My “behavior”? Jesus, you make it sound like I was insulting people. :rolleyes:
Wow, the rolleyes are back. Here’s one for you.:rolleyes:
This ignore feature is handy.
No, there is a difference; an important one. If someone burns down your house or beats you up because they are out to get you, personally, hopefully once they are stopped the problem is stopped. If someone if attacking you out of bigotry, then there will be legions of like minded bigots just waiting to step in and finish the job if they think they can get away with it. In such cases, it’s more than just an isolated incident.
Neither are extra penalties for attacking people due to bigotry. Calling something a “thought crime” when there are actual flesh and blood victims seems to contradict the basic concept of “thought crime”; a “crime” where there are no victims besides “wrong” thoughts. Making a game or a book or a speech illegal just because you don’t like them; that’s generally* thought crime. But once there are real victims, it isn’t.
- there’s a gray area where free speech crosses into incitement to commit acts
I think the “hate crime” thing is more relevant when it comes to “little” crimes than the exaggerated examples people always quote: I can see an argument that murder is murder, but "Niggers are monkeys. Go away! " painted on someone’s door is different than randomly splashing paint on someone’s door. There’s no way that the law should look at the two acts as the same. The former is a threat because it connects back to a larger pattern of racial violence, and because it isn’t just aimed at the person whose door is being painted–it’s meant to send a message to any black people, say, who wanted to move into the neighborhood.
While I agree with you here, I wonder if there’s a distinction between expression of ideas, and depiction or vicarious experience. Whether something like a rape game goes beyond “speech” into something else. Where you draw the line between expression and action.
And if banning something like this Japanese rape game is not justified, would it be justified to ban a game based on raping or having sex with children? or on raping some particular women (say, a game in which you were vicariously raping Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin)? Should such things be banned? If so, on what grounds; but if not, what’s to prevent us becoming a society in which such things are seen as acceptable? I don’t know the answers to these questions.
This. I used to be of the “hate crime laws=thought police” camp. It is the sending of a message to the hated group that these laws are directed at, not the hating. When a homosexual is drug behind a truck, then hung over a fence to die with a sign that says “this is what happens to fags” it is a murder directed at one individual, AND terrorism directed at many.
I wish they would call them domestic terrorism instead of hate crimes, and prosecute it as a separate charge. Calling the same act a hate crime in one instance, and a plain ol’ killin’ in another inevitably leads to confusion. On second thought, that would just confuse the “terrorist can’t be a white Christian” crowd.
Emphasis mine.
Thought crime!
Wow, I had exactly the same experience and probably with the exact same Facebook group. One of my friends was encouraging everyone to join the group* Petition To Remove Group “Soldiers Are Not Heroes” INVITE ENTIRE FRIENDS*. I tried to enter into a dialogue with him about whether it made sense to try to ban the group, and instead of responding to me directly, he quoted from my private mail and posted a response about all kinds of “helping people in need” kind of stuff. I tried to get him to respond to me directly, but I gave up after a few tries.
I’m okay with “hate crime” being an aggravating factor in sentencing. The effect is not simply to victimize one person but to terrorize an entire group and the state has a compelling interest to discourage such behaviour.
Physically. With her large, mannish frame, preferably tilting on one leg.
I dont’ know how I feel about that. I’m not sure I really understand the underlying reasoning for it.
That’s not accurate. I think motive should be looked at. If I kill you to stop you from killing me, that’s a relevant motive, because it relates to whether I actually committed a crime at all. If I kill you because I hate you for being gay, it’s not a relevant motive, apart from the fact that it rules out any possibility that I did not commit a crime.
I’m drawing the line at adding penalties to a crime because we are simply offended by a person’s reason for committing it. There has to be something more than our sensibilities at stake.
Gosh, I lost my membership in the club because I don’t adhere to what you think the rules for the club are?
Ummm… no.
Well, there is… There’s plenty of historical precedent that some members of a society will gladly (indeed, cheerfully) victimize their fellow citizens if there is some easily-slapped-on label than can apply and they can get some degree of official or social sanction for their actions. In a civilized state that pays more than lip service to the notion of equal protection, there’s a strong interest in actively discouraging the targeting of groups, namely that these groups (who suffer a few random victimizations among their members) begin striking back (with a few random victimizations of the group they perceive is attacking them).
Slapping an extra five years on a murder sentence because the intent was not just to kill a guy but specifically kill a black guy to remind blacks of their place, does not strike me as an expression of my moral outrage or offended sensibilities. Rather, it’s to discourage the logical outcome of this sort of thing - blacks randomly killing nonblacks to prove an equally troglodyte point about retaliation, and the escalation that follows. How many stories of violent personal revenge (i.e. commited in response to something a specific person did to you, directed against that specific person) do we hear every year? It’s fairly rare, isn’t it? Compare that to the number of impersonal revenge crimes (i.e. committed in response to something that didn’t happen to you, but in fact happened to someone one has something in common with, be it a race or religion, and directed not against the person who committed the original crime, but against someone conveniently at hand who has something in common, i.e. race or religion, with the suspected criminal). I don’t have any statistics at hand, but would it be fair to say that the latter case is more likely to spread than the former?
We can disagree about hate crime legislation, but there are reasons for supporting it that are not as fluffy and vague as you describe.
I don’t know why this particular law was passed. Most of these types of laws get passed because someone does something that was so shocking or outrageous or offensive that people start clamoring for a new law.
In the OP, you said “The minute you start layering on special punishments because of someone’s motives, you are into thought police territory and I hate that shit with a passion.” Now you are saying motive should be looked at. So, basically you’ve conceded that your original objections to hate crimes was BS, and now you are casting about for some other distinction.
Let’s leave out self-defense, because, well it’s a defense. So, now instead of just objecting to “motives” you’ve moved to being okay with looking at “relevant motives.” I am completely unable to discern that you have any logical or consistent reason for choosing which motives are relevant and which aren’t. It seems to boil down to your personal preference. Some people have different preferences. If they are hypocrites for having different preferences, then so are you.
This is what I find utterly obnoxious. There is a long history of serious racial violence in this country. This racial violence has happened withing living memory of many people. Those of us who have witnessed what happens when racial violence breaks out and spreads aren’t advocating for hate crimes legislation because someone offended our “sensibilities.” For you to equate real human suffering and widespread property destruction with “liberal bullshit” shows that you have a disgusting and immoral callousness to people who are victims of racial violence. If you had wanted to advocated against hate crimes, you certainly could have done so without disgustingly trying to minimize the real tragedies that many people have gone through by labeling them “liberal bullshit.”
I don’t care which club you want to belong to. Trying to minimize the suffering of real victims by labeling it “liberal bullshit” is disgusting and morally depraved. If you want to argue against hate crimes, fine, but do it without being nasty and callous about it.
I had trouble following your post, frankly, and I’m sure the failure is mine. But if I did grok what you are saying, it seems to be at least partly what others have said, that the reason hate crimes are “worse” is because they set an example for others to follow and/or provoke a similar response from other members of the hated target group, and therefore rate a “bonus” punishment meant to discourage the repetition/reaction to the crime?
I’m going to have to stew on this, rather than react. I can’t spend the time right now. But my basic reaction is that it’s quite a stretch. The 1969 federal civil rights law that protected people from ciolence and intimidation was specifically directed at such acts occurring against people who were attempting to exercise their rights as citizens, i.e. voting, going to school. THAT makes sense. But the idea that any crim committed against anyone because of their race/orientation/religion rates as the same kind of crime just doesn’t wash. The people who beat Matthew Shepard to death did so because they had big gay-hate, but it wasn’t part of an organized movement against all gay people, it was just some assholes.
My use of the word “motive” at that point was casual and unconsidered. Now that we are deep into the parsing part of our show, I’m making finer distinctions.
You are evidently very emotionally invested in this topic. I have no idea why, and I won’t speculate.
However, you also have absolutely no idea where I’m coming from, either. Seriously… if you had the slightest clue about my life experience, you would never dream of saying any of the above. (It’s also kinda bad form to get so personal about it, but again, your investment is apparent, so I’m not going to obsess about it from that angle.)
Therefore, I am going to simply leave it alone and wish you a good and peaceful day.
And this isn’t making it personal? How come you’re not in bad form? You keep doing in this thread what you accuse others of. This is simply an attempt to not respond to the arguments at hand.
Oh, please. I’m calling you out on your statements which indicate a certain callousness. If you don’t want to get called on those statements, then don’t make them.
Ok.
Since we are digressing, I thought I’d ask a question.
There are perhaps several crimes where the perpetuation of a particular crime, for a particular reason, instigates, facilitates, provokes, or inspires others to commit the same crime, for the same reason. Would you also advocate for the possibility of imposing additional penalties in such situations?
I’m glad I said something worth considering, and I’ll cheerfully admit that it may not have been expressed in the most articulate way, but I’d like to add this little extra nugget:
We dislike collective punishments. That is to say, the Geneva Convention specifically prohibits them (if that can be accepted as an authority on the matter) and describes them as a war crime. It is not acceptable to punish someone simply for being conveniently close at hand and who may have some vague ethnic or cultural commonality with the people we suspect of committing a crime. This has always been very tempting - to burn a nearby village full of [insert ethnic group here] in retaliation for something someone of [insert ethnic group here] did, but who we can’t catch without going to some inconvenient effort. The killers of Matthew Shepherd operated in a social circle where homosexuals are inherently and collectively guilty of crimes against God and society, and since society won’t act, it was very tempting and convenient to make Shepherd himself a proxy victim. Arguably, the killers were engaged (at least in part) in vigilante collective punishment; doing on the small scale what they felt society should be doing (and indeed many societies still do) - punishing homosexuals - if only society wasn’t full of bleeding hearts and liberals. It is very much in a civilized society’s interest to declare in no uncertain terms that this is not acceptable. One need only look at pictures of lynch mobs, smiling in their actualized self-righteousness while a hanging body sways, to know how recently this sort of thing occurred and how easily we could slip back in that direction.
Shepherd’s killers are not nearly as unusual as you imply. Get any group of people with some predilections, add alcohol, have them reinforce each other by repeatedly claiming that they’re doing what society should, if only society had the guts, and sooner or later someone will end up hanging on a fencepost.
Cracking down on this sort of thing, hard, is where a society can show that it does indeed have the guts.