31-05-2003 23:59									#1
	Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

First off, I would like to say I AM NOT A RACIST!!! I know as a fact that racism is terrible.

Second, you'll probably say, oh, he's from Coeur d'Alene, he's a racist. There are hardly any racists in Coeur d'Alene. The Aryans were kicked out. Everyone in the town wanted them gone. When they did their parades, a peace rally in every city near the parade happened. Local businesses sold their products for free so people would go away from the parade. The ones that watched the parade egged the Aryans.

Our constitution guruantees that no matter race, creed, or religion, everyone is equal and the government will not prejudice against people of different races, creeds, or religions. This is why it was wrong to persecute the communists. A hate crime is considered worse than regular murder because:

murder + discrimination > murder

But this is wrong. The fact that the government punishes people harsher because they are racist is a prejudice against a racists' creed. It is the same as punishing someone for murder more if they are a communist. Hate crimes and other laws that are against racists are wrong, because the government isn't supposed to punish someone because of their creed.

Though racism is bad, I support a racist's right to be racist and not have to worry about being prejudiced against.

	01-06-2003 00:01									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

But if a guy kills his wife because he hates her, you don't expect him to kill another person. If a guy kills a stranger on the street because he's Black, you can bet he's gonna do it again.

	01-06-2003 00:03									#3
	Re: Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Second, you'll probably say, oh, he's from Coeur d'Alene, he's a racist.

What the hell are you talking about? Anyone who did think that would themselves be a racist.

	01-06-2003 00:05									#4
	Re: Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well - if a racist murders one it is murder - isnīt that enough?

How exactly is it punished more than a "normal" case of murder (yeah, I know murder is not normal)?

	01-06-2003 00:08									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior But if a guy kills his wife because he hates her, you don't expect him to kill another person. If a guy kills a stranger on the street because he's Black, you can bet he's gonna do it again.

Why?

If a guy decides because he hates his wife (not talking crime of passion because the plundered his bank accounts, sold his truck, took his dog to the pound then ran off with the pool boy), it's ok to off her, he isn't likely to have any hangups about offing anyone else he happens to hate. "Damn, I hate that loser neighbor kid playing his guitar late at night" BLAM!

	01-06-2003 00:11									#6
	Re: Re: Why hate crimes and other biases against racism are wrong Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie What the hell are you talking about? Anyone who did think that would themselves be a racist.

Gibsie-wibsie: Until recently, the Coeur D'Alene-Hayden Lake area of Idaho (which has a pretty small population) was haven to the largest collection of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the US. If you're more than, say, 100 km from the area, the white supremacist guys were the only thing even remotely attention-getting or newsworthy, and it was common to assume that they were in "friendly" territory.

	01-06-2003 00:13									#7
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yes, a hate crime is more morally wrong then a 'normal' murder, but it is unconstitutional to punish someone harsher for being a racist.

quote: How exactly is it punished more than a "normal" case of murder (yeah, I know murder is not normal)?

Aren't hate crimes punished more severely?

	01-06-2003 00:14									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Short of the Death Penalty, murders can get either decades in prison, life-sentences, multiple life-sentences, and the possibility of parole may differ. The specifics of those punishments are what vary between regular murder and hate-motivated murders.

As I see it, if you're convicted of one murder (or more ) then you got locked away for life until natural death (Capital Punish is state-sponsered murder). Only exonorating evidence (like DNA for many instances) can set you free; no parole otherwise. Murder is murder is murder; hate just makes it that much more imperative that the murder be found guilty of their crime and punished.

Jagwar was right: regular murder is almost always a one-time deal. Habitual murderers have deeper problems: mental disorders, lack of a sense of right-and-wrong, hate-filled. They are FAR more likely to kill again and again.

	01-06-2003 00:15									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Aren't hate crimes punished more severely?

I donīt know, Iīm not living in the US.....

	01-06-2003 00:16									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

so forcing the aryans otu of their homes, which their families may have lvied for generations, isn't a hate crime?

	01-06-2003 03:43									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: so forcing the aryans otu of their homes, which their families may have lvied for generations, isn't a hate crime?

They weren't really kicked out. They were sued because someone accidentally drove near the Aryan compound and the Aryans shot at her. They went bankrupt and had to leave.

	01-06-2003 04:35									#12
	Put an end to popups!

Nutter Aryans!

	01-06-2003 05:14									#13
	Support Apolyton

This a frequently held debate here at Apolyton, don't know how many time I've stated my position. Anyway, hate crimes are worthy of harsher sentencing because of the terror affect. To go back to my usual tried and true example, take a step back from murder. Take the crime of vandalism. Say Michael the Great graffitis on a wall "YO MIKEY G BE DA ORIGINAL PIMP". Then say someone were to graffiti "KILL ALL NIGGERS" or even "**** THE STUPID NIGGERS" The latter two do more do damage, the second of the three perhaps going to inflict terror.

Now go back to murder. Take two examples. Say a drug lord orders hit on a rival drug lord. Then say a group of KKK members decide they want to have a bit of fun and lynch a black person. The second terrorizes an entire community to a much greater effect.

	01-06-2003 05:17									#14
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Say a drug lord orders hit on a rival drug lord. Then say a group of KKK members decide they want to have a bit of fun and lynch a black person. The second terrorizes an entire community to a much greater effect.

The two crimes are just as bad, IMO. Both are premeditated murders. Just because one was against someone of a group means nothing to me. You have a right to hate, so why are we imparting harsher penalties on something you have a Constitutional right to believe?

	01-06-2003 06:48									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The effect of the murder by the KKK is worse than the effect of the murder by the drug lord, hence a harsher sentence is warranted for the crime by the KKK. The issue is not what the criminal believes, but how the criminal acts, and one action is clearly worse than the other.

	01-06-2003 06:54									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: The effect of the murder by the KKK is worse than the effect of the murder by the drug lord, hence a harsher sentence is warranted for the crime by the KKK. The issue is not what the criminal believes, but how the criminal acts, and one action is clearly worse than the other.

Disagree. The effect is the same. One person is killed in both actions by a premeditated act. Other people being fearful that it might happen to them doesn't matter.

Yes, the issue is the act, and both acts resulted in one person dead. The actions are exactly the same. The beliefs of the criminal is the part that is different.

	01-06-2003 06:59									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Other people being fearful that it might happen to them doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter?

Consider the yelling fire in a crowded theatre example. The speech clearly doesn't harm anyone, but how people respond to the speech does. But the speech is prohibited (as it should be, IMO). Or do you disagree with the Courts' opinions on this?

	01-06-2003 07:15									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

"Disagree. The effect is the same. "

Not nessecarily. The effect of the hate motivation in both the vandalism and the murder example is added terror to the community. Now, since both cases are premeditated murder the penalty will be severe no matter what, but the fact that is a hate crime could definitely be a factor in the decision as to whether to apply the DP or not.

	01-06-2003 07:25									#19
	Tired of ads?

quote: Why doesn't it matter?

Because they aren't the victims. They simply suffer some emotional trauma. They can sue on intention infliction of emotional distress. Why say one premeditated murder is greater than another? It opens up a can of worms and makes everything a bit more politican (ie, what is hate... which groups are covered).

quote: Consider the yelling fire in a crowded theatre example. The speech clearly doesn't harm anyone, but how people respond to the speech does. But the speech is prohibited (as it should be, IMO). Or do you disagree with the Courts' opinions on this?

Yelling fire in a movie theater is a direct cause to injury (so the injury is the guy's fault because of his negligence). Btw, it isn't the response to the speech, but whether any INJURY happened because of the speech. Then you prosecute based on the injury.

It's a question of proximate cause. Yelling fire is a proximate cause to the injury (ie, the negligence directly caused it). Others copying your crimes because you initiated a 'hate crime' is waay too remote. And besides there may NOT be any future injury based on this one crime. Terror to the community really isn't a part of proximate cause, because it really isn't a crime.

	01-06-2003 07:29									#20
	Support Apolyton

quote: The effect of the hate motivation in both the vandalism and the murder example is added terror to the community.

And how do we measure how much terror to the community is worthy of extra punishment? After all Columbine could call for extra punishment (if the kids were caught) because it added terror to that community. So what if it adds terror to the community, that isn't what the law is there to prevent. It's there to lock up people for killing. Their motivation, if both crimes are premeditated, doesn't matter. Their motivation only matters if they are in a state of rage and cannot think clearly.

	01-06-2003 07:50									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Because they aren't the victims. They simply suffer some emotional trauma. They can sue on intention infliction of emotional distress. Why say one premeditated murder is greater than another? It opens up a can of worms and makes everything a bit more politican (ie, what is hate... which groups are covered).

Why say a premeditated murder is more objectionable than a spontaneous one? A climate where people are being terrorized for having the wrong sexual preference, religion, etc., is a more objectionable situation than one where such a climate doesn't exist. Thus, a greater sentence is warranted both as a deterrent and the need for more extensive rehabilitation.

quote: Yelling fire in a movie theater is a direct cause to injury (so the injury is the guy's fault because of his negligence). Btw, it isn't the response to the speech, but whether any INJURY happened because of the speech. Then you prosecute based on the injury.

The injury isn't a response to the speech?

quote: It's a question of proximate cause. Yelling fire is a proximate cause to the injury (ie, the negligence directly caused it). Others copying your crimes because you initiated a 'hate crime' is waay too remote. And besides there may NOT be any future injury based on this one crime. Terror to the community really isn't a part of proximate cause, because it really isn't a crime.

And I'm saying it should be a crime. In fact, I think "hate crime" should be renamed to "terror," and it be treated as a distinct crime.

	01-06-2003 07:54									#22
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"And how do we measure how much terror to the community is worthy of extra punishment? After all Columbine could call for extra punishment (if the kids were caught) because it added terror to that community. So what if it adds terror to the community, that isn't what the law is there to prevent. It's there to lock up people for killing. Their motivation, if both crimes are premeditated, doesn't matter. Their motivation only matters if they are in a state of rage and cannot think clearly."

The state of rage and thinking clearly has to do with the murder 1/murder 2 distinction. Damage done to tjhe whole community is certainly a factor in determining the penalty for an act though, when sentencing it is of course reasonable to take into account the whole damage done by the action.

	01-06-2003 08:06									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Why say a premeditated murder is more objectionable than a spontaneous one? A climate where people are being terrorized for having the wrong sexual preference, religion, etc., is a more objectionable situation than one where such a climate doesn't exist

Because the premeditated people may do it again more readily than a sponteneous one? Doing a premeditated crime based on race is the same as a premeditated crime based on drugs, because it can definetly pop up again in both instances.

quote: The injury isn't a response to the speech?

Yes.. but that doesn't matter as much as how proximate was the speech to the injury. There must be an injury.

quote: And I'm saying it should be a crime. In fact, I think "hate crime" should be renamed to "terror," and it be treated as a distinct crime.

Well that's where we disagree. I have problems with criminalizing hate, because supposedly that sort of belief is protected. Terrorizing the community can also be said of KKK marches. We don't outlaw them (and we shouldn't).

quote: The state of rage and thinking clearly has to do with the murder 1/murder 2 distinction. Damage done to tjhe whole community is certainly a factor in determining the penalty for an act though, when sentencing it is of course reasonable to take into account the whole damage done by the action.

Damage to the community? Why should that matter? Every crime in an urban area adds to 'damage to the community'. People are scared to live in that area when there are muggings and killings. Why is this any different than black people being scared to live an area because a black guy is killed?

	01-06-2003 09:23									#24
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I agree with Shi. Hate crimes increase tensions and fear within a community to a much greater degree than a premeditated murder based on greed or jelousy, becuase the subtext is that any fellow member of the group to which the victim belonged could be in jeopardy.

The states already has a long list of things which they can use to add more and more charges. I have no porblem with the state having a bias vs. ideologies that run counter to basic claims of the values of the state.

	01-06-2003 09:44									#25
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi This a frequently held debate here at Apolyton, don't know how many time I've stated my position. Anyway, hate crimes are worthy of harsher sentencing because of the terror affect. To go back to my usual tried and true example, take a step back from murder. Take the crime of vandalism. Say Michael the Great graffitis on a wall "YO MIKEY G BE DA ORIGINAL PIMP". Then say someone were to graffiti "KILL ALL NIGGERS" or even "**** THE STUPID NIGGERS" The latter two do more do damage, the second of the three perhaps going to inflict terror. Now go back to murder. Take two examples. Say a drug lord orders hit on a rival drug lord. Then say a group of KKK members decide they want to have a bit of fun and lynch a black person. The second terrorizes an entire community to a much greater effect.

Drug wars would also terrrorize the community

	02-06-2003 05:47									#26
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Hate should a factor in sentencing, but hate crime legistlation itself criminalizes thought. Yes I'm splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction.

	02-06-2003 05:51									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Hate should a factor in sentencing, but hate crime legistlation itself criminalizes thought.

I agree. I have no problem in hate being a factor among other things for sentancing, but for it alone to automatically result in extra years jail time is something I'm not in favor of.

	02-06-2003 06:07									#28
	Tired of ads?

Hate crime legislation criminalizes thought. Factoring hate in at sentencing is taking motive and effect in consideration after an act.

	02-06-2003 06:19									#29
	Increase Your PM Length

What can be a hate crime anyway? How goes the definition, is it just skin deep? If white poor person desides he hates his white boss because his boss is so rich or whatever and kills him, is that a hate crime?