Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
Roland00 Send a noteboard - 24/10/2009 05:02:27 AM
If it's just some drunk idiot that decides he wants to go beat up a gay man then he should be punished for being a drunken idiot. If he did it as a member of one of these hate groups though, then it should be treated differently. While the action may be the same, it seems the real goal of the legislation is to deter these groups, therefore why not make that a stipulation of the law for it to become a federal crime? The power of these hate groups have greatly diminished, and in this era of lightning fast news allegations of intimidation by hate groups are going to be brought to light swiftly.
There has to be evidence that the attacker has to be motivated due to race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Just because the victim is gay doesn't mean squat unless the attacker attacks the victim due to the fact and the prosecutor has evidence to bring a hate crime charge.
Regardless I don't see the difference you are trying to make. If a black women is targeted by a drunk man for she is black, it shouldn't matter in my mind if the man is alone, or he only attacks people when drunk.
And laws can have multiple reasons for existing, federal hate crimes law exist to break up hate groups AND to discourage crime AND to prevent "sympathetic" juries/prosecutors allowing denial of justice, by letting perpetrators walk free. It isn't one or the other it is all three.
There are a lot of those kinds of crimes, and those are only the ones that are reported. According to a couple criminal justice courses I took the real figure is probably double that, or more.
Sadly yes
Matthew Shepard act passed
- 23/10/2009 07:54:07 PM
778 Views
Meh
- 23/10/2009 08:06:22 PM
369 Views
I'm sure Orwell would be intrigued by his own prognosticative abilities.
- 24/10/2009 12:52:24 AM
378 Views
Didn't we already slice crimes by degree of intention (e.g., murder vs. manslaughter) pre-Orwell?
- 24/10/2009 05:23:56 AM
357 Views
How about DADT, or employment non discrimination, or federal benefits for civil unions/marriages?
- 24/10/2009 01:23:06 AM
360 Views
See..this is much more important than Hate Crime Legislation, and it actually accomplishes something *NM*
- 24/10/2009 01:52:31 AM
128 Views
Agreed, but
- 24/10/2009 02:12:11 AM
328 Views
I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
- 24/10/2009 02:22:46 AM
338 Views
I'm sure the law is not supposed to deter crime, but rather to ensure justice.
- 24/10/2009 03:49:58 AM
293 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
- 24/10/2009 04:07:52 AM
391 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
- 24/10/2009 04:51:43 AM
356 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
- 24/10/2009 05:02:27 AM
336 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
- 24/10/2009 05:27:35 AM
325 Views
So it's inherently worse for a gay man to get beaten up than a straight guy?
- 24/10/2009 03:45:43 AM
313 Views
Doesn't there have to be an indication ...
- 24/10/2009 04:33:49 AM
333 Views
Doesn't matter, Same crime, same punishment, with no extra preference given to anyone.
- 24/10/2009 04:48:22 AM
321 Views
All orientations are protected.
- 24/10/2009 05:17:55 AM
330 Views
yes and how many black men are sentenced for attacking white men?
- 24/10/2009 02:00:26 PM
304 Views
Minor point.
- 24/10/2009 04:46:25 PM
352 Views
well since almost everything he said turned out to be BS why not that too?
- 25/10/2009 02:36:25 PM
338 Views