Why should there be a difference if a white man kills a black man because he's black, compared to any other reason (other than self defence)? It is the same act. It is the same result.
I disagree; the result is not the same. The former case also carries an implied or direct threat to other innocent members of a group. With most other murders, there's some sort of personal issue between the two people so other people are spared that threat. In my opinion, properly used hate crime laws recognize and punish that additional threat.
Killing a random innocent person based solely on some characteristic (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, etc), is more akin to terrorism than simply murder.
He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)
57
Join Date: 23rd June 2006
Location: North of Kansas City, MO
Posts: 12,509
Blessings: 969,321
Reps: 34,265,055 (power: 34,281)
Originally Posted by trunks2k
I disagree; the result is not the same. The former case also carries an implied or direct threat to other innocent members of a group. With most other murders, there's some sort of personal issue between the two people so other people are spared that threat. In my opinion, properly used hate crime laws recognize and punish that additional threat.
That requires a jury to get inside the mind of the killer, determine that his intent was based on an emotional action toward a group, and then punish that emotion. How is that not "thought policing" and punishment? And if it is "thought policing" why is that OK? Thoughts are not crimes. Sins yes. Crimes absolutely, unequivocally no. An assault, assault and battery, or murder are crimes commmitted against the person or person's attacked. They do not affect in a criminal manner anyone other than the victims.
The key question is, if "hate" is not a stand-alone crime, how can it be used to mete out additional punishment for an act that is a crime? This attitude sets a very dangerous legal precedent.
Originally Posted by trunks2k
Killing a random innocent person based solely on some characteristic (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, etc), is more akin to terrorism than simply murder.
It may be akin to it, but until it rises to the level of an attack on a nation, a race or a religious group, it is nothing more than simple assault or murder. Those are already against the law, and it is asking a great deal more of a jury than is within human capacity, to assess and punish the thoughts of the perpetrator. And again, if those thoughts are processed but unacted upon, they are not a crime. Therefore, they should not be a cause for stricter punishment.
In a capital murder trial, they can be used as a mitigating factor, but bigotry or hate alone cannot be used as the sole mitigating factor for a death sentence in any US state or territory. All require more than just the established fact of hate to result in a death sentence. It is hypocritical of the states to rule out hate as being a sole mitigating factor for a death sentence and then use the same emotion as an excuse to mete out more severe punishment in an assault or non-capital case.
__________________
Comforting the afflicted; Afflicting the comfortable
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ ... (II Corinthians 10:3-5)
The law always takes motive into account...it's unbelievably ridiculous to suggest that it doesn't.
If I kill someone entirely by accident, should I get a sentence for murder? If I kill because I am legally insane, should I still go to prison?
If I kill someone after a targeted process of preparation, I will get a lower sentence than if I kill someone on the spur of the moment. I will get a lower one again if I intend to hurt someone and they end up dying as a result, and I will get an even lower one if someone dies because of my negligence.
Location: Stationed in Germany, but originally from the United States
Posts: 8,598
Blessings: 50,474
My Mood
Reps: 24,007,431,011,056 (power: 24,007,431,024)
A knee-jerk response by those claiming to maintain an open mind on the left. I think there is more to this then just the victim's sexual orientation, and also to the state of mind of the suspect as well. We need all the facts before we hang the individual at the gallows.
__________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)
57
Join Date: 23rd June 2006
Location: North of Kansas City, MO
Posts: 12,509
Blessings: 969,321
Reps: 34,265,055 (power: 34,281)
Originally Posted by Robbie_James_Francis
Hate crimes laws are good and necessary. The law always takes motive into account...it's unbelievably ridiculous to suggest that it doesn't.
"Into account" yes, but not for additional punishment. No one is denying that emotions and thoughts are mitigating factors in all crimes. But if emotions and thoughts cannot be punished as crimes on their own, how is it right to use them to increase the punishment in certain crimes? That is indefensible. We have ushered in Orwell's "thought police."
Originally Posted by Robbie_James_Francis
If I kill someone after a targeted process of preparation, I will get a lower sentence than if I kill someone on the spur of the moment.
What dreamworld are you living in? Preparation is premeditation, which could lead to a death sentence. "Spur of the moment" or "crime of passion" is second degree murder and carries a lesser penalty in every jurisdiction in the free world.
Originally Posted by Robbie_James_Francis
I will get a lower one again if I intend to hurt someone and they end up dying as a result, and I will get an even lower one if someone dies because of my negligence. Is that policing thoughts?
No, it is measuring intent. "Hate crime" legislation asks a jury to punish someone for their personal prejudices. Prejudices are abhorrent, but not illegal in and of themselves.
If I have a personal prejudice against the man who sleeps with my wife, and I plan to beat him up, make preparations to beat him up, and then beat him up, I will be punished for the intent to which my emotions led me, not for the emotions themselves. He is just as beaten up either way. If I have a personal prejudice against my Islamic neighbor, and I beat him up on the spur of the moment, I will be punished, under hate crime legislation, more severely for a spontaneous act than I am for the other circumstance which was premeditated. He is just as beaten up as the other man was, my motive was identified and acted upon in a split second as opposed to hours, days or weeks of planning as in the first case, but the jury will be asked to punish my apparent hatred of Islamics, while they will only be asked to consider my motive of jealousy and anger in the first case. Additional punishment will not be sought. That's ludicrous. Both are crimes, and both deserve severe punishment. But asking a jury to punish someone for an emotion is asking them to be the thought police and that's not what this country does.
Emotions are mitigating circumstances, they are the basis for motive. They are not crimes in an of themselves in any other circumstance, but "hate crime" riders make them crimes. Regardless of what "political correctness" says, that's ridiculous.
__________________
Comforting the afflicted; Afflicting the comfortable
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ ... (II Corinthians 10:3-5)
An Oxnard junior high student who was shot in the head by a classmate earlier this week was declared brain dead Wednesday, and the 14-year-old male suspect now faces a first-degree murder charge, authorities said.
...several students at the south Oxnard campus said King and his alleged assailant had a falling out stemming from King's sexual orientation.
A fourteen-year-old boy decided to murder another teenager simply because of sexual orientation. I am hoping that the shooter is charged as an adult under a hate crimes law, because this is just awful.
Maybe now you can see why GOD hates this horrific Sin?!
Homosexuality destroys!!!
Case in point: this O.P..
Two lives are now destroyed because of the SIN of Homosexuality!
READ:
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. --Lev. 18
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. --Lev. 20
This abomination causes destruction everywhere it goes!
Maybe now you can see why GOD hates this horrific Sin?!
Homosexuality destroys!!!
Case in point: this O.P..
Two lives are now destroyed because of the SIN of Homosexuality!
READ:
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. --Lev. 18
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. --Lev. 20
This abomination causes destruction everywhere it goes!
Stop this abomination now!
Repent! And follow GOD.
Are you seriously saying that the murder of Lawrence King was justifiable by Scripture?
__________________
"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." -Jesus
Are you seriously saying that the murder of Lawrence King was justifiable by Scripture?
Face it Polycarp -- some people just have no compassion. And seem quite proud of that fact.
__________________ "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other." Galations 5:15
"...a vice does not lose its nature, though it becomes ever so fashionable" -John Wesley
"To study too much in retreat can become an inexcusable indulgence. It behooves us to share what we have learned, to practice in administering to others what we have gathered from our experience with books" -the Brother Superior of the Glauxian Brothers of the Northern Kingdoms
What dreamworld are you living in? Preparation is premeditation, which could lead to a death sentence. "Spur of the moment" or "crime of passion" is second degree murder and carries a lesser penalty in every jurisdiction in the free world.
Whoops, I meant that the other way around.
No, it is measuring intent. "Hate crime" legislation asks a jury to punish someone for their personal prejudices. Prejudices are abhorrent, but not illegal in and of themselves.
No, it doesn't. It's asks a jury to alter punishment based on motivation, which is already done.
If I have a personal prejudice against the man who sleeps with my wife, and I plan to beat him up, make preparations to beat him up, and then beat him up, I will be punished for the intent to which my emotions led me, not for the emotions themselves.
OK, so emotion leads to intent, and intent leads to the action. It's OK to punish for action and intention, but not emotion. I completely agree. But you are misrepresenting the issue when it comes to hate crime legislation. No-one can be punished for hating a group of people, and no one is advocating that. But if that emotion leads to a certain intent that intent can legitimately alter the punishment.
You're arguing against a straw man.
If I have a personal prejudice against my Islamic neighbor, and I beat him up on the spur of the moment, I will be punished, under hate crime legislation, more severely for a spontaneous act than I am for the other circumstance which was premeditated.
No, you won't. If you attack him because he's a Muslim, then yes. But not if you just don't like him as an individual. And you're assuming that the additional punishment for a crime being a hate crime is going to be bigger than the addition for premeditation. Not only is what you're saying inaccurate, where it is accurate it's a complete caricature.
Emotions are mitigating circumstances, they are the basis for motive. They are not crimes in an of themselves in any other circumstance, but "hate crime" riders make them crimes. Regardless of what "political correctness" says, that's ridiculous.
Ah yes, a snide remark about 'political correctness'...the perfect way to end any strawman argument.
Surely protecting the public is one of the major factors of imprisonment, if not the single most important one. If someone attacks the man who is sleeping with his wife, he's not as much of a danger as someone attacks someone solely because they have a trait that is shared by many other people in society.
Unless of course his wife is sleeping with a significant sector of the population, that is.
Linear Mode
