Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes it does, because it desensitizes the community (which it relies on for information) towards the alert.
Its stupid and hypocritical.
Thats all well and nice in theory, but it ends up resulting in special privileges for the minorities.
So therefore there should no longer be an alert? What, exactly, is an "actual abduction"? Do you have any proof of desensitization, or did you just make that up?
No, it isn't.
What do you mean by this?- Ron Paul doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state.
An abduction made by a total stranger.
Wow gee, you sure showed me. You ever consider joining a debate team?
I hate this acronym.
I have, but they tend to actually support assertions like "hypocritical" and "stupid", and I might have to work a little harder than I do with you. But we'll see.
One is doing such to show an area's gang affiliation (which can be punished plenty hard), and one is doing such to terrorize (group here). Intent always makes a difference in sentencing. For example, I can trash talk the government, but maybe I choose to express this through shooting the president. I will be charged and treated a lot more harshly than if my girlfriend breaks up with me and I decide to express my jealousy through killing her. Gang vandalism has deeper consequences than typical "Jasmine loves Brian!!" vandalism, and racist, xenophobic (Etc) vandalism has deeper consequences for the both of them.
Are you serious? Murders commited in hot blood, murders committed by accident/negligence, killing someone because you're messed up and think that thing is hot, killing for the insurance money, etc. Either way, you're missing the point.Possibly. If you're taking an action against <group here>, yes, you are motivated by bigotry, and if your "actions against" them include something illegal, you will be punished accordingly. Why is this a bad thing?
Hardly. The majority of times, the abductor is a parent of the child, and when people hear the alert, they see the kid with a parent.
So? Its freedom of expression. I can say I want to destroy <group here> or similar comments. Its legal. But suddenly if I express it in an illegal manner, such as vandalism, its a hate crime. Its contradictory.
Typically you do not like the person you suddenly want to kill very much. You hate that person extremely for a moment.\
Is not murder. It is involuntary manslaughter. You would think somebody who has considered joining a debate team would know the difference.
The first means you have a mental disorder of some sort. And if you just decide to kill somebody for their insurance for no other reason but insurance, you probably also have some mental disorder.
Because it is stupid. I can argue that any action taken against me is a hate crime against a minority. Vandalism is either done to express an opinion, spite, or just for the hell of it. But if it appears on my shop, I can argue that it was done with hateful intent, regardless why the vandal did it.
An abductor is an abductor. Just last post you said intent shouldn't matter....oooh, you meant intent suddenly shouldn't matter when it comes to terrorizing minorities!
No, you can't say "I want to destroy <group here> in most places, it actually qualifies as "hate speech"...but refer to my assassination example. Say what you want, think what you want, the second you go around pushing your bigoted opinions through others through terrorism and violence, you can't hide behind "freedom of expression". Sorry.
No, you are angry at them. You can get angry at someone and still love them. It happens all the time.
The seperation between the 2 has everything to do with intent, which you don't think should matter. (Thought crime!) They're essentially the same thing.
And many killers who kill for the fun of it do have mental disorders. And plenty of people who kill for the money (insurance, your personal belongings, etc or for political reasons don't. A mental disorder might help one get a lower sentence, but other than that...it's still murder, and not murder done out of "hate". But you're missing the point.
You "can argue" whatever you like. But you have to convince a jury in order to see any legal repercussions come of it.
Of course you can argue whatever you like, and if you manage to convince a jury, then the criminal might get a harsher sentence than that kid who scratched "Timmy was here" on your bathroom wall, they both get higher sentences then they guy who accidentally spilled paint in your shop. And if you argue bigoted intent, like racist contents of the message perhaps coupled a rash of killings of people of and hateful feelings towards <group here> in the area, then the person will have a higher sentence then any of them.
Eh you missed the point. When a child is abducted by a parent, most people in the community do not see anything wrong with the picture. Just <name here> with one of her parents.
I can yell destroy <minority here> I can do it wherever I please so long as I am not disturbing the peace or threatening people.
That is stupid and contradictory.
Anger is just a form of hate.
Hardly. Cause of death matters too. Like i can really say "Vinnie just fell on an ice pick" and get away with involuntary manslaughter.
I am not arguing that intent should be taken out of crime. I am arguing that hate crime goes against the first amendment
If you consider murder a form of expression."Its freedom of expression. I can say I want to destroy <person here> or similar comments. Its legal. But suddenly if I express it in an illegal manner, such as killing, its premeditated murder. Its contradictory"
Familiar?
If you kill for political reasons you are essentially a revolutionist.
People do manage to convince juries of this.
I can argue that the guy who spilled paint on my wall had racist intentions. It is not difficult at all.
You never purposefully (premeditated) murder somebody you do not hate, barring mental illness.
Which is why you cite so many examples
This is very true with the heavier offenses. You do not beat somebody with a sledgehammer because you like them.
Then they need to be alerted all the more.
Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yep. You can think hate thoughts and (depending where you live) speak hateful things, but when you use criminal acts to express yourself, it becomes a hate crime. Just like you can think sexual thoughts and speak sexual obscenities, but you go out and rape someone and it's a sex crime. I can think about stealing, and I can talk about stealing, but when I steal it's a property crime.
lol, so when a kid breaks a window and the mother gets angry, the mother must HATE the kid, right?
I get angry at loved ones all the time, as a matter of fact, I get more angry at people I love then people I hate, who really aren't worth the time.You can argue that if you'd like, as unbelievable as it is. But what it boils down to isn't cause of death, it's what you were thinking. "Fall on an ice pick" isn't a good one, since that's a matter of accidental death vs. murder--more like "I fell holding an ice pick and stabbed it into Vinnie". Did you do it on purpose? Did you do it by accident? And that goes with anything, regardless of weapon or method used--some methods are just much harder to do accidentally.
Is killing black people for their race fall under "protected SPEECH"?
It can be, and often is. Terrorism is all about making political statements through violence and vandalism. "I disagree with this administration, I will show this hate through blowing up this building". "I think segregation is the way to go and I hate this darky moving in so I'm going to burn a cross on his lawn". "My religion condemns homosexuality, so I am going to drag this man from the back of my truck". "I think meat is murder, so I am going to poison meat products at the store" Murder can be a form of expression, just like vandalism can be a form of expression.
Ok.
Greed is one of the most powerful motivators there is. People that kill for money tend to be desperate, and they'll sometimes try to just get the money without having to hurt anyone...but not crazy. I would like to see evidence of these "tendencies"
And so they are legally considered "guilty" and sentenced accordingly. Like with every other crime.
:areyoucra Yes, you can argue anything you like. If you have enough evidence (did he shout "I hate faggots!!!" when he did it, for example?), you might even take it to court, where he will argue that it was an accident and present his own defense, and the jury will decide if he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not, and punish him accordingly!!! Sometimes even, someone may be wrongfully accused and fined/imprisoned, and you know this never happens outside of hate crime cases! Well, we better get rid of hate crime legislation.
That's a pretty sweeping statement, and I dare you to back it up. Should all serial killers automatically then be considered "not guilty by reason of insanity"?
Exactly.
With what?
It depends. There is no law stopping me from yelling that<minority here> is the cause of all our problems and that we must destroy them. Most groups just frown on it.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
This has to be the most broken analogy for hate crime I have ever read. Congrats.
Saying you want to is.
If you are going to use terrorism as an argument, at least do it properly.
You can't agree with me, that is against the rules.
Killing for insurance, the example you cited, requires being very close to the guy you want to whack.
So just because I happened to be of a different ethnic group then you, and action I take against you is a hate crime?
This is naive and idealistic.
Ya, we better, because it ends up destroying the reputation of those that are found innocent, and ends up giving a much longer stint in jail for those who are found guilty. Hate crime is not the only place where reform is needed, but it is by far the easiest to fix.
Eh, its why most of them do not get death sentences. Do you really think people who are found not guilty because of insanity are just allowed to leave?
Yes, they do. They don't give out a name, they give out a description of the child, the name, who they were last seen with in what. You don't know what you're talking about.
There are laws. In some places it isn't against the law, in some places it is.
It's exactly the same bs as you're spouting . "Why can I talk about committing a crime, but as soon as I commit it, it's a crime?"
And saying you want to currently isn't a 'hate crime', so.....
Exactly. Just like racist graffiti or burning crosses or black people being hung from trees, it's to get people fearful for their lives.
Yes, it usually does, but killing for the money, as you mentioned, doesn't stop at insurance. And unfortunately, not all spouses/children are good people.
No. An action you take against me and that I argue with enough evidence to convince a jury was motivated by ethnicity, is a "hate crime".
Being charged with most crimes destroys reputations. Doesn't mean we should get rid of legislation banning them.
How so?
Uh, no mre rape legislation, murder legislation, anti-fraud legislation, etc. We can't just get rid of anti-crime legislation, because you're worried reputations will be damaged if people are charged with them. "Reputation damage" isn't a very good legal reason to do anything, and considering how many racist-*** people we have running around (See: thread title), I really don't think their reputation will be that bad off.
No, but do you really think they are all "not guilty by reason of insanity"? It's something relitively easy to check.
They are supposed to.
I assume some places means Europe?
Hardly.
These are forms of expression. Killing black people is not a form of expression
Exactly, it goes much deeper. But few people are willing to kill somebody they do not hate.
Evidence?
Nothing destroys reputation more than hate crime and sexual harassment/rape. If you are unable to prove your case, there should at least be punishment for wasting the court's time.
Its like trying to get a job with a murder charge on your record.
Which has plenty of hard evidence to prove its case.
Your right, We should get rid of hate crime legislation because its essentially a thought crime. whats next?
It is my constitutional right to be racist. I can say and believe whatever I damn well please.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, basically any non-backwards Western nation on earth, Brazil, Singapore, etc.
That's not an analogy.
Again, always? And you're still missing the point.
It is for racists. What better way to show darkies you mean business than to set an example or seven?
Few people are willing to kill at all. The point is, people kill for many reasons not related to any personal hatred.
No, it's not. I have to prove beyond reasonable doubt he did it with the intent to intimidate <insert group here>, to prove that's what he was thinking. It's rather hard to do, and a few subtle hints are sort of leading me to think that you have absolutely no experience with this and you're making stuff up.
!!!!
You do realize how many hate crimes are murders, don't you? It basically comes down to the same exact criminal justice system.
You aren't being punished for thoughts, you're being punished for intent and effect on the community, which has a part in any punishment. The difference between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder? OH NO THOUGHT CRIME. Go read 1984, realize what the term "thought crime" means, come back to me. No one has ever been arrested for "thought", ok? Not even in (dun dun dun) Europe.
No one said otherwise. But your "right to be racist" ends when you start using your racism to commit violenct acts on, imtimidate and terrorize people of color. SORRY. Have fun in jail. Why can you not see the difference? I don't know.
I love the first amendment.
Neither was yours.
Which is?
People tend to kill people they dislike.
This what it comes down to. Did he say "death to all <minorites>"? or did he not.
Which is why you cite so many examples:sarcastic
Which why you can't sue for slander
THe same pathetic ball of mud we are on now.
Do you have any experience with the law whatsoever?
You do realize that before you can make an accusation, you should at least have, hmm, evidence maybe? A great deal of rape/ sexual harassment cases devolve into your word bs my word.
I hope you do to.
When does the average murder NOT involve hate?
Wrong. I can have the thoughts, but when expressed through grafitti its a hate crime?
You realize that the crux of your arguments appeal to emotion don't you?
When is hate NOT a motivating force for violent act?
I can see the difference.
Saying 'I'm going to smack you' and then smacking someone. You hardly need to be "beating them for 5 minutes".
If that was the case, then there would be an awful lot more murder.
Evidence for this, please. Juries do tend to be biased against minorities.
Every time a statement of yours is in "quote" brackets, consider it an "example".
Of course not. In order for it to be applicable, 1) beyond the shadow of a doubt, the accuser was knowingly lying, 2) the accuser lied specifically to hurt the other's reputation 3) the person's reputation was significantly damaged by the accusations, enough to require monetary compensation. Most often in rape cases, the person can't prove s/he was raped, and therefore the accused is declared simply "not guilty".
No, they don't, they require witnesses, forensic and medical evidence just like anyone else.
********. If you honestly think that a defendant has never won a rape or sexual harassment case, you have been living under a rock.
Of course not, and this is true whether or not there are "hate crime" laws.
Yep. When you translate your thoughts to illegal behavior, such as grafitti, violence, employment discrimination, harassment--guess what? It's a hate crime! Do you still not get it?
And we rely on circumstances as evidence for hate crimes too--but the bottom line is, we are making judgments on what their intent was. Circumstances can only help provide evidence one way or the other. Just like in hate crimes....in one case, a person accidentally crashes into a black guy, in the other, the black guy is being hung from his tree with DIE DARKIE DIE scratched into him. :sarcastic Hmmm...(what you mean I can THINK about hanging black guys from trees, but when I actually do it, it's a hate crime??!?!? Yes.)
No, it's meant to punish a specific type of crime. You can think whatever you want to think, you can say whatever you want to say.