Date: 1/19/2004 3:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 62222
Well, for the sake of argument, what crimes are considered "Love Crimes". I mean, I don't know about you but I feel there is a certain amount of malice and loathing behind all crimes....<RegretfulHalo>  |
Date: 1/19/2004 3:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
That is the point.  |
Date: 1/19/2004 3:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 14464
I didn't go read that link, but I don't think there shoudl be a hate crime. If it is already punishable I don't see the need for it. Plus how can you know that someone did what they did because of the persons religion or race or whatever.  |
|
Date: 1/19/2004 4:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 62222
Hmmm...I don't know..Is it right to punish someone for their feelings and thoughts? I don't like broccoli, that doesn't mean I deserve to be imprisioned for it. I also hate snakes, does this mean I have to watch what I say in certain neighborhoods? No, because these things aren't people. I would like to say that you should be able to chastise people for biogtry, but I can't bring myself to say that people should be punished for their feelings. It's actions that should condemn us, not our feelings or thoughts. I don't think that people who are racially motivated to commit a crime should be punished more severely than someone who was casually inspired, as in the random mugger/slasher. Regardless of the motivation, a victim is created and their pain is no more or less because of their race. To me it seems to say that by punishing people more for commiting racial crimes that we agree that their victims suffer more loss or more indignity, and I can't agree with that. <RegretfulHalo> |
|
Date: 1/19/2004 4:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 62222
So no, I don't think they should be such labels as "hate crimes"...<RH> |
Date: 1/19/2004 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 55009
there isn't a such thing, all crimes are hate crimes, crime happens because of jealousy or greed, all roots of hatred in one form or another, they don't call it a hate crime if a bunch of "alternative lifestylists" beat up a heterosexual but if it is the other way hate is written all over it, same if a bunch of african americans jump a white person; it isn't a hate crime, just a normal crime. it makes no sense to even have them unless all crime is put in that one catagory. and all crimes should be treated the same, that is if they are some how similar such as a beat down should be treated the same reguardless of who was involved.  |
Date: 1/19/2004 4:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
No, there should be no classification as a "Hate crime"  |
Date: 1/19/2004 5:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 19220
I pretty much think any crime could be called a "hate crime". We may not like what people think and believe but they do have the right to think and believe that way, that is something they can't be punished for. I understand that some people only commit a crime against someone because of how they believe or what they look like or whatever but you can only punish the crime and/or the intent to do the crime.  |
Date: 1/19/2004 5:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I didn't go to your link.....so in a word "No".  |
Date: 1/19/2004 6:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 21435
"Buy the ticket...take the ride." I think that if a person commits a "crime," then they should be ready to face the consequences, regardless of race, religion, origin or color of the victim "or" the person that commits the crime. Drop the "hate," a crime is a crime. Write on, Dizzy Me.  |
Date: 1/19/2004 6:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
Well, "Hate Crimes" hold more punnishment if someone is convicted... I like to think that the motivation for the the hate crimes act is that if not for the "Hate" involved, the crime would not happen... If someone is assaulted due to their race, for instance, if the racial hate wasnt there, would that person be assaulted at all? I don't think so... Anger as a result of a specific incident that results in a crime is one thing, but to commit a crime against a person with anger that stems from hate for anything that they have no controll over, ie. race, deserves more of a punnishment, the intent being to prevent the crime in the first place...  |
Date: 1/19/2004 7:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
No. Hate crime laws are stupid and redundant. Those responsible for judging somebody else's intent are fooling themselves --one cannot know the heart of another.  |
Date: 1/19/2004 8:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 50193
I don't think the motive should come in to play at all, personally.  |
Date: 1/19/2004 9:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 19460
You know I always kinda thought that the term "Hate Crime" was stupid. why point out the fact that hate was involved? We can already assume that the accused person had some sort of hate inside of them, for one reason or another, in order to do the crime. I think the whole "hate crime" term is used becuase of all of these different groups of people (gays, minorities, ect.) keep pushing to make people notice their rights. I think it is a way for the Gov't to say OK we notice that this person did a crime against this other person becuase of their color, religion, sex, ect. Did that make any sense?  |
Date: 1/20/2004 3:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
What few people realize about the prosecution of any crime under Federal statutes is that the time given is served day for day, with no possibility of early release. Most often, hate crimes statutes are used when there is a possibility of plea bargaining to a lesser count, or the possiblity that state level courts will not give the maximum punishment for a crime, or the person may recieve an early release due to overcrowding of prisons. Hate crimes are also harder to prove, which is one reason hate crimes are not as often tried. I can think of several crimes in the past 5 years which gained national attention that could have been tried as hate crimes, but were not tired as such because in each case the states that tried them did so as capital crimes, with only two outcomes possible, either the death penalty or life without parole. Hate drimes statutes do have their place, especially in a day and age when we are seeing courts hand down more leinient sentences, and many prison systems giving early releases due to overcrowding.  |
Date: 1/20/2004 7:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 47162
So if someone kills a person because of their skin color, they will get a extra dose of voltage in the electric chair? I mean the whole thing just seems stupid. All crimes are out of hate. How do you punish someone more who murdered say for race as opposed to someone who murdered for money? The end punishment in many states would be death. So I really don't see the distinction, or how having another distinction will really make the punishment any more different.  |
|
Date: 1/20/2004 4:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
R1, it is rare that you see a capital murder tried as a hate crime, since such crimes already carry maximum penalties. The only way you may see them tries as such is if they were comitted where only the federal courts had jurisdiction. Now, if a group of skinheads go out and beat a destitute black man in the streets, but do not kill him, then they may well be tried under hate crime laws. The reason being is that under most state statutes they may only be tried for felony assualt, and could well be back on the streets in a matter of months, if they are imprisoned at all. By trying them under federal hate crime statutes, you guarantee that they are off the streets for a set period of time, with no possibility of early release. Hare crime statutes are not used as regurally as some people believe. There was a case here in Alabama where the statutes could have well been used, but they were not because the state opted for a capital trial. Both perps in the case recieved the death penalty. In the DC sniper case, both defendents could have possibly been tried under hate crime statutes, but there was no need to, since three different states have the opportunity to try them on capital crimes. Virginia opted to sentence one to life in prison, but now Alabama is asking for their chance to try Malvo, because it is strongly felt that he will recieve the death penalty here. That means there is no need to try him on hate crimes statutes. Nothing would be further gained by doing such. These laws do have their place, as long as they are used wisely, and only in cases where circumstances truly warrant it, and where by trying them under regular statutes they could get off with the minimum of punishment. |
Date: 1/20/2004 5:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 43807
love crime, they are called -Crime of passion-  |
Date: 1/20/2004 9:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 6860
Yup Froggy Baby it made sense, because I agree with you. Besides crimes of self-defense, all crimes could be considered hate crimes.  |
Date: 1/20/2004 9:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
I think that a violent act done against another person or that persons belongings, simply on the basis of that persons ideology or race should be punishable as a hate crime, and carry a punishment that is above and beyond what would normally be administered. Bigotry is certainly allowable in the mind or even in the privacy of a home, but NOT as a motivation for violence. Love and Light  |
|
Date: 1/20/2004 9:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
No, not all crimes are hate crimes. There could be crime commiteed for greed, jealousy, injured pride, any number of things. But, I believe a hate crime is not so much a crime against the person but against what that person believes in. Love and Light |
Date: 1/20/2004 9:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
I believe some people are motivated by race or sexual preference. Sure these are "hate crimes" already covered by law. But any wretch who kills motivated by those reasons alone needs "special" laws in my opinion. I remember that one of Peggy's murderers said, "yeah, we killed that white girl". So yes, maybe her murder was racially motivated, maybe not, it was a "hate crime" regardless. The murderers were convicted of murder regardless, and she is still just as dead. But yeah, there are "hate crimes" and when needed, they should be prosecuted as such, simply to add to the laws against others.  |
Date: 1/21/2004 5:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 38474
NO, a murder is a murder in my opinion....  |
|
Date: 1/21/2004 5:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
If a murder was just a murder, there would not be First Degree, Second Degree, etc. Motive is what separates the degree and intent, I think. Love and Light |
|
Date: 1/21/2004 6:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 38474
Lightworker, in the criminal justice system you are correct, BUT in my opinion a murder is a murder. THAT is what I stated in my last reply. Hate crime laws are ineffective legislation. For example if anyone honestly thinks a person who hates african americans and decides to go on a killing spree against them is going to think twice about doing it just because it might be considered a "hate crime" and they might get a stiffer sentence, then they are sadly mistaken. If a person has that much hatred towards a different ethnic group then a law isn't make going to stop them from doing what they are going to do...... |
|
Date: 1/21/2004 6:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 38474
The reasons for the different degrees of murder also includes provacation. Motive and intent are not the only things that separates the degrees. |
|
Date: 1/21/2004 6:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 38474
*provocation not provacation. |
|
Date: 1/21/2004 6:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Even though I have read several things that are supposed to support the idea of hate crimes being more harshly punished, I just do not understand it. From my studies it seems as though it is just another way to make things more complicated. Here is an example. Lets say I kill my professor. Does it make a difference if I kill him because he is Asian? Is that really any worse than me killing him because I think he is a jerk? Why should there be that separation? |
|
Date: 1/21/2004 6:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Dizzy Me, as I stated,it is extremely rare that murder is tried as a hate crime, especially if it is considered a capital crime. Before hate crime laws, if young Joseph Skinhead went out and burned down a synagogue, he would face a state arson charge, and if he feigned repentence in front of the jude and jury, could get off with the minimum of sentences, and be back on the street in a few years, with parole and time off for good behavior, to do the same crime all over. Under hate crime laws, he is tried under federal statutes, which dictate that he will serve his entire sentence, with no parole or early release. Maybe by the time he is finally released, he will be old enough and wise enough to know if he does it again, he will liekly rot in prison. Where before he amy only do 3 or 4 years, now he could end up facing 15 to 20 or more. Personally, I would rather see him do the longer term. |
|
Date: 1/21/2004 8:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
Nightmare, you are right in that provocation does measure in, especially for motivation. If you rape and hurt/kill my child, I will surely have been provoked and may feel I have a motivation to murder a person. But, as has been said, it is not in "murder" that a hate crime changes the sentence so much. You can only execute a person once, or put them in prison for only one life. But, in situations other than murder, a hate crime is really a type of terrorism that is over and above stealing, etc. And I feel that that has to be punished for its own merits or dismerits, I should say. Love and Light |
Date: 1/22/2004 4:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 55009
to what you said Lightworker about if someone raped/killed your child, i agree i would probably feel anger and the wanting to kill the person who did it but if you get them you could drag out their death so they may die only once but doing it slowly may seem get your vengence level down then again you would be in prison for it unless you go to another questionable legal plea which insanity, claiming the loss of your child took you into a rage so great you lost control of your self didn't know what you where doing, but anyways... this is a great post, keep it up  |
Date: 1/25/2004 11:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
I think the term 'Hate Crime' is all about motive, crimes that otherwise would not have been committed if the victim hadnt been a particular race, gender, etc. That is why the term 'Hate Crime' exists - to separate the motive from the other crimes. If you asked a member of the KKK (random example) why they killed a black man, they would say 'because he was black'. Not all crimes are committed out of hate...IMO anyway.  |
