03-04-2003 05:21									#61
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 Well you've created yourself a nice little world there, but it can work both ways you know.

Yeah, but it won't. How often do you hear a call for hate crime legislation when a black guy kills a white guy, or when a gay guy attacks a straight guy?

quote: And you can legally punish people for what they think when connected to a physical crime go to previous posts.

That's intent, not ideology. People aren't punished for what they believe. Even if a guy killed someone else simply because of race, the fact that it was racially motivated wouldn't matter. What would matter is that the killer premeditated the murder. He intended to kill him. That is how people are punished for what they think.

	03-04-2003 05:37									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It is intent as a hate crime is done not against an individual but a group, many times with the intent of terrorizing that group. For instance, a cross burned in a black man's yard is not only vandalism on that man's yard but a threat to the communities black people.

Plus, I happen to know people who have committed crimes against straight white people have been charged with hate crimes.

	03-04-2003 05:42									#63
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: It is intent as a hate crime is done not against an individual but a group, many times with the intent of terrorizing that group. For instance, a cross burned in a black man's yard is not only vandalism on that man's yard but a threat to the communities black people.

Yeah, but what is hate crime legislation INTENDED to do?

	03-04-2003 05:47									#64
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Well, I confess its obviously intended to keep the straight white man down.

	03-04-2003 05:49									#65
	Tired of ads?

I asked you a serious question, can you not give me a serious answer?

	03-04-2003 05:53									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I must admit that I am for the most part opposed to hate crime laws. Just as I said in the AA thread, things like hate crime laws just further divide humanity and help perpetuate an "us and them" mentality. I think the greatest way to help defeat the ignorance that is at the root of these crimes is to support socialism and socialist brotherhood.

	03-04-2003 05:55									#67
	Get a bigger avatar today!

To me you asked an obvious question. To punish an offense deemed worthy of punishing. But I assume you have another opinion?

	03-04-2003 05:59									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: To me you asked an obvious question. To punish an offense deemed worthy of punishing. But I assume you have another opinion?

So it is retributive to you?

The question isn't obvious at all! Not even close.

Most people have backed it to deter future conduct of that sort. Though, if it is for deterrance, it seems that simply finding the crime to be with intent (increasing the punishment) would suffice. Same with the incapacitation argument.

I wonder how many agree with you that hate crimes legislation is retributive.

	03-04-2003 06:00									#69
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I must admit that I am for the most part opposed to hate crime laws. Just as I said in the AA thread, things like hate crime laws just further divide humanity and help perpetuate an "us and them" mentality. I think the greatest way to help defeat the ignorance that is at the root of these crimes is to support socialism and socialist brotherhood.

i agree (well not about that socialist bollocks, obviously ). as you said it would just create an 'us and them' mentality and i don't see how that would help anyone.

	03-04-2003 06:08									#70
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

if you're asking what the intent of any punishment is deterance is obviously one of them. Promoting a civil society is another. Creating a safe environment for all citizens yet another.

There is a distinct difference in beating someone because he looked at you wrong and beating him because he's white, asian, whatever... This is not addressed in pre hate-crime legislation, it is not an individual attack but an attack against a group.

	03-04-2003 06:15									#71
	Remove this text

quote: There is a distinct difference in beating someone because he looked at you wrong and beating him because he's white, asian, whatever... This is not addressed in pre hate-crime legislation, it is not an individual attack but an attack against a group.

What do you mean this isn't addressed in pre hate-crime litigation? For premeditated attacks based on groups, the sentancing will be much longer than simply beating someone because 'he looked at you wrong'. You realize there are more than one degree of felony too?

	03-04-2003 06:23									#72
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Leaving it up to sentencing is leaving it up to the whims of the judge and I'm not only talking about pre-meditated crimes. As for the degrees of felony, they do not address crimes against a group, that is what we're talking about. Crimes done with the intent to terrorize a group.

	03-04-2003 06:28									#73
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: As for the degrees of felony, they do not address crimes against a group, that is what we're talking about. Crimes done with the intent to terrorize a group.

Oh come on! There is no degree of felony that addresses crimes against people named Bob too; should there be a catagory for that? Why should there be a special 'crime against a group' when there is already degrees of felony based on the intent of the individual in the crime? If you intend to hurt someone based on group affiliation, that increases the degree of felony you are going to convicted of.

	03-04-2003 07:05									#74
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: [SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Oh come on! There is no degree of felony that addresses crimes against people named Bob too; should there be a catagory for that? Why should there be a special 'crime against a group' when there is already degrees of felony based on the intent of the individual in the crime? If you intend to hurt someone based on group affiliation, that increases the degree of felony you are going to convicted of.

Well, I don't think crimes against people of certain names are covered in most states, but I do believe that crimes against groups deserves a seperate crime status. Perhaps you'd be happier if they were designated terror crimes.

Your last statement is pure nonsence as hate crimes would not automatically gain a higher degree felony. These crimes are extremely prevalent in our society and they deserve to be addressed by our legal system and not left to the whims of prosecutors and judges on a case by case basis.

	03-04-2003 07:46									#75
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I do believe that crimes against groups deserves a seperate crime status.

Why?

quote: Perhaps you'd be happier if they were designated terror crimes.

Not at all.

quote: Your last statement is pure nonsence as hate crimes would not automatically gain a higher degree felony.

So you happen to be an expert on criminal law now? Actually, FYI, crimes based on hate of a group would gain the HIGHEST degree of felony. Why? Because they would be obviously considered premeditated and with malicious intent.

quote: These crimes are extremely prevalent in our society and they deserve to be addressed by our legal system and not left to the whims of prosecutors and judges on a case by case basis.

Once again, your knowledge of the criminal law in this country is severely lacking (IIRC, you didn't know the different levels of murder or manslaughter). THEY ARE ADDRESSED by the legal system. You think that judges deciding which murder to assign outside of the legal system? Please!

	03-04-2003 08:30									#76
	Re: Hate Crime Laws... Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by red_jon According to a poll by the Gay Times, 29% of gay men have been a victim of homophobic crime. http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/gt/defaul...splay&pollID=13 I'm only 18, not flamboyant and have been myself (though I never reported it). Do strciter laws need to be in place to stop this kind of thing? My personal opinion is, if someone attacks someone because of what they are they are more likely to do it again - so a tougher penalty should be impsed. However, this should apply to any section of society who are attacked - if a someone is attacked for being white or straight, then they too should be protected. What do you think?

Getting back to the original post.

If someone is attacked for being white, or black, or gay, or rich, or poor, or Catholic or liberal or whatever - I don't think this should be a hate crime. There are already laws against beating people, and those laws should be enforced, of course. There are all kinds of motives and I can see problems drawing a line, here.

'Intent to terrorize the group the victim belongs to' wasn't in the original post. I think that this intent would make the subsequent crime a hate crime, because it becomes more than a crime against the victim - there's intent to affect an entire group, which would not be punished by the existing law that makes assault a crime.

	03-04-2003 08:35									#77
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It seems like a crime should be prosecuted based on the act, not the type of victim or the personal hatreds of the criminal.

If hatred is not illegal, why should hatred make murder (or any other crime) more illegal? We should pass hate crime legislation on the same day we outlaw hate (never).

	03-04-2003 08:40									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: It seems like a crime should be prosecuted based on the act, not the type of victim or the personal hatreds of the criminal.

This isn't how the criminal law works. It requires a criminal act (Actus Reas) and ALSO a requisite mental state (Mens Rea). Without the proper mental state, the punishment for the crime is reduced.

	03-04-2003 08:43									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You argue that they are addressed by the system of felony degrees because these crimes will obviously be considered malicious. That is not true unless the only evidence that the crime was pre-meditated or deliberate has to do with the fact that the defendant hated the victim's group. Otherwise the felony degree would be the same as a similar non-hate crime and the sentencing will depend largely on the whims of the judge. It is not addressed. You'll do better with your arguement that it doesn't need to be addressed.

Why a seperate crime status, because these crimes have a direct effect on the communities or groups they are directed against. These are terror crimes, they spread fear in their target groups. If they are not addressed apropriately they can result in retaliatory attacks or greater tension.

	03-04-2003 08:55									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: You argue that they are addressed by the system of felony degrees because these crimes will obviously be considered malicious. That is not true unless the only evidence that the crime was pre-meditated or deliberate has to do with the fact that the defendant hated the victim's group.

Um the evidence that the crime had to due with hating the victim's group IS sufficient grounds for premeditation.

quote: Otherwise the felony degree would be the same as a similar non-hate crime and the sentencing will depend largely on the whims of the judge. It is not addressed.

Do you know ANYTHING about the criminal law? The JURY decides which degree of a crime the person is convicted of. I'll say it again, the JURY, not the whims of some judge.

quote: These are terror crimes, they spread fear in their target groups. If they are not addressed apropriately they can result in retaliatory attacks or greater tension.

Increasing the degree of the conviction isn't addressing it properly? What would you do, have everyone that has done a 'hate crime' be executed?

	03-04-2003 09:16									#81
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Sentencing, the operative word is sentencing. The judge decides sentencing within the guidelines of the law. The prosecutor decides which degree of crime the defendant is accused of. The jury decide guilty or innocent.

"Um the evidence that the crime had to due with hating the victim's group IS sufficient grounds for premeditation."

Um, no. Pre-meditation means the perpetrator thought of the crime before hand. The fact that he hates the group is no proof of this. For first degree you have to prove pre-meditation and deliberate act in most states. These can just as easily be proven by other aspects of the crime.

Two identical crimes, except one is a hate crime, would in most cases get the same degree.

	03-04-2003 09:26									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Gays just want to be equal with Jews. Smack one and
it's assualt and a hate crime.And the rest of us remain 2nd class citizens with only an assault charge.

Hate crime, or the new aristocracy. King Alfred knew
this system... 100 cattle for a killing a noble, 10 for a freeman, 1 for a serf.

	03-04-2003 09:54									#83
	Support Apolyton

quote: The judge decides sentencing within the guidelines of the law. The prosecutor decides which degree of crime the defendant is accused of. The jury decide guilty or innocent.

Oh, so the jury doesn't decide between different charges? So the prosecutor cannot assert different charges and have the juries decide between them? That's news to many juries around this country (especially ones that are asked to decide between different degrees of murder).

And you are being naive if you think that prosecutors don't go for the highest charge they can get. That means the highest degree for premeditated crimes (of which hate crimes are).

That is why there are so many cases where the jury rejects a first degree murder charge and gives a second degree murder conviction instead. That's mainly because prosecutors tend to go for 1st degree for just about anything.

quote: Pre-meditation means the perpetrator thought of the crime before hand. The fact that he hates the group is no proof of this.

Um, no. Isn't a hate crime a crime that is committed because of the race, sex, or sexual orientation of a person? So if a person commits a crime based on, say, sexual orientation (like Matthew Shepard), it cannot be anything but premeditated. You have to think about killing a gay person before you actually do it.

If you happen to kill one in the process of an argument, that isn't premeditated, but that isn't a hate crime either.

	03-04-2003 10:07									#84
	Suffering from ads?

Imran,

Again, juries simply decide guilty or not guilty. The prosecutors decide what degrees to offer, this has nothing to do with our arguement.

a hate crime can be committed without pre-meditation, I don't know why this would be necessary. Consider a man who kills someone he hates intensely. He did not necessarily pre-meditate the act. He might have been overcome with rage for whatever reason. I'm not going to go into detail about this it has little to do with our arguement either.

A man decides he is going to kill someone, later he carries out his plans. That is pre-meditated murder. If it comes to pass that the man was killed simply because he was white the fact that it was a hate crime has no effect on the sentencing unless hate crime laws are in effect.

	03-04-2003 10:27									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Again, juries simply decide guilty or not guilty. The prosecutors decide what degrees to offer, this has nothing to do with our arguement.

They decide guilty or not guilty on a variety of different charges. You, erronously, believe they simply decide on one charge.

quote: a hate crime can be committed without pre-meditation

It really can't. The underlying basis for a hate crime is premeditation. A killing or beating of someone because of their race. You would have to think of killing or beating him because of race, sex, etc., before you did it.

quote: He might have been overcome with rage for whatever reason.

Hate crimes legislation would NOT deal with rage, nor should it. A man who is enraged because of provocation (which is really the only reason you'd be 'overcome' with rage) is not killing somone because of race. A homicide committed by an provoked person is not murder, it is voluntary manslaughter.

If he wasn't provoked, then being enraged wouldn't stop you from being prosecuted for premeditated murder if you thought about doing it before you did it.

quote: A man decides he is going to kill someone, later he carries out his plans. That is pre-meditated murder. If it comes to pass that the man was killed simply because he was white the fact that it was a hate crime has no effect on the sentencing unless hate crime laws are in effect.

Actually it does. The fact that the man was killed solely because he was white is a factor which definetly establishes premeditation. I cannot think of a SINGLE case where you would kill someone solely based on race and it would NOT be premeditated. A hate crime must be premeditated.

Define 'later'. Later can mean one minute later, or even 20 seconds later. If you hesitate and think for a second and then shoot, the courts have said that is premeditated.

State (of Washington) v. Arata: "the law knows no specific time; if a man reflects upon the act a moment antecedent to the act, it is sufficient; the time for deliberation and premeditation need not be long..."

In your scenario, the killer would be convicted of premeditated (1st degree murder), mostly because of the fact he thought about killing the victim, because he was killed solely because he was white, before he fired.

	03-04-2003 10:55									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

What the Hell are you talking about? The crime could be deemed pre-meditated for any number of reasons. If the evidence that it was a hate-crime is the only evidence to prove it was pre-meditated then that is the only occasion when a criminal would receive a heftier sentence because of a hate-crime.

If a person is walking on the street and decides to beat an asian man because he bumped into him and his victim dies as a result of the beating then it is not necessarily a pre-meditated crime. The fact that the man hated asians might have been one of the things which spurred him to fly into a rage plus he might have just lost his job, found out his girlfriend was cheating on him... It would not be a premeditated crime but it could very well be a hate crime.

	03-04-2003 10:58									#87
	Tired of ads?

In some jurisdictions the premeditation has to occur only moments before the act, while in others it must precede the act by an appreciable amount of time.

	03-04-2003 10:59									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: If the evidence that it was a hate-crime is the only evidence to prove it was pre-meditated then that is the only occasion when a criminal would receive a heftier sentence because of a hate-crime.

Um... yeah! But EVERY hate crime is premeditated! If you kill someone because of their race, that is premeditated. You have thought about killing the man because of his race. If you haven't intended to kill the person because of his race, then it isn't a hate crime at all.

quote: If a person is walking on the street and decides to beat an asian man because he bumped into him and his victim dies as a result of the beating then it is not necessarily a pre-meditated crime.

Um... actually, yes it is. If you get bumped into and get all mad and decide to beat down the person that bumped into you and he dies, THAT is 1st degree murder in ANY state in the United States.

Do you have any idea what your are talking about?

	03-04-2003 11:07									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: In some jurisdictions the premeditation has to occur only moments before the act, while in others it must precede the act by an appreciable amount of time.

And every jurisdiction would consider killing a person solely based on his race (which is what hate crimes legislation focuses on) to be premeditated, because you have intended and thought about killing the person because of his race.

If you have NOT thought about killing a person because of his race, then how the Hell can that be even considered a hate crime? The whole point of hate crimes legislation is to stop people from killing solely based on race! In order to kill solely based on race, you must think about the crime before committing it.

Do you not think that Matthew Shepard was premeditated? Do you not think that James Byrd was not premeditated? Come on!

	03-04-2003 11:27									#90
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

A hate crime can actually be any sort of crime from vandalism, harassment, on up to Murder. Most hate crimes are in fact not murder.

If you get mad and beat some asian guy and he later dies the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that 1st you planned to kill them. The simple fact that you hate asian guys is no proof that you planned to kill him. It is not PROOF that you even planned before hand to beat him up. PROOF must be given to establish this. Evidence that you hate asians is not proof, nor is the fact that you may have been yelling various racial slurs while kicking him(though this might be a good arguement for a hate-crime). These things do not preclude that you decided and planned beforehand to kill him or even beat him. It is possible for a defense attorney to argue that the beating was spontaneous, that some silly thing touched him off.

"Um... actually, yes it is. If you get bumped into and get all mad and decide to beat down the person that bumped into you and he dies, THAT is 1st degree murder in ANY state in the United States."

This comment is pure idiocy. Nowhere in that sentence is there any suggestion that the attacker planned to kill the victim, It would be up to the prosecutor to prove that or go for manslaughter. Are you just wasting time til you can go to bed?