the court is already taking intent into consideration, why more legislation? Why more complicated rules? Why more pressure on the DA to decide rather than the court?

The DA doean't have to decide. The DA can charge both, and the jury decides.

DanaC 10-02-2007 06:54 AM

I'm not sure, but I think part of the rationale may be to have a better idea of how prevalent racially motivated crime is.

Another part of the rationale may be that whilst the actual murder is a crime committed against an individual, if it it is motivated by race-hate it also becomes a crime against the wider group.

xoxoxoBruce 10-02-2007 05:44 PM

Nonsense, if I kill you because you're British, it doesn't make a whit to the millions I didn't kill.

piercehawkeye45 10-02-2007 07:52 PM

But then hanging Brits by tree branches was never an afternoon activity.

xoxoxoBruce 10-02-2007 09:52 PM

Stop wallowing in the past and move on.

bluecuracao 10-02-2007 09:57 PM

Yeah, pierce. Lynchings and nooses hanging from trees and trucks 'n' stuff are ancient history.

Aliantha 10-02-2007 09:59 PM

It doesn't even happen anymore does it?

tw 10-02-2007 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 391452)
It doesn't even happen anymore does it?

Nope. Today we drag them from behind a pickup - especially if they are gay.

Elspode 10-02-2007 10:33 PM

I thought that we were tying them to fenceposts in freezing weather after beating them within an inch of their lives, leaving them to die?

Someone needs to update the fag killing protocols or we'll just have people killing them every which way, and then nothing will have been accomplished.

rkzenrage 10-03-2007 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 390851)
The argument behind hate crimes are not, or at least shouldn't be, that blacks or gays are more important to society than straight whites, just that killing someone just because of their skin color or sexuality is worst than killing someone for another reason.

Whether you agree with a hate crime being worst than regular manslaughter or not, when it comes to murder the justice system does judge by intent so it does follow the pattern. If I kill someone in self-defense, kill someone by accident, and kill someone in cold blood I'm going to get different time in jails for each if any jail time at all.

Precisely, intent, circumstance and motive are not the same thing. Motive means nothing and when physical evidence is present, is rarely brought to bear in court at all by the prosecution. There is no reason to if their case is made by facts and evidence, it is only used in circumstantial cases. Waste of time otherwise and confuses the issue.
In fact, the defense will often try to use it as a red herring to confuse the jury.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.