Homosexuality + Hate Crimes

[Bogart]

The difference as I see it between killing in general, however random, and killing under hate crime laws, is a recognition that certain groups have historically been targeted at a higher rate that the general population. It's not that the killing itself is any more wrong, but in most cases the victims find themselves victimized for no other reason than they are percieved, or known, to be part of a group that is despised by the killer(s) rather than as a result of anything they have done which is used by the killer as justification for his or her actions.

[??????????]

Depending upon the circumstances, a good lawyer could probably get you manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility (or whatever the US equivalent is), especially if you actually caught them at it, as given the circumstances, its reasonable that you'd be rather irate and therefore not fully responsible for your actions.

A good lawyer can get diminished responsibility for loads of stuff: I remember reading about a man who killed his wife with a hammer... but got manslaughter on diminished responsibility on the grounds that his wife nagged him too much...

A few years ago an irate husband cut his wifes head off and put hit on the hood of his car for sleeping around. I believe he got locked up for life in a nut house.

[John Dibble]

The difference as I see it between killing in general, however random, and killing under hate crime laws, is a recognition that certain groups have historically been targeted at a higher rate that the general population. It's not that the killing itself is any more wrong, but in most cases the victims find themselves victimized for no other reason than they are percieved, or known, to be part of a group that is despised by the killer(s) rather than as a result of anything they have done which is used by the killer as justification for his or her actions.

And that's somehow justification for greater punishment? That's almost like saying that they are 'better'. It's similar logic to punishment of old - you'd get far less punishment for killing a black man than a white man. Such laws just reverse the situation - it's discrimination, plain and simple.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Killing anyone you should go to jail.. No matter what they did.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe he got locked up for life in a nut house.

I wonder why ;-)

[English]

Yes.
Killing someone because of their religion, sexuality or skin colour is worse than killing someone due to a crime of passion or mutual dissagreement.
The former are random and otherwise motiveless, the latter are not.

[John Dibble]

Yes.
Killing someone because of their religion, sexuality or skin colour is worse than killing someone due to a crime of passion or mutual dissagreement.
The former are random and otherwise motiveless, the latter are not.

Yes premeditated probably should be considered worse than a crime of passion, however, with hate crime legislation you get unequal punishement for premedidated murders. A person who kills someone because the victim was black, jewish, gay, or whatever will get a heaver punishment than a person who kills someone because he wants his car - both are premeditated and non-random, so why should one get a heavier punishment than the other?

[English]

Well, the person murdered because they're black, gay or jewish was murdered specifically because of a fluke of birth or part of their genetic make-up. There's not exactly much they could've done about it.

A person murdered in a botched robbery or carjacking was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The intention was robbery, not specifically murder.

[Storebought]

Well, the person murdered because they're black, gay or jewish was murdered specifically because of a fluke of birth or part of their genetic make-up. There's not exactly much they could've done about it.

A person murdered in a botched robbery or carjacking was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The intention was robbery, not specifically murder.

I'd like to see you try to tell that to the wife or girlfriend or husband of the person who was just murdered "at the wrong place at the wrong time."

[John Dibble]

Well, the person murdered because they're black, gay or jewish was murdered specifically because of a fluke of birth or part of their genetic make-up. There's not exactly much they could've done about it.

A person murdered in a botched robbery or carjacking was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The intention was robbery, not specifically murder.

And what if a person was murdered intentionally, premeditated, for greed or other reasons? How is that different from a rascist murder? Your logic is the same as the old logic used that says killing a white man would be a more serious offense than killing a black man, only applied in reverse.

A premeditated murder is a premeditated murder, rascist or not. Who the victim was shouldn't really matter - it's the crime itself that matters.

Also, let's get into another topic - hate crime abuse. What if a white man kills a black man for his money, but the prosecution claims it was because the man was black as well, even if that isn't the case? He gets a greater punishment than someone who killed someone of the same race for the same reasons!

[Bogart]

Keep in mind, that hate crime laws merely include as aggravating factors such things as race, religion and the like. They do not create separate and, as several of you wrongly suggest, another class of crime.  It is very much like giving the robber who commits battery in the course of a robbery a stricter sentence than the robber who simply commits the crime absent of the battery. 

[John Dibble]

Keep in mind, that hate crime laws merely include as aggravating factors such things as race, religion and the like. They do not create separate and, as several of you wrongly suggest, another class of crime.  It is very much like giving the robber who commits battery in the course of a robbery a stricter sentence than the robber who simply commits the crime absent of the battery. 

I'm not suggesting it creates a seperate crime, just that as things stand these 'aggravating factors' are discriminatory and create greater punishments for the same type of crime. Murder is murder - how is a murder commited in racism worse than a murder commited in greed? To me they are exactly the same - someone is dead, their family suffering because of it, and there is a criminal to be punished. Anyone who would commit murder with a cool head is equally dangerous, I don't care what their reason is.

[Bogart]

And that's fine, but by your logic we should do away with all aggravators. This should not be viewed as a black/white issue. It should be viewed as merely an effective prosecutorial tool. For example, if we were to get rid of an aggravator such as murder committed in the course of a robbery, which would you prosecute? Consider that there may not be enough evidence to win conviction on the murder as a stand alone crime, but attempted murder as an aggravator to robbery it allows the criminal to be punished for both crimes.

[John Dibble]

And that's fine, but by your logic we should do away with all aggravators. This should not be viewed as a black/white issue. It should be viewed as merely an effective prosecutorial tool. For example, if we were to get rid of an aggravator such as murder committed in the course of a robbery, which would you prosecute? Consider that there may not be enough evidence to win conviction on the murder as a stand alone crime, but attempted murder as an aggravator to robbery it allows the criminal to be punished for both crimes.

I didn't say get rid of all aggravators, now did I? No. I said a premeditated murder commited in greed is no worse or better than a premeditated murder commited in racism.

Now, let's say a criminal enters a house while carrying a gun. The owner hears him enter, comes down, and the criminal shoots him. Now, we don't know whether or not he intended to murder the inhabitant or not as part of the initial plan, and as a criminal we can not trust his word on the matter. Let's also say we have enough evidence to prove that he entered the house to rob it and, intentional or not, that he was the one that shot the victim - you scenario does not deny either of these. Fact is, he entered the house with a weapon - which is a device meant to kill - which proves to me that he was willing to use force to achieve his ends from the start. In other words, he intended to use the weapon in an illegal manner - it was clear enough that he was willing to kill the inhabitant, whether that intent was if confronted or not is irrelevant. Intent is the same as the deed. Therefore, I would have absolutely no problem convicting him of both the crime of burglary and the crime of murder. By that same logic, any criminal using a gun against someone, by actual use or implication of willingness to use, should be charged with attempted murder, which to me is the same as successful murder and should receive the same punishment.

[Bogart]

I didn't say get rid of all aggravators, now did I? No. I said a premeditated murder commited in greed is no worse or better than a premeditated murder commited in racism.

Now, let's say a criminal enters a house while carrying a gun. The owner hears him enter, comes down, and the criminal shoots him. Now, we don't know whether or not he intended to murder the inhabitant or not as part of the initial plan, and as a criminal we can not trust his word on the matter. Let's also say we have enough evidence to prove that he entered the house to rob it and, intentional or not, that he was the one that shot the victim - you scenario does not deny either of these. Fact is, he entered the house with a weapon - which is a device meant to kill - which proves to me that he was willing to use force to achieve his ends from the start. In other words, he intended to use the weapon in an illegal manner - it was clear enough that he was willing to kill the inhabitant, whether that intent was if confronted or not is irrelevant. Intent is the same as the deed. Therefore, I would have absolutely no problem convicting him of both the crime of burglary and the crime of murder. By that same logic, any criminal using a gun against someone, by actual use or implication of willingness to use, should be charged with attempted murder, which to me is the same as successful murder and should receive the same punishment.

I don't think that everyone who carries a weapon in the course of committing another crime should be charged with attempted murder. I think you'd have a hard time getting a conviction. Even so, the logical conclusion of your previous post seemed to lead towards ending all aggravators, since they alter the punishment a convicted criminal will get with respect to a particular crime. My only point with respect to the murder/robbery scenario is to point out that one may draw a tougher penalty for murdering someone--intentional and premeditated or not--if doing so in the course of committing another felony. Intent is not the same as deed, as evidence by murder, manslaughter and attempted murder charges.

We prohibit law enforcement from profiling, but allow criminals to do so by not having hate crime penalties. One could make a good argument that a certain type of car being driven in a certain neighborhood by a certain type of person carries a statistical likelihood of being stolen.  We don't allow this likelihood to establish probable cause, however. Why? Because it risks being discriminatory.  This is what the gay basher is doing--profiling.

[John Dibble]

1. Intent is the same as the deed. I don't care what the courts charge - if someone tries to kill you, but is unsuccessful in doing so, how is that different than if they didn't succeed? Please, do tell. As far as I'm concerned, attempted murder should be punished the same as murder - call the two different, but they are ultimately the same thing. Punishment shouldn't hinge on whether the criminal was successful or not.

Severe punishment for armed robbery would likely decrease the occurence of armed robbery, now wouldn't it?

2. So, we shouldn't punish people for two crimes when they commit two crimes? We should only punish them for one?

3. We prohibit law enforcement officials from profiling - but they do it anyways. Why do you think the majority of convicted drug offenders are black, but the majority of drug users are white? Should they? No. What you are saying though is that citizens shouldn't be allowed to hate. As I said, I don't give a damn whether you commit murder for a hateful, racist reason or for money - they are both equally foul, and show that the criminal does not respect life. I don't see why one has to be punished any less than the other - they should both be severely punished. Self-defense or defense of another is about the only valid reason to kill someone - virtually anything outside of that is equally wrong.

Greed and racism are both equally stupid reasons to kill, in my opinion - haven't I made that clear? I see no reason to differentiate between the two.

[Bogart]

1. Intent is the same as the deed. I don't care what the courts charge - if someone tries to kill you, but is unsuccessful in doing so, how is that different than if they didn't succeed? Please, do tell. As far as I'm concerned, attempted murder should be punished the same as murder - call the two different, but they are ultimately the same thing. Punishment shouldn't hinge on whether the criminal was successful or not.

They are different in the sense that in one instance you are dead and the other you are not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Punishments are notoriously poor deterrents to crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if you have enough evidence. Very often this is not the case and aggravators such as hate crime aggravators allow for the sentence to be toughened to match the dual nature of the crimes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the point you're forgetting is that very often criminals get off with very light sentences because the evidence doesn't support a harsher sentence. Aggravators can compensate for this.

In an ideal world--the world many libertarians live in--we would always bring cases before juries that are cut and dried, where the facts are fully supported by the available evidence. But, in the real world of criminal justice, hate crime laws, like other aggravators, can be an effective prosecutorial tool.

[John Dibble]

1. Ok. Let's say someone tries to kill me. I manage to keep them from killing me. I'm alive - that's a difference as far as *I* am concerned, but the criminal wanted me dead - how does his failure change his guilt? He still showed that he was willing to commit the act, the only difference on his part being that he failed when he tried.

2. Tell that to the middle east - they have little domestic crime, and they're punishments are overly severe. Punishments are good detterents when they are consistent and are actually carried out. I advocate real punishment for violent criminals, I advocate advertising how harse that punishment will be, and I advocate not releasing violent criminals early.

3. So let me get this straight. We know someone broke into someone's house, while armed with a weapon, and we know that they shot the owner of the house. We know this conclusively. So, what you are saying is that 'was it for robbery' is what's actually in question, correct?

Well, if we knew they killed the person, we should still investigate whether it was a robbery or not so we can properly charge with both crimes. Never did I say we shouldn't investigate motive, because in carrying out a murder one can still commit other crimes. The killer would definitely be charged with murder - pending the results of the investigation, he would be charged with breaking and entering or robbery as well.

And let's be serious, the punishment for robbery is a slap on the wrist. I'm an advocate for life imprisonment for murderers, so if they don't get life getting extra charges gives them extra time.

4. Light sentences - this is a different issue entirely, and as above, I support heavy sentences on violent criminals. But think about it - if the evidence isn't enough to support a harsh sentence, you might be giving a harsher sentence to an innocent man, no? Hate crime aggravators give extra punishment for hate - that's a bit ridiculous to me, punishing an emotion. To boot, you forget that a white man killing a black man in an almost similar situation to a white man killing a white man could get harsher punishment, even if racism wasn't really a factor! Hate crime laws are a recipe for abuse!

The justice system should be strict, but reasonable and fair. Evidence should be considered, as well as motive. Once motive has been determined, it can be determined whether it was premeditated or not. Once that is determined, use the level of evidence to decide punishment. Aggravators can be used to determine help determine motive, but they shouldn't be used to determine punishment.

[Bogart]

1. Ok. Let's say someone tries to kill me. I manage to keep them from killing me. I'm alive - that's a difference as far as *I* am concerned, but the criminal wanted me dead - how does his failure change his guilt? He still showed that he was willing to commit the act, the only difference on his part being that he failed when he tried.

A key difference in my opinion. That is why we have murder and attempted murder--as is must be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why is recitivism such a problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. What I am saying, is that we may not have enough evidence. We may not know the facts conclusively. You are dreaming up a perfect scenario. It is rarely so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, we very often don't know and can't prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so do aggravators.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly, you advocate punishing motive in the first paragraph, but seem against punishing motive here--though you call it emotion here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it should be strict but fair. Unfortunately, it is not. If it were fair, I would not have to worry that a jury would find my attacker not guilty because they figure the homo probably had it coming.

[John Dibble]

1. In my opinion, there's no difference on the criminal's part outside of success or failure. Attempted murder can be a charge, that's fine, but the punishment should be the same as a successful one.

If somone tried to kill your wife or kids, or someone else who is very precious to you, you might feel differently. Recently a woman ran over some kids for accidentally bouncing a golf-ball into her SUV - they survived, but her intent was to kill. Aside from the fact that she probably has mental health problems, if someone tries to run over some kids on purpose I wouldn't care if they succeeded or not - they would be punished just the same.

2. Recitivism isn't in the dictionary - care to define it for me?

3. Well, as I said, we should still base punishment on evidence. However, I don't see how aggravators really play into it. If you don't have the evidence for reasonable doubt, how is it reasonable to add a charge? Seems an emotional position to me.

4. I do not lump motive with intent.

Intent - to commit murder
Motive - racism or greed

The two are not the same. One is actually a crime - intent to commit murder is prosecuteable. Being a racist or being greedy isn't. Hating someone for sleeping with your wife isn't a crime. Now, as I said, motive should be used to determine if something was premeditated, but it shouldn't be what is punished.

And I think your fear is unfounded. This is the modern age - even people who disagree with homosexuality don't advocate killing homosexuals, outside of a rare few, who likely wouldn't be put on a jury. Besides, if the jury would aquit your attacker for the reason you gave, what makes you think they would convict him on the hate crime? If you really are that afraid, buy a gun - administer justice when the bastard tries to take the life that rightfully belongs to you.

[Bogart]

Don't have time to respond right now. I'm going out. Sorry, I spelled it wrong. Here is the information.

re·cid·i·vism (r-sd-vzm)
n.

A tendency to lapse into a previous pattern of behavior, especially a pattern of criminal habits.
The relapse of a disease or symptom. Also called recidivation.

[John Dibble]

Don't have time to respond right now. I'm going out. Sorry, I spelled it wrong. Here is the information.

re·cid·i·vism (r-sd-vzm)
n.

A tendency to lapse into a previous pattern of behavior, especially a pattern of criminal habits.
The relapse of a disease or symptom. Also called recidivation.

Ah. Ok. Well, I'm not against reform, but reform can be accompanied by punishment - usually in the form of hard work. In the case of murderers, usually reform isn't possible. Like I said, usually I'm for life imprisonment in those cases.

[senatortombstone]

What if someone spray painted a star of David on a synagouge?