Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Communist spotted.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Remember the good ole GOP/libertarian motto "got mine fuck you God bless me!"

Yes, thought police. People who commit hate crimes have no place in modern society. We're penalizing them for being wrong.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I see it as nothing more than a motive.

Being racist isn't a crime (but if you want to criminalize that, go ahead). But if you be racist and kill someone you get extra on top of just being a regular murderer?

Makes zero sense.

Once again, you guys don't understand the scope of the things you're talking about. Hate crime laws come into play for assaults. They can be added onto murder charges, but it's rare. How rare? In 2008 there were 5,542 offenses against persons. 7 of those were murders, over half were assaults. In 2009 there were 6,549 offenses, nine of which were murders. The laws are in place to deter crimes which society has deemed abhorrent above and beyond the norm.

If you think getting in an argument with someone and shooting them is the same as dragging a man you've never even spoken to behind your truck for miles just because he's black, then frankly you're not the kind of person who belongs in a civilized society. They are different crimes even if the end result is one dead individual. I don't hear you railing about the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Dvergar /
Quisling

oh ok i thought we were just talking about murder

The idea of painting some murders as worse than others just feels inherently retarded to me. I live in a pretty black and white world there. Manslaughters self defense shit etc i can at least get my head around. But a brutal calculated murder i don't have shades of grey.

Every homicide begins with an attempt; an intent to kill that is acted upon. The outcome of this act doesn't make the perpetrator's intent less murderous nor should this person receive a lesser sentence for their crime. Criminal sentences serve multiple purposes: 1. Punish the individual (and hopefully lol rehabilitate). 2. Make restitution to society/victims. 3. Protect society from individuals who have demonstrated a willingness to hurt others. Loosing a murderer on the public sooner, simply because he botched the job, or the victim was too tough to die, is ridiculous. Every murderer is an attempted murderer.

As for dragging a man to death behind a truck: Are we really to believe that this crime is more horrific because of some insane criteria the killers had for selecting the victim? Does anyone believe that the silly designation of "Hate crime" would deter someone capable of such an act from committing it? Would they deserve a lesser sentence if they'd chosen to drag a red-headed woman instead? The idea is laughable.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

So next time I get assaulted for being a 'douchebag' where's the hate crime law that protects 'douchebags'?

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

dvergar, in my mind it's not the dragging someone behind your truck that's the hate crime, its the dragging a person of another color behind a truck(or hoopty, or lowrider, or whatever lets be PC HERE GUYS LOLZ) that constitutes the hate crime.

you don't have to brutally murder someone for it to be constituted as a hate crime, so far as i know. a hate crime just has to be motivated based on race or religion or what have you.


regardless, I don't know what hate crime has to do with attempted vs successsful murder

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic but I'm going to call foul on a strawman by way of false extreme. The application of any such law will necessitate inferences that are most often less clear-cut.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Remember when motive was one of three things that had to be proven in order to be a convicted, not something you were convicted for having?

Criminalizing thinking is all well and good until it's the people you don't agree with deciding which thoughts need to be criminalized.

...and what happens to the people who commit a crime and get a "hate" tag tossed onto it because their victim is <insert group here>, even if their crime wasn't motivated by any sort of prejudice?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Criminalizing thinking is never well and good, but it's all over the penal code. There's this thing called "conspiracy to commit" which, if it were ever fully applied, would land literally everyone in the country with at least one felony conviction.

At any rate, there's a difference between protecting at-risk groups and protecting "douchebags" to use my previous example. Hate crime laws were an administrative reaction to societal problems. It's great that most of you think we're past that, but for the time being, legislators disagree. I think it also needs to be specified that hate crime laws don't specifically protect minorities. I remember a case from Criminal Law that involved a black guy inciting violence against some lone white kid, and then him and his gang beating the shit out of said kid. And by kid I mean child. That was a hate crime, because it was racially motivated. I don't have any problem with that guy's sentence being longer than a standard assault and battery, just like I have no problem with throwing some neo-rebel-yeller in the slammer for longer if he goes around taking a tire iron to black people for no reason other than that they're black.

Perfect world requires no hate crime legislation. World isn't perfect, dealwithit.jpg

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

You don't make the world 'perfect,' or even better, by copping out and pulling the "it's not a perfect world" card. You decide what is good, right, and decent regardless of past events, and you make laws based on that. Beating a man to death is wrong. It does not become 'more wrong' because his attacker beat him because of the color of his skin. If anything, it sends the message that the law does not hold every person to be equal, and that you being beaten to death is somehow less appalling if your attacker just wanted your wallet. The implied "Sorry, Mrs. Smith, your husband's murderer is going to be out in 20 years...we probably could have gotten him electrocuted if he'd been white, LOL, whatcha gonna do?" is disappointing.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You people don't seem to understand the level of inquiry that goes into a criminal case that's actually going to trial.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh