http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-employee-filmed-brutal-beating-640128

Why exactly is this not being investigated for being a hate crime?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379691/Transgender-girl-beaten-seizure-McDonalds-attack-victim-hate-crime.html

This confuses me. Greatly.

Tim the Biovore wrote:This confuses me. Greatly.

Two African American women attacked a white tranvestite woman and beat her until she had a seizure. She was effectively only saved by an old lady who was there. The employees filmed it. If you listen the person laughing on the video is the manager of the McDonalds.

"The moral of the story: McDonalds Kills!"
-The Burger King.

Wow, those girls need to get padded rooms.

Frazzled wrote:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-employee-filmed-brutal-beating-640128

Why exactly is this not being investigated for being a hate crime?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379691/Transgender-girl-beaten-seizure-McDonalds-attack-victim-hate-crime.html

Hate crime? Can you please define this?

Is it black/white?

Or because the victim was trans-gendered?

Do you really think that they can charge the offenders?

AvatarForm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-employee-filmed-brutal-beating-640128

Why exactly is this not being investigated for being a hate crime?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379691/Transgender-girl-beaten-seizure-McDonalds-attack-victim-hate-crime.html

Hate crime? Can you please define this?

Is it black/white?

Or because the victim was trans-gendered?

Do you really think that they can charge the offenders?

Yes, and yes. After I spoke I noted in at least one article on the subject that it is being potentially investigated for such.

Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor or make certain crimes worse based on the mindset of the actor. In both cases, you're punishing someone for thinking "bad thoughts."

The girls commited battery, charge them for that.

Theres a psychological phenomonen (sp?) that explains why no-one intervened. Its called 'Diffusion of responsibility'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

Essentially, everyone expects everyone else to break it up. Therefore no-one acts.

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor or make certain crimes worse based on the mindset of the actor. In both cases, you're punishing someone for thinking "bad thoughts."

The girls commited battery, charge them for that.

I'd agree but if you're going to have hate crimes laws they need to be enforced equally.

I can see the ads now. "Come to Wendys. When you are getting the royal beatdown by mouth breathers, our management will call the police and not film/post it on youtube." "Come to Carls Jr. Our customers don't kill each other." "Welcome to Taco Bell. Now with more cat." oh wait...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianXV wrote:Theres a psychological phenomonen (sp?) that explains why no-one intervened. Its called 'Diffusion of responsibility'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

Essentially, everyone expects everyone else to break it up. Therefore no-one acts.

translation, its called being a p ssy.

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor or make certain crimes worse based on the mindset of the actor. In both cases, you're punishing someone for thinking "bad thoughts."

The girls commited battery, charge them for that.

I think the world may have to end soon as I agree with you entirely. "Hate crimes" do nothing other than to move the goal posts. You beat up someone to steal their phone and they happen to be a different colour, or gay, etc, and suddenly it is a hate crime and the penalties are far greater?

Frazzled wrote:I'd agree but if you're going to have hate crimes laws they need to be enforced equally.

But that's the point of hate crimes - they aren't enforced equally because they're not intended to be enforced equally. Some thoughts are worse than others.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor or make certain crimes worse based on the mindset of the actor. In both cases, you're punishing someone for thinking "bad thoughts."

The girls commited battery, charge them for that.

I think the world may have to end soon as I agree with you entirely. "Hate crimes" do nothing other than to move the goal posts. You beat up someone to steal their phone and they happen to be a different colour, or gay, etc, and suddenly it is a hate crime and the penalties are far greater?

I'm sure we will have something to disagree on shortly. In the meantime, welcome to the pro-freedom side

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd agree but if you're going to have hate crimes laws they need to be enforced equally.

But that's the point of hate crimes - they aren't enforced equally because they're not intended to be enforced equally. Some thoughts are worse than others.

Yep thats generally how it works out (see Jones post).

biccat wrote:I'm sure we will have something to disagree on shortly. In the meantime, welcome to the pro-freedom side

I disagree with the thought that I am somehow by default on the anti-freedom side

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor ... .

What legal behaviour would you give as an example of a non-crime which becomes a crime due to being prosecuted under "hate crime" legislation?

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor ... .

What legal behaviour would you give as an example of a non-crime which becomes a crime due to being prosecuted under "hate crime" legislation?

Insulting someone. Some thought crime legislation makes it a crime.

Typcially however, its an aggravating factor to an existing crime.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd agree but if you're going to have hate crimes laws they need to be enforced equally.

But that's the point of hate crimes - they aren't enforced equally because they're not intended to be enforced equally. Some thoughts are worse than others.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor or make certain crimes worse based on the mindset of the actor. In both cases, you're punishing someone for thinking "bad thoughts."

The girls commited battery, charge them for that.

I think the world may have to end soon as I agree with you entirely. "Hate crimes" do nothing other than to move the goal posts. You beat up someone to steal their phone and they happen to be a different colour, or gay, etc, and suddenly it is a hate crime and the penalties are far greater?

I'm sure we will have something to disagree on shortly. In the meantime, welcome to the pro-freedom side

If I beat up someone 'because I don't like their face' as opposed to 'they're white/black/blue/green*' what does it matter. Motive is something the media love but has little bearing on crimes in reality. The fact is crimes are done, people are charged for crimes. Finding a 'race' motive is pretty dumb. Sure it might tell us *why* Jimmy the Skinhead knobbled Paddy the African but is all that matters that someone was knobbled?

*holy cow orcs!

Has anyone been prosecuted for insulting someone?

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone been prosecuted for insulting someone?

Yes, in San Francisco.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone been prosecuted for insulting someone?

Yes, in San Francisco.

And Detroit.

Although, in that case, he was jailed for threatening to insult someone.

I would be fascinated to read about both cases.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be fascinated to read about both cases.

Here's the one I was talking about. Not sure about Frazzled's source.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be fascinated to read about both cases.

Well the San Fran cases were pre intranetz blurbs on the news when I was there. I'm much more familiar with them being an aggravating factor to underlying crimes.

In my opinion, hate crime laws enforce the idea that people of other races are different, and should be treated specially. All crimes are fueled by hate. While there are cases where hate crime laws would be necessary, physically abusing someone should be treated the same, regardless of the races of the people involved. Just my two cents.

Sigh, here we go again. If the girls who beat her did it because of her trans gender or race it's a hate crime. If they did it because they were just stupid A holes it's a normal crime.

Now About hate crimes. If you attack somebody solely on the base of race or religion ect, it's a hate crime. If you just ran and "Beat someone because I don't like their face." you'd be a psychopath, and locked off in a loony bin. It's like the difference when an American person goes on a killing spree and a Terrorist goes on a killing spree. same outcome, diffrent motives and goals. So different crimes and punishment. Think of different degrees of murder and man slaughter, or how pre meditated murder is worse than "Heat of the moment murder.

Let me get this straight. She's transgender, and got the crap kicked out of her by two black girls. It must be because she's white!

LordofHats wrote:Let me get this straight. She's transgender, and got the crap kicked out of her by two black girls. It must be because she's white!

No I think its because she can't fight that she got the crap kicked out of her. If she were carrying a chainsaw and a hockey mask this probably wouldn't have happened. Now why it started, however, is a completely different issue.

Welcome to Cracker Barrel. You will be completely safe here. Our waitresses have been fully trained on how to turn cans of hairspray into impromptu flame throwers. Watch out for Darlene though. She's just itching to go off.

May have been because she is transgender. Either way one is gont to juvi the other to adult court. Mc donald's will be getting a nice fat lawsuit, and the world gets to see how much Americans can be donkey-caves to each other.

I bet it started because the two other girls tried to intimidate her and she stood up to them. Then they kicked her ass. When you are dealing with people like that don't stand up to them. Hit them as soon as you get in range. They most likely go around looking for trouble.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be fascinated to read about both cases.

Here's the one I was talking about. Not sure about Frazzled's source.

It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

There must be some documented cases, the hate crime legislation has been around for over 45 years.

I'm not really buying the "pre-internet" argument. Plenty of historical stuff happened "pre-internet" and we can still look it up on line.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be fascinated to read about both cases.

Here's the one I was talking about. Not sure about Frazzled's source.

It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

There must be some documented cases, the hate crime legislation has been around for over 45 years.

I'm not really buying the "pre-internet" argument. Plenty of historical stuff happened "pre-internet" and we can still look it up on line.

How about Frazzled has issues with California now and will not voluntarily go back nor look up anything there, ever?

Phototoxin wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd agree but if you're going to have hate crimes laws they need to be enforced equally.

But that's the point of hate crimes - they aren't enforced equally because they're not intended to be enforced equally. Some thoughts are worse than others.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor or make certain crimes worse based on the mindset of the actor. In both cases, you're punishing someone for thinking "bad thoughts."

The girls commited battery, charge them for that.

I think the world may have to end soon as I agree with you entirely. "Hate crimes" do nothing other than to move the goal posts. You beat up someone to steal their phone and they happen to be a different colour, or gay, etc, and suddenly it is a hate crime and the penalties are far greater?

I'm sure we will have something to disagree on shortly. In the meantime, welcome to the pro-freedom side

If I beat up someone 'because I don't like their face' as opposed to 'they're white/black/blue/green*' what does it matter. Motive is something the media love but has little bearing on crimes in reality. The fact is crimes are done, people are charged for crimes. Finding a 'race' motive is pretty dumb. Sure it might tell us *why* Jimmy the Skinhead knobbled Paddy the African but is all that matters that someone was knobbled?

*holy cow orcs!

African AND irish... wow...

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone been prosecuted for insulting someone?

Dakka Mods do it all the time

On Topic... I would be genuinely interested in seeing if the 2 offenders are ever tried and charged for more than simple assault. Afterall, reverse-racism doesnt really play back well in the media

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would be fascinated to read about both cases.

Here's the one I was talking about. Not sure about Frazzled's source.

It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

There must be some documented cases, the hate crime legislation has been around for over 45 years.

I'm not really buying the "pre-internet" argument. Plenty of historical stuff happened "pre-internet" and we can still look it up on line.

How about Frazzled has issues with California now and will not voluntarily go back nor look up anything there, ever?

There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

On Topic... I would be genuinely interested in seeing if the 2 offenders are ever tried and charged for more than simple assault. Afterall, reverse-racism doesnt really play back well in the media. Assault is threatening violence. battery is what they did. Don't worry statically Minorities get harsher sentences for crimes. Besides it's not like anybody is defending their actions.

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Link

A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.

(Had a link to another story on the topic, but the website blew up my browser)

Here's another case.

A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.

Yeah that's a crime, you can't hand out hate literature in "public" schools. Just like you can't wear a swastika and hand out anti jewish propaganda.

sexiest_hero wrote:May have been because she is transgender.

I think it was more the fact that they knew it was a man (you know, with male bits) and that he was trying to enter the Ladies' room, not that that is any excuse for what happened.

Just saying I don't think they decided to beat him solely because of the fact that he's transgendered. I think hate crime laws are kind of silly; I'd be fine with them just adding the extra Hate Crime penalties to all violent crimes. Why not punish all acts like this extremely harshly, regardless of the motivation?

Anyway, I'll be interested to see more of the details of this case.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

We do have chupacabras though. You'll want to watch out for those.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems in that case the defendant was jailed for failing to post a bond, which isn't a hate crime.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Pedantic but correct.

biccat wrote:
Link

A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.

(Had a link to another story on the topic, but the website blew up my browser)

It would be interesting to know the result of the trial.

In fact it seems the charges were dropped.

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/category/hate-crime/

biccat wrote:
Here's another case.

That wasn't charged as a hate crime.

Monster Rain wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:May have been because she is transgender.

I think it was more the fact that they knew it was a man (you know, with male bits) and that he was trying to enter the Ladies' room, not that that is any excuse for what happened.

Just saying I don't think they decided to beat him solely because of the fact that he's transgendered. I think hate crime laws are kind of silly; I'd be fine with them just adding the extra Hate Crime penalties to all violent crimes. Why not punish all acts like this extremely harshly, regardless of the motivation?

Anyway, I'll be interested to see more of the details of this case.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

We do have chupacabras though. You'll want to watch out for those.

Cali also has mountain lions. I don't get the goat sucker hate. Chupacabra's are just misunderstood.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yepo definitely investigating as hate crime now that there was a rally. Judge asked why she wasn't being charged with attempted murder.
Witness and lady who stopped it.

The one employee there -- I think it was the manager -- said to me, 'You do know that's not a woman. That's a transvestite.' And I said, 'So? She's human,'" Thoms said.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/27665011/detail.html

Yup, see all is well.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are no drop bears in California, as far as we know...

Frazzled wrote:We do have chupacabras though. You'll want to watch out for those.

Cali also has mountain lions. I don't get the goat sucker hate. Chupacabra's are just misunderstood.

it was the manager -- said to me, 'You do know that's not a woman. That's a transvestite.' And I said, 'So? She's human,'" Thoms said.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/27665011/detail.html

Nearly every crime is motivated by some form of hate, which makes 'hate crime' laws redundant and unnecessary.

However, both of these people should definitely be charged with aggravated battery, since they beat someone to within an inch of their life.

I assume you mean nearly every violent crime.

"Hate crime" isn't crime perpetrated because of generalised hate. It is crime perpetrated because of "-isms" such as racism, sexism and homophobia.

"Isms" lead to special groups being picked on preferentially as targets of violence. These groups become more vulnerable to violent crime than average people.

The idea of the anti-hate-crime laws is to give extra protection to members of society who are at greater risk.

Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

Its easy to think hate crime legislation is unfair and not needed- unless you're actually one of the people amongst a minority those laws were written to protect.

In essence- hate crime laws are written to add extra severity to the sentencing of the existing charges if the victim/person harmed was a target because of a difference in race, creed or religion.

Some may not agree with the hate crime laws- but I agree far less with beating someone because of thier faith, gender, color or sexual preference.

Keep in mind- with any crime, being charged does not equate to being convicted. There will be 12 people that will be far better informed than we are- who will get to determine guilt innocence and motivation.

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

Its just that sort of logic that has no place here young man!

Yes people get arrested for insulting others, here
http://www.newser.com/story/112873/fashion-designer-john-galliano-of-christian-dior-arrested-after-anti-semitic-rant.html

Mistress of minis wrote:Its easy to think hate crime legislation is unfair and not needed- unless you're actually one of the people amongst a minority those laws were written to protect.

In essence- hate crime laws are written to add extra severity to the sentencing of the existing charges if the victim/person harmed was a target because of a difference in race, creed or religion.

Some may not agree with the hate crime laws- but I agree far less with beating someone because of thier faith, gender, color or sexual preference.

Keep in mind- with any crime, being charged does not equate to being convicted. There will be 12 people that will be far better informed than we are- who will get to determine guilt innocence and motivation.

of weight or age or sexual preference blah blah. I'd proffer beating someone nearly to death is indeed hate. Treat it as such.

Its funny that you think they'd be more informed. Juries by the very nature of a trial, have limited access to evidence...

I believe the hate crime aspect applies to the person being trans gender, not the color of her/his skin. And according to the article it started because the tranny was trying to use the girls bathroom and the girls didn't like it.

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

I'm just thinking that if someone is beaten for their money it would seem unjust to not punish their assailant as harshly as they would if they were beaten for some other reason, whatever it happened to be.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

I'm just thinking that if someone is beaten for their money it would seem unjust to not punish their assailant as harshly as they would if they were beaten for some other reason, whatever it happened to be.

At the end of the day they still got beaten.

I may be mistaken,but I belive hate crime laws were initially passed in an effort to combat the (then) rising acts of Skinhead/Klan violence during the late 80's and early 90's.
IIRC Morris Dees and the SPLC along with the ADL were all strong supporters of passing the hate crime laws.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Has anyone been prosecuted for insulting someone?

Yes, in San Francisco.

And Detroit.

Although, in that case, he was jailed for threatening to insult someone.

Did he utter the words,

"Go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"

I just read something about transgender folks in the news too... hold on.... here we are

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13186958

I don't know if he could be fired for his actions though he has certainly showed a great lack of moral character.

Then again if he had not uploaded it we wouldn't all be here talking this incident...

Mistress of minis wrote:Its easy to think hate crime legislation is unfair and not needed- unless you're actually one of the people amongst a minority those laws were written to protect.

In essence- hate crime laws are written to add extra severity to the sentencing of the existing charges if the victim/person harmed was a target because of a difference in race, creed or religion.

Some may not agree with the hate crime laws- but I agree far less with beating someone because of thier faith, gender, color or sexual preference.

Keep in mind- with any crime, being charged does not equate to being convicted. There will be 12 people that will be far better informed than we are- who will get to determine guilt innocence and motivation.

Fair point, I guess It´s hard to really understand the necissity of such laws before you have experienced a situation like this.

Kilkrazy wrote:I assume you mean nearly every violent crime.

"Hate crime" isn't crime perpetrated because of generalised hate. It is crime perpetrated because of "-isms" such as racism, sexism and homophobia.

"Isms" lead to special groups being picked on preferentially as targets of violence. These groups become more vulnerable to violent crime than average people.

The idea of the anti-hate-crime laws is to give extra protection to members of society who are at greater risk.

This.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

I suppose that would remove the social distinction between crimes committed due to isms and other crimes.

I'm just thinking that if someone is beaten for their money it would seem unjust to not punish their assailant as harshly as they would if they were beaten for some other reason, whatever it happened to be.

In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

These laws are applied in individual cases. If it's unjust to some individual every time it's used a law is probably bad.

And before I get called a racist by some fool I'd like to reiterate that I'm not saying that violence based on hate shouldn't be punished harshly, I'm saying that all violent crimes should be punished as harshly as those based on hate.

Either way, I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree. This line of conversation could quickly get very OT rather quickly.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

I didn't say it shouldn't. That is something you have construed.

The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

What exactly do you mean by "individual justice"?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

I didn't say it shouldn't. That is something you have construed.

I honestly don't see how this:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

could be construed any other way. This statement seems to me to be one of those "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. And if you think I got that from Star Trek, you're very wrong mister."

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

Well, I'm talking about violent crimes. I'm just saying that society saying "This person's pain is more significant than yours" to someone who was a victim of a similar crime but under different motives is illogical. Also, see below.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

I agree.

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

I fail to see how considering each and every individual case would somehow leave "society as a whole" out of consideration. By definition if you take care of the individual cases equally, you get society as a whole in the process.

Unless you are trying to use the Justice system to further a political agenda like buying votes from a particular special interest group, in which case you could substitute "consider society as a whole" with "pander to special interests".

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

I fail to see how considering each and every individual case would somehow leave "society as a whole" out of consideration. By definition if you take care of the individual cases equally, you get society as a whole in the process.

What normally happens in the US and British criminal justice systems is that each case (of rape, robbery, battery, etc) is taken on its merits, and a sentence is handed down within recommended limits for the general type of crime.

By this method the needs of society as a whole and the needs of individual cases are both taken into account.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

The only way around this would be to increase all punishments to the level where no-one ever attacks anyone. I don't think history supports the argument that such a course would work in practice.

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to arguing for the same penalty for all crimes regardless of circumstances. That is hardly individual justice.

What exactly do you mean by "individual justice"?

i saw this vid and was shocked that people could be heard laughing,this wasn't a one on one (a square go as we call it)
this was two people(colour irrelevant) going to town on a helpless victim who wasn't fighting back.whether you can call it a hate crime is irrelevant to me this was a sustained violent attack.the perpetrators should be charged for the violence.

They should go to jail, but stil it was a "Man" trying to get into the ladies room. Trans gender gets tricky at the public bathroom level.

sexiest_hero wrote:They should go to jail, but stil it was a "Man" trying to get into the ladies room. Trans gender gets tricky at the public bathroom level.

Last I saw, picking the wrong john wasn't a capital murder offense.

could be heard laughing,this wasn't a one on one (a square go as we call it)

One thing I learned in Cali, there's no such thing as a "fair fight." There's an attack you win (and survive) and an attack you don't.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

The only way around this would be to increase all punishments to the level where no-one ever attacks anyone. I don't think history supports the argument that such a course would work in practice.

But decreasing attacks on everyone would decrease the number of attacks by 50%, while best-case scenario for hate-crime legislation is decreasing the number of attacks by 20%.

Is it OK to permit a higher level of violence as long as that violence is racially/sexually/religiously proportionate?

Kilkrazy wrote:I think my reply to The Green Git shows that I don't consider there needs to be a division between justice for the individual and justice for society.

Fair enough. The term "justice" tends to be thrown around pretty haphazardly as rhetoric without any real definition.

Walk into a woman's bathroom and see if you don't get murdered by Purse smacking and angry spouses

Yeah every fight ends up to the death, as it should.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The hate crime laws are trying to express the concept that people who are more prone to be attacked should have greater protection.

The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

The only way around this would be to increase all punishments to the level where no-one ever attacks anyone. I don't think history supports the argument that such a course would work in practice.

But decreasing attacks on everyone would decrease the number of attacks by 50%, while best-case scenario for hate-crime legislation is decreasing the number of attacks by 20%.

Is it OK to permit a higher level of violence as long as that violence is racially/sexually/religiously proportionate?

I'm not clear as to your meaning.

Society doesn't permit violence. It is something that happens because we haven't found a good way to stop it. All society can do is to discourage it.

sexiest_hero wrote:Walk into a woman's bathroom and see if you don't get murdered by Purse smacking and angry spouses

Yeah every fight ends up to the death, as it should.

Are you just trolling or on drugs? The person was having seizures when olod lady #1 managed to stop the fight.

If someone says they hate me and then punches me, I would think that would be a hate crime too.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not clear as to your meaning.

Society doesn't permit violence. It is something that happens because we haven't found a good way to stop it. All society can do is to discourage it.

Here's your example:

If a particular social group, let's say women, is 20% more likely to be attacked than the population as a whole, then decreasing all attacks equally on everyone by 50%, still leaves them more likely to be attacked. I have invented these numbers merely to illustrate the mathematical argument.

There are two options that have been proposed in this thread:
1) pass hate crime legislation, increasing penalties for hate crimes against women.
2) increase criminal sentencing, increasing penalties for all crimes.

If you pass #1, what is the best case scenario? If all hate violence against women stops, then we have decreased crime by 20%.

In your example, #2 reduces all violence by 50% (still leaving hate-crimes against women as 1 in every 5 victims).

From a societal standpoint, is it better to (1) reduce violence towards a specific group, thereby stopping hate crimes; or (2) reduce violence across the board, thereby preventing the most harm? If society chooses option 1 and excludes option 2, then they are making the decision that preventing hate crimes is a better goal than reducing violence.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your example.

As a further point, if increasing penalties only reduces crime by 50% (even hate crimes), then the proposed hate crime legislation would be empirically worse than the across-the-board cuts.

No change: 100 victims of crime, 20 victims from hate crimes. (20%)
Option 1: Reduce hate crimes by 50%: 90 victims of crime, 10 are from hate crimes. (11%)
Option 2: Reduce all crime by 50%: 50 victims of crime, 10 are from hate crimes. (20%)

There's no practical (law enforcement) benefit to Option 1. You have the same number of special-interest victims, but a higher pool of non-special interest victims.

edit: Mathematically, for all positive, non-zero A and B and P<1: P(A+B) < A + P(B)
edit2: changes in red.

Your math is off, and your premises flawed.

If women are 20% more likely to be victims of violent crime (hypotherical number), and women comprise 50% of the population, then attacks on women represent roughly 60% of violent crime. If legislation reduces attacks on women by x percentage, that is a significant reduction in the overall rate of violent crime as well.

The thesis that an across-the-board increase in severity of punishment for crimes would reduce the crime rate is also not granted.

-----------

Side note: I'd never seen Monster Rain so badly misconstrue something before. Wow. That was practically "all dogs are Collies" bad.

Mannahnin wrote:Your math is off, and your premises flawed.

I understood KK's point to be that the 'extra' 20% was due to hate crimes. I will amend my post to make it more clear (the last bit got jumbled).

Mannahnin wrote:If women are 20% more likely to be victims of violent crime (hypotherical number), and women comprise 50% of the population, then attacks on women represent roughly 60% of violent crime. If legislation reduces attacks on women by x percentage, that is a significant reduction in the overall rate of violent crime as well.

Significant, but not better than reducing attacks across the board.

Mannahnin wrote:The thesis that an across-the-board increase in severity of punishment for crimes would reduce the crime rate is also not granted.

Take it up with Kilkrazy, it was his example.

No, that's not accurate.

Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not accurate.

Given the lack of further information regarding specific supposed "inaccuracies," yes, it is.

You're going to have to come up with more than "nuh uh."

That's not the thesis he was putting forward.

Mannahnin wrote:
Side note: I'd never seen Monster Rain so badly misconstrue something before. Wow. That was practically "all dogs are Collies" bad.

Break it down for me then.

Where did I go wrong?

Mannahnin wrote:That's not the thesis he was putting forward.

You're right. His thesis appears to be: by reducing hate crimes, we reduce the percentage of hate crimes. By reducing all crime, we don't reduce the percentage of hate crimes. This thesis was based on an assumption of facts.

I took those assumptions and showed how his thesis was flawed.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
Side note: I'd never seen Monster Rain so badly misconstrue something before. Wow. That was practically "all dogs are Collies" bad.

Break it down for me then.

Where did I go wrong?

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In an individual case that may be true, however the justice system has to consider society as a whole.

-
Society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice? Interesting... I really couldn't disagree more.

That's a combination Strawman/False Dichotomy maneuver. KK didn't say or imply that society shouldn't be concerned with individual justice. Your interpreting his words that way is only possible if you presuppose that society can't be concerned BOTH with individual justice and with greater societal social impacts, which I think is taking that line badly out of context, and reading his words in the worst possible light. As usual, KK's position is a bit more nuanced.

The justice system is clearly founded on individual justice. The exact circumstances and motive of each crime are weighed as a matter of course. But some sentencing laws and guidelines are aimed at achieving certain effects on a larger, societal level. Whether three strikes laws, laws which give stiffer penalties for violent crimes committed with a firearm, or hate crimes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's not the thesis he was putting forward.

You're right. His thesis appears to be: by reducing hate crimes, we reduce the percentage of hate crimes. By reducing all crime, we don't reduce the percentage of hate crimes. This thesis was based on an assumption of facts.

I took those assumptions and showed how his thesis was flawed.

First, he didn't make a statement of fact about how successful hate crimes laws are. He's usually a bit more conservative than that. He merely explained the reasoning behind them.

Secondly, he questioned the thesis that increasing the severity of criminal punishments across the board would necessarily be successful. As he put it, in theory one might try to increase the punishment for crimes to the level that the crime rate drops to zero. But history seems to demonstrate that this doesn't actually work.

Okay...

I'm not just being argumentative here, and I wasn't trying to cast any aspersions on kk( maybe we should take a breath?) but it still seems to me that making decisions that are unjust for any individual for the perceived greater good of society would mean that you value one of those things over the other. I'm not saying this makes anyone an donkey-cave, I just happen to disagree. I genuinely don't see it as a false dichotomy, since at a certain level thinking in terms of what is best for a society vs. What is best for an individual is mutually exclusive.

Within the justice system the standard assumption is individual justice, with extenuating circumstances and motive accorded important consideration. Witness the difference between Manslaughter and Premeditated Homicide. That being said, there are quite a lot of laws out there which are designed to ALSO achieve greater societal goals. I mentioned three of them. That's the nature of our justice system. KK was just explaining it.

I get that there's a difference between manslaughter and premeditated homicide.

Perhaps I was imprecise in my wording, but I'm not saying that the the punishments for all violent crimes should be the same. I'm saying that say, for example, the punishment for aggravated assault should be the same for everyone who commits it, regardless of the motive. And please, make the punishment as harsh as you would for these hate crimes.

But then your disagreement is not with KK, it's with some fundamental assumptions underpinning the justice system. In reality, and in justice, motive matters.

I enjoy these viral videos to some extent. They make it onto every major forum and almost every thread is different. On most of the Concealed Carry Weapon forums the discussion has mostly been based on if Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy all exist.

Ability: Disparity of force is present as the "fight" is unfair. Any reasonable person can deduce that one of the participants (in this case, a group) could kill or permanently damage the victim even though no deadly weapon is present.

Opportunity: The assailants are actively participating in the assault.

Jeopardy: Again, due to the active assault, jeopardy is imminent.

If the three parameters above meet the Reasonable Person standard, deadly force is justified. 939.48 - ANNOT.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

Th law differs but in my state it defines great bodily harm as bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily injury.


Now that's a sticky situation it's borderline until she starts seizing or they try to drag her out of the building. At that point anyone with a CCW permit could have shot the pair of them. There was effectively a kidnapping and great bodily harm. The general consensus has been most permit holders would have stayed out of it until that point. You don't fire warning shots and you don't involve yourself in a scrap while carrying.

Vandil wrote:I enjoy these viral videos to some extent. They make it onto every major forum and almost every thread is different. On most of the Concealed Carry Weapon forums the discussion has mostly been based on if Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy all exist.

Ability: Disparity of force is present as the "fight" is unfair. Any reasonable person can deduce that one of the participants (in this case, a group) could kill or permanently damage the victim even though no deadly weapon is present.

Opportunity: The assailants are actively participating in the assault.

Jeopardy: Again, due to the active assault, jeopardy is imminent.

If the three parameters above meet the Reasonable Person standard, deadly force is justified. 939.48 - ANNOT.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

Th law differs but in my state it defines great bodily harm as bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily injury.


Now that's a sticky situation it's borderline until she starts seizing or they try to drag her out of the building. At that point anyone with a CCW permit could have shot the pair of them. There was effectively a kidnapping and great bodily harm. The general consensus has been most permit holders would have stayed out of it until that point. You don't fire warning shots and you don't involve yourself in a scrap while carrying.

Oh wow Vendril just proffered a self defense argument for defense of the victim. Excellent.
INteresting. You're not under a legal duty to intervene. Are you under a moral duty to intervene?
If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?



Frazzled answer. Once she's down and getting wailed on I think I'm acting, and I think I'm doing it before I realize it. This is based on previous behavior on my part (which has gotten me hurt I'll add).

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

You stole my pic!

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

You stole my pic!

You can have this one. It's a Surface-to-air dachshund.
image broke :(

That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

The only reason a gun should be drawn is if the situation is already deadly\grievous. Loosing a firearm from a retention holster in a general melee with the intention of brandishing it is not a good idea even if it is legal (Utah, Montana, etc). I would have just stood over the victim and left the gun in it's holster on my hip. Neither one of those ladies looked willing to go through someone certainly not someone like myself. The repeatedly came back at the victim only because no one was willing to stand in their way with the exception of one old lady.

Keep your pimp hand strong!

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If so, how far do you go in that intervention (again morally)? When is it morally justified to whip out the full auto weiner dogs? When is it morally ok NOT to whip out the full auto weiner dogs?

Also, I prefer the "effectuating an arrest" argument. So much cleaner, and you don't have to get into any of the moral arguments.

You stole my pic!

You can have this one. It's a Surface-to-air dachshund.

Will have to wait until this weekend as the pic is blocked but AS rocket weiners will be a welcome addition to our combined dachshund offensive forces!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

Unless they turn around and shoot you of course for throwing water on them. A chicka friend of mine from back in the day would have stabbed you about 20 times. Thats my girl!
FBI stats denote 2.5mm crimes a year stopped with brandishing. But not to go off topic. Besides we're talking full auto weiner dogs here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vandil wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That is very sensible. Pulling a gun often accelerates the violence to a deadly level very quickly.

IMO the fight could have been broken up with a bucket of cold water.

Keep your pimp hand strong!

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's not the thesis he was putting forward.

You're right. His thesis appears to be: by reducing hate crimes, we reduce the percentage of hate crimes. By reducing all crime, we don't reduce the percentage of hate crimes. This thesis was based on an assumption of facts.

I took those assumptions and showed how his thesis was flawed.

Let me illustrate the argument with a table.

I have made up the figures here to demonstrate the mathematics.

Assumptions
1. Some people have a tendency to commit violent crimes.
2. Some of these violent criminals have their tendency to commit violent crimes increased by their hatred of specific groups such as people with different coloured skin or sexual preferences. Also, people who are not otherwise violent, become so when presented with targets in the hated groups. The phenomenon of rage murder of homosexuals is an example of this in action. Thus, people in the hated groups are more likely to suffer from violent crime than the average of the population as a whole.
3. This leads to a 10% increase in violent crime towards victim groups.
4. Society wishes for crime to be reduced to the minimum practical.
5. People's tendency to commit violent crime is reduced by the severity of the punishment inflicted.

Level of penalty is a number I made up to denote punishment from a level of nothing (0) to the parents being executed before the criminal can be born (10).
Number of crimes is per 100,000 of the involved population per year.



As you can see, although the tendency to commit crime is reduced by increasing punishment, "hated" groups still suffer more crime than the population as a whole.

The purpose of "hate crime" legislation is to increase the level of penalty for "hate" crimes, in order to counteract the tendency of some people to commit additional violent crimes from hatred.

biccat wrote:Hate crimes are bad laws. They either punish legal behavior based on the intent of the actor or make certain crimes worse based on the mindset of the actor. In both cases, you're punishing someone for thinking "bad thoughts."

How exactly are you defining 'bad laws' here - intent matters for an awful lot of crimes, and have been part of the legal tradition for longer than the US has been around. It's not just obscure crimes you might not have heard of, murder is treated differently based on intent - an accidental killing, killing in self-defense, killing because you got really angry, and killing after you planned for weeks all get very different treatment in the courts, for example. I

Whenever I've seen someone bring up this argument, it's consistently only 'hate crimes' laws that the objection applies to, so I'm wondering if you object to 'bad thoughts' laws in general, or only this specific case? I don't like hate crime laws in general, but your objection doesn't make sense to me unless you're rejecting the use of intent in crimes in general, which would be a huge, sweeping change to the legal system.

I think the world may have to end soon as I agree with you entirely. "Hate crimes" do nothing other than to move the goal posts. You beat up someone to steal their phone and they happen to be a different colour, or gay, etc, and suddenly it is a hate crime and the penalties are far greater?

If you beat up someone to steal their phone, in many jurisdictions that moves you from simple battery to robbery because of your intent, so suddenly it's a robbery and the penalites are far greater. The punishment for crimes, and sometimes even the name of the crime, changes a lot based on intent.

Kilkrazy wrote:As you can see, although the tendency to commit crime is reduced by increasing punishment, "hated" groups still suffer more crime than the population as a whole.

The purpose of "hate crime" legislation is to increase the level of penalty for "hate" crimes, in order to counteract the tendency of some people to commit additional violent crimes from hatred.

First, I would take exception to the idea that hate crimes outnumber non-hate crimes. However, even this assumption illustrates my point.

I agree with you that the purpose of hate crime legislation is to decrease the frequency of hate crimes. However, it's a statistical game, not an effective deterrant. In your table, every step represents a decrease in the number of hate crimes committed, but the statistics are the same (52% hate crimes). Here is a table that illustrates the hypothetical decreases in crime due to hate crime legislation (assuming the same punishments yield the same rewards:

Penalty Regular Hate % hate # crimes % reduction in crime 0 100 110 52% 210 0.00 1 100 99 50% 199 5.24 2 100 88 47% 188 10.48 3 100 77 44% 177 15.71 4 100 66 40% 166 20.95 5 100 55 35% 155 26.19 6 100 44 31% 144 31.43 7 100 33 25% 133 36.67 8 100 22 18% 122 41.90 9 100 11 10% 111 47.14 10 100 0 0% 100 52.38

As you can see, the number of hate crimes are decreasing as punishment increases. But for every 10% reduction in hate crimes, the percent reduction in overall crime is only 5% (or, 1/10 of the total percent of crimes that are hate crimes). At 100% deterrance, you still have 100 non-hate based crimes that are committed. With your table, 100% deterrance prevents all crime.

Therefore, passing hate crime legislation does not do more than increasing punishment to address crime. It simply changes the statistics.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:As you can see, although the tendency to commit crime is reduced by increasing punishment, "hated" groups still suffer more crime than the population as a whole.

The purpose of "hate crime" legislation is to increase the level of penalty for "hate" crimes, in order to counteract the tendency of some people to commit additional violent crimes from hatred.

First, I would take exception to the idea that hate crimes outnumber non-hate crimes. However, even this assumption illustrates my point.

I agree with you that the purpose of hate crime legislation is to decrease the frequency of hate crimes. However, it's a statistical game, not an effective deterrant. In your table, every step represents a decrease in the number of hate crimes committed, but the statistics are the same (52% hate crimes). Here is a table that illustrates the hypothetical decreases in crime due to hate crime legislation (assuming the same punishments yield the same rewards:

Penalty Regular Hate % hate # crimes % reduction in crime 0 100 110 52% 210 0.00 1 100 99 50% 199 5.24 2 100 88 47% 188 10.48 3 100 77 44% 177 15.71 4 100 66 40% 166 20.95 5 100 55 35% 155 26.19 6 100 44 31% 144 31.43 7 100 33 25% 133 36.67 8 100 22 18% 122 41.90 9 100 11 10% 111 47.14 10 100 0 0% 100 52.38

As you can see, the number of hate crimes are decreasing as punishment increases. But for every 10% reduction in hate crimes, the percent reduction in overall crime is only 5% (or, 1/10 of the total percent of crimes that are hate crimes). At 100% deterrance, you still have 100 non-hate based crimes that are committed. With your table, 100% deterrance prevents all crime.

Therefore, passing hate crime legislation does not do more than increasing punishment to address crime. It simply changes the statistics.

I think your table should look like this.



If correct, it would seem that you have made an assumption that non hate crimes will not be reduced by increasing the penalty on them.

I do not claim that hate crimes outnumber non-hate crimes. I make the assumption that hated groups suffer the same average rate of crime as society as a whole, plus some extra. Thus the rate per 100,000 available victims is higher.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think your table should look like this.

If correct, it would seem that you have made an assumption that non hate crimes will not be reduced by increasing the penalty.

Yes, that's correct.

And if the penalty is only for hate crimes, then non-hate crimes would not be reduced by increasing the penalty.

edit: removed table because dakka behaves badly with large images.

My assumption is that increasing the penalty for all violent crime will reduce all violent crime, however that hate crime runs at a higher rate than average and needs an extra penalty to bring it down to average.

I did not attempt to calculate a suggested rate of extra penalty on top of the normal penalty, since the figures I used were chosen only to demonstrate a mathematical argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:My assumption is that increasing the penalty for all violent crime will reduce all violent crime, however that hate crime runs at a higher rate than average and needs an extra penalty to bring it down to average.

I did not attempt to calculate a suggested rate of extra penalty on top of the normal penalty, since the figures I used were chosen only to demonstrate a mathematical argument.

My point is...why bring hate crime down to average (and I don't agree that it runs above average), when you can reduce all crime equally?

Is it better to have 100 crimes, 50 of which are hate crimes or 1000 crimes, 400 of which are hate crimes?

In the first example, 50% of all crimes are hate crimes (shock, horror!). In the 2nd, only 40% are hate crimes. The second is not an improvement over the first.

biccat wrote:My point is...why bring hate crime down to average (and I don't agree that it runs above average), when you can reduce all crime equally?

You can only do this to a certain point, as you can never eliminate crime entirely. We (as a society) choose how draconian and severe we want our criminal justice system to be as a whole.

We also tweak parts of it on occasion to attempt to bring certain outliers into line, or deal more harshly with types of crimes we think should be discouraged even more highly. Three Strikes laws target repeat offenders. Stricter sentences for crimes committed using handguns target criminals who use handguns. Hate Crime laws attempt to reduce the number of crimes committed out of "isms", relative to the general rate of crime.

I am sure that we both agree that it would be preferable for all crime to be reduced as much as possible.

That being the case, if hate crime is an extra on top of normal violent crime -- which I agree is arguable -- what would be wrong with an extra penalty for hate crimes, as long as non-hate crimes are properly suppressed.

Kilkrazy wrote:I am sure that we both agree that it would be preferable for all crime to be reduced as much as possible.

That being the case, if hate crime is an extra on top of normal violent crime -- which I agree is arguable -- what would be wrong with an extra penalty for hate crimes, as long as non-hate crimes are properly suppressed.

Well the issue arises that the exact same circimstances result in less punishment if some people are victims vs. others, when the reality is, all of the crimes being discussed are hate crimes. Just because i hate you because of your skin color vs. someone else being hated because of what clothes they were wearing still means someone was beaten down because of hate.

Kilkrazy wrote:I am sure that we both agree that it would be preferable for all crime to be reduced as much as possible.

That being the case, if hate crime is an extra on top of normal violent crime -- which I agree is arguable -- what would be wrong with an extra penalty for hate crimes, as long as non-hate crimes are properly suppressed.

Wait, I didn't say that hate crime isn't "an extra on top of normal violent crime," I just said that I dispute that the incidence of hate crime is higher than the incidence of violent crime. I agree that there are crimes that would not have been committed but for some -ism.

In your table, you said 100 regular crimes and 110 hate crimes. I assume that meant a total of 210 crimes per year. Did you mean 100 regular crimes + 10 hate crimes?

Anyway, hate crimes are bad because:
1) it's inefficient. By increasing penalties for certain crimes and not others you are denying resources to other prosecutions where they could be useful.
2) it places value on victims of crime based on their race/sex/religion/whatever, which inherently devalues victims that are not targetted based on those characteristics, which is discriminating.
3) it punishes people for "bad thoughts" not "bad actions." In a brief response to BearersOfSalvation's point above, there's a difference between specific intent crimes and hate crimes. In specific intent crimes, the purpose of the law is not to prevent the thought (I should rob this guy, I want to murder my wife), but rather to prevent the actions (robbery, murder). The purpose of hate crimes is to prevent "bad thoughts."

Further, the evolution of the law into specific intent crimes wasn't from scaling up the laws, it was for scaling down punishments. Homicide used to have one punishment: death. Eventually, it was reasoned that homicide with malice was worse than accidental or unintentional homicide (murder and manslaughter). The latter only got you life in prison. Then we decided that certain motivations for crimes weren't as bad, and didn't deserve the death penalty (reckless disregard, etc.).

We punish a contract killer more severely than a person who catches their spouse in bed with another person and kills them in a jealous rage, and in turn punish that person more severely than a driver who accidentally kills someone out of negligence.

We consider premeditated murder for hire sufficiently reprehensible and detrimental to society to accord it more strict judgment and harsher punishment. Just as we do people who assault or murder people out of a hatred for their skin color or sexual preference. We consider this act even more reprehensible and detrimental to society than a "regular" assault or murder.

Mannahnin wrote:We punish a contract killer more severely than a person who catches their spouse in bed with another person and kills them in a jealous rage, and in turn punish that person more severely than a driver who accidentally kills someone out of negligence.

We consider premeditated murder for hire sufficiently reprehensible and detrimental to society to accord it more strict judgment and harsher punishment. Just as we do people who assault or murder people out of a hatred for their skin color or sexual preference. We consider this act even more reprehensible and detrimental to society than a "regular" assault or murder.

Actually we don't. Contract killer is premeditated which means they planned it out. Manslaughter generally has lesser symptoms as a mitigating factor - that they are literally out of their mind at the time.

Did you just read my post so badly that you got it entirely backwards?

That's what I just said. We punish premeditated murderers more harshly than people who kill by accident. That's differentiating between the motive/thinking behind the crime.

Mannahnin wrote:But then your disagreement is not with KK, it's with some fundamental assumptions underpinning the justice system. In reality, and in justice, motive matters.

I think that's the issue. It depends on where your focus lies, motive or end result of the act.

And yes, I suppose I do have a few issues with the judicial system.

There is no justice. Just us.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But then your disagreement is not with KK, it's with some fundamental assumptions underpinning the justice system. In reality, and in justice, motive matters.

I think that's the issue. It depends on where your focus lies, motive or end result of the act.

And yes, I suppose I do have a few issues with the judicial system.

I don't mean to suggest that there aren't flaws with the justice system, or with this concept in practice. I think Three Strikes laws can be brutally unjust in some situations, and inappropriately tie the judge's hands in terms of exercising good judgment in sentencing.

But in general I don't see any reason why we can't bear both motive and end result in mind. In general we do it all the time.

Monster Rain wrote:Why not punish all violent crimes that harshly, though?

The impact of a crime is not just on the victim, but on the greater community. When a guy is beaten up because he was taking money out of an ATM at 3 in the morning, well the community now realises that it isn't safe to take money out of an ATM at 3am. Which isn't good, but it's a small thing really.

When someone is beaten up because they were transgendered, they don't get to make a simple choice like 'stop going to the ATM at 3am', they have to stop being who they are, or live in fear. The crime simply is worse, because not only did the victim suffer, that whole minority community is now forced to fear for their own lives.

And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12. So yeah, when someone commits a crime and puts that kind of fear through the community, there is justification for greater punishment because the crime really is worse.


That said, I'm not sure this works very well in practice, because the laws are too quickly applied to any crime where the victim was a part of a minority. Really, there needs to be a strict standard of proof that the crime was committed because the victim was a minority, and from what I've read I'm not sure that's always the case. But that's really a case for making hate crime legislation better, not for removing it entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The corollary to this is that increased punishment (for hate crimes) decreases the incidence of (hate crime) violence.

If so, why not increase punishment for all crimes, thereby reducing the incidence of all violence?

Greater punishment is frequently shown to have little or no effect on crime rates.

The point is not to punish the offender in order to reduce the frequency of crime, but to recognise the impact of a hate crime on society as a whole is far greater than a crime motivated by personal or property reasons, and so give a greater punishment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:They should go to jail, but stil it was a "Man" trying to get into the ladies room. Trans gender gets tricky at the public bathroom level.

Only if you're deathly afraid someone might see your peepee.

Mannahnin wrote:But in general I don't see any reason why we can't bear both motive and end result in mind.

Fair enough.

I don't see any reason why every citizen shouldn't enjoy the perceived benefit of increased sentences for violent crimes that Hate Crime legislation provides.

Sebter broke it down pretty well too. In many ways a crime against a minority based on their inherent qualities is more damaging to the community; so the crime itself is actually more severe.

I don't see why every citizen shouldn't enjoy the benefit of reduced rates of being a victim of violent crime that my being a white male provides.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see why every citizen shouldn't enjoy the benefit of reduced rates of being a victim of violent crime that my being a white male provides.

Do you know what the rates of having one's BMW stolen are among White Males?

Might be related to the rate of BMW ownership.

I'll just not say anything.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see why every citizen shouldn't enjoy the benefit of reduced rates of being a victim of violent crime that my being a white male provides.

Do you know what the rates of having one's BMW stolen are among White Males?

Do you know that the rate of Ice Cream sales are directly proportional to the occurence of rape?

AvatarForm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see why every citizen shouldn't enjoy the benefit of reduced rates of being a victim of violent crime that my being a white male provides.

Do you know what the rates of having one's BMW stolen are among White Males?

Do you know that the rate of Ice Cream sales are directly proportional to the occurence of rape?

*Looks at tub of vanilla fudge*

Um...

Monster Rain wrote:Do you know what the rates of having one's BMW stolen are among White Males?

Crime disproportionately impacts the poor more than the rich.

No comment on my answer to you, above? I mean, if BMWs get stolen all the time, then ultimately you need to pay more for insurance of your BMW and stop leaving it on the street. But if you keep getting assaulted because you're gay...

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I am sure that we both agree that it would be preferable for all crime to be reduced as much as possible.

That being the case, if hate crime is an extra on top of normal violent crime -- which I agree is arguable -- what would be wrong with an extra penalty for hate crimes, as long as non-hate crimes are properly suppressed.

Wait, I didn't say that hate crime isn't "an extra on top of normal violent crime," I just said that I dispute that the incidence of hate crime is higher than the incidence of violent crime. I agree that there are crimes that would not have been committed but for some -ism.

In your table, you said 100 regular crimes and 110 hate crimes. I assume that meant a total of 210 crimes per year. Did you mean 100 regular crimes + 10 hate crimes?

In my assumptions I said the table was crimes per 100,000 of the affected population per year.

I.e. the average rate of violent crime is 100 per 100,000 of the general population (everyone), but the rate among hated groups is 110 per 100,000. In other words, hated groups are more likely to be victims of crime than average.

biccat wrote:Anyway, hate crimes are bad because:
1) it's inefficient. By increasing penalties for certain crimes and not others you are denying resources to other prosecutions where they could be useful.

The justice system does not have unlimited resources, so there will always be competition of this kind. That does not argue specifically against the prosecution of hate crimes. It argues for an examination of which sorts of crimes are more damaging to society, to prioritise efficiently. For example, there are heavier penalties for selling cannabis within a certain distance of a school. That may be a sensible precaution against selling drugs to children, or it may be a waste of money.

biccat wrote:2) it places value on victims of crime based on their race/sex/religion/whatever, which inherently devalues victims that are not targetted based on those characteristics, which is discriminating.

Your assumption here is like saying that drunk drivers who have accidents should not be discriminated against compared to non-drunk drivers who have accidents, although drunk drivers have more accidents.

biccat wrote:3) it punishes people for "bad thoughts" not "bad actions." In a brief response to BearersOfSalvation's point above, there's a difference between specific intent crimes and hate crimes. In specific intent crimes, the purpose of the law is not to prevent the thought (I should rob this guy, I want to murder my wife), but rather to prevent the actions (robbery, murder). The purpose of hate crimes is to prevent "bad thoughts."

It punishes people who commit violent crimes from bias. The purpose is to reduce crimes committed against groups who suffer higher rates of crime because of bias.

biccat wrote:Further, the evolution of the law into specific intent crimes wasn't from scaling up the laws, it was for scaling down punishments. Homicide used to have one punishment: death. Eventually, it was reasoned that homicide with malice was worse than accidental or unintentional homicide (murder and manslaughter). The latter only got you life in prison. Then we decided that certain motivations for crimes weren't as bad, and didn't deserve the death penalty (reckless disregard, etc.).

If I understand the point correctly, you are arguing that crimes committed from malice should be more heavily punished than crimes not committed from malice. Don't the hate crime laws intend to do that?

Kilkrazy wrote:In my assumptions I said the table was crimes per 100,000 of the affected population per year.

I.e. the average rate of violent crime is 100 per 100,000 of the general population (everyone), but the rate among hated groups is 110 per 100,000. In other words, hated groups are more likely to be victims of crime than average.

Well then you're just playing games with statistics.

I would rather have less crime overall than simply less hate crime.

Kilkrazy wrote:The justice system does not have unlimited resources, so there will always be competition of this kind. That does not argue specifically against the prosecution of hate crimes. It argues for an examination of which sorts of crimes are more damaging to society, to prioritise efficiently. For example, there are heavier penalties for selling cannabis within a certain distance of a school. That may be a sensible precaution against selling drugs to children, or it may be a waste of money.

Yes, but adding layers of hate crime legislation makes hate crimes more costly to prosecute. The standard for assault is easy. Adding on motivation makes the case much more difficult, consuming more resources (police & prosecutor time).

If it takes 50 hours to prosecute a standard assault and 60 hours to prosecute a hate crime, then for every 5 hate crimes assaults you could have prosecuted 6 regular assaults.

biccat wrote:2) it places value on victims of crime based on their race/sex/religion/whatever, which inherently devalues victims that are not targetted based on those characteristics, which is discriminating.

Kilkrazy wrote:Your assumption here is like saying that drunk drivers who have accidents should not be discriminated against compared to non-drunk drivers who have accidents, although drunk drivers have more accidents.

Um, no I'm not. I'm saying that victims of drunk drivers should not receive additional benefits over victims of non-drunk drivers. Should the response time for drunk driving accidents be 10 minutes, and 12 minutes for non-drunk driving? This would prioritize those victims of drunk drivers and help deter drunk drivers (since the police would be there faster).

Kilkrazy wrote:It punishes people who commit violent crimes from bias. The purpose is to reduce crimes committed against groups who suffer higher rates of crime because of bias.

Yes, I agree. But that means taking resources from elsewhere to prosecute bias crimes. And the only groups who are protected are those who have the political clout to get their specific differences recognized.

Kilkrazy wrote:If I understand the point correctly, you are arguing that crimes committed from malice should be more heavily punished than crimes not committed from malice. Don't the hate crime laws intend to do that?

You don't. I wasn't making a point, simply providing historical background. The reason we have murder and manslaughter isn't because we decided that intent-based crimes were worse, it is because we decided that non-intent based crimes weren't as bad. It's a relatively fine distinction, but an important one.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Do you know what the rates of having one's BMW stolen are among White Males?

Crime disproportionately impacts the poor more than the rich.

Yeah, maybe I'm dating myself here but the Beemer was for a time the archetypal "Upper class white man's" car.

sebster wrote:No comment on my answer to you, above? I mean, if BMWs get stolen all the time, then ultimately you need to pay more for insurance of your BMW and stop leaving it on the street. But if you keep getting assaulted because you're gay...

Sorry man. I thought that much of what you wrote was pretty reasonable and well said. I can see your point of view clearly; however, I still wonder why the perceived benefit shouldn't be available for everyone.

sebster wrote:That said, I'm not sure this works very well in practice, because the laws are too quickly applied to any crime where the victim was a part of a minority. Really, there needs to be a strict standard of proof that the crime was committed because the victim was a minority, and from what I've read I'm not sure that's always the case. But that's really a case for making hate crime legislation better, not for removing it entirely.

I thought this was a really good point.

sebster wrote:The point is not to punish the offender in order to reduce the frequency of crime, but to recognise the impact of a hate crime on society as a whole is far greater than a crime motivated by personal or property reasons, and so give a greater punishment.

I could be misreading this, but it seems like you're saying it's more of a gesture by society to show its disapproval of Hate Crimes and not actually be a deterrent. This is perhaps a more honest approach and one that I suppose makes more sense to me.

Frazzled wrote:Why exactly is this not being investigated for being a hate crime?

Because LGBT people are second class citizens in many peoples' eyes, not deserving of the same rights as everyone else?

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In my assumptions I said the table was crimes per 100,000 of the affected population per year.

I.e. the average rate of violent crime is 100 per 100,000 of the general population (everyone), but the rate among hated groups is 110 per 100,000. In other words, hated groups are more likely to be victims of crime than average.

Well then you're just playing games with statistics.

I would rather have less crime overall than simply less hate crime.

I’m not “playing games with statistics”, I am using fairly simple maths to show that increased penalties for hate crime reduce crime overall more than not having increased penalties for hate crime. (Based on the assumption that increased penalties deter crime more.)

Kilkrazy wrote:The justice system does not have unlimited resources, so there will always be competition of this kind. That does not argue specifically against the prosecution of hate crimes. It argues for an examination of which sorts of crimes are more damaging to society, to prioritise efficiently. For example, there are heavier penalties for selling cannabis within a certain distance of a school. That may be a sensible precaution against selling drugs to children, or it may be a waste of money.

biccat wrote:Yes, but adding layers of hate crime legislation makes hate crimes more costly to prosecute. The standard for assault is easy. Adding on motivation makes the case much more difficult, consuming more resources (police & prosecutor time).

I disagree that prosecuting hate crime is necessarily more difficult.

For example, if witnesses give a statement that the accused was shouting, “You fething Hindu/Arab/White Boy/Homo!” as he kicked someone’s head in, there is an obvious inference that the case is a hate crime rather than a simple assault, and there is evidence to bring forwards in court.

biccat wrote:If it takes 50 hours to prosecute a standard assault and 60 hours to prosecute a hate crime, then for every 5 hate crimes assaults you could have prosecuted 6 regular assaults.

You have to assume first that the six normal assaults happen.

If by not prosecuting hate crimes, they should increase by 25%, you would have now have 6.25 hate crimes to every six normal assaults. The overall number of assaults has increased, and the amount of money spent on prosecuting assaults has gone up 11%.

However it is pointless to make this kind of calculation without proper data because it just shows the operation of mathematical principles.

biccat wrote:2) it places value on victims of crime based on their race/sex/religion/whatever, which inherently devalues victims that are not targetted based on those characteristics, which is discriminating.

Kilkrazy wrote:Your assumption here is like saying that drunk drivers who have accidents should not be discriminated against compared to non-drunk drivers who have accidents, although drunk drivers have more accidents.

biccat wrote:Um, no I'm not. I'm saying that victims of drunk drivers should not receive additional benefits over victims of non-drunk drivers. Should the response time for drunk driving accidents be 10 minutes, and 12 minutes for non-drunk driving? This would prioritize those victims of drunk drivers and help deter drunk drivers (since the police would be there faster).

It would seem that to you, the prosecution of a criminal is a benefit to the victim of his crime. We should perhaps encourage more crime in order that more people can benefit from having a day in court as a victim.

Kilkrazy wrote:It punishes people who commit violent crimes from bias. The purpose is to reduce crimes committed against groups who suffer higher rates of crime because of bias.

biccat wrote:Yes, I agree. But that means taking resources from elsewhere to prosecute bias crimes. And the only groups who are protected are those who have the political clout to get their specific differences recognized.

The hate crime legislation is colour-blind. It doesn’t specify particular groups for protection. There isn’t a “Don’t Kick Hindus” Act.

It clearly is clearly protect minorities, of course. The reason is that (religious, racial and sexual) minorities historically have been the groups most at risk. They are also groups who do not have the political and social power to get special protection, which is part of the reason they are at more risk.

The hate crime legislation happened under the normal white/hetero/male domination of Congress. To their credit, they perceived injustice and moved to try and correct it.

Kilkrazy wrote:If I understand the point correctly, you are arguing that crimes committed from malice should be more heavily punished than crimes not committed from malice. Don't the hate crime laws intend to do that?

You don't. I wasn't making a point, simply providing historical background. The reason we have murder and manslaughter isn't because we decided that intent-based crimes were worse, it is because we decided that non-intent based crimes weren't as bad. It's a relatively fine distinction, but an important one.

The hate crime legislation provides a counterpoint. It has been decided that bias crimes are worse.

Note: I'm going to start using "real crime" as a synonym for "all crimes, including both hate and non-hate based crimes."

Kilkrazy wrote:I’m not “playing games with statistics”, I am using fairly simple maths to show that increased penalties for hate crime reduce crime overall more than not having increased penalties for hate crime. (Based on the assumption that increased penalties deter crime more.)

You're achiving a statistical benefit that is in contrast to a real benefit. That is, reducing the percentage of hate crimes relative to real crime, instead of simply reducing real crime.

Let me put this simply. If you have the choice between:
A) Increase penalties to reduce real crime by 10%.
B) Increase penalties to reduce hate crime by 10%.

Which option would you choose?

Kilkrazy wrote:I disagree that prosecuting hate crime is necessarily more difficult.

For example, if witnesses give a statement that the accused was shouting, “You fething Hindu/Arab/White Boy/Homo!” as he kicked someone’s head in, there is an obvious inference that the case is a hate crime rather than a simple assault, and there is evidence to bring forwards in court.

Prosecuting hate crime is necessarily more difficult because you're adding an additional element to the crime that the state must prove to convict.

To convict someone of battery, you have to prove a non-consentual touching. To convict someone of hate-battery, you have to prove non-consentual touching + intent to touch based on some characteristic.

Kilkrazy wrote:You have to assume first that the six normal assaults happen.

Don't worry, they happen. The backlog in criminal courts is evidence of this.

Kilkrazy wrote:If by not prosecuting hate crimes, they should increase by 25%, you would have now have 6.25 hate crimes to every six normal assaults. The overall number of assaults has increased, and the amount of money spent on prosecuting assaults has gone up 11%.

I'm not suggesting you don't prosecute hate crimes, simply that you prosecute them as regular crimes.

As to the rest of your post, it's a difference of opinion on which we'll have to agree to disagree. I balance things one way, you are balancing them another. There doesn't appear to be any fundamental disagreement.

However, your comment:

It would seem that to you, the prosecution of a criminal is a benefit to the victim of his crime. We should perhaps encourage more crime in order that more people can benefit from having a day in court as a victim.

is misreading my post. I have it on good authority that this is "borderline flamebaiting."

biccat wrote:Note: I'm going to start using "real crime" as a synonym for "all crimes, including both hate and non-hate based crimes."

Kilkrazy wrote:I’m not “playing games with statistics”, I am using fairly simple maths to show that increased penalties for hate crime reduce crime overall more than not having increased penalties for hate crime. (Based on the assumption that increased penalties deter crime more.)

You're achiving a statistical benefit that is in contrast to a real benefit. That is, reducing the percentage of hate crimes relative to real crime, instead of simply reducing real crime.

My original table was intended to demonstrate the mathematics of how increasing the penalty for violent crime without recognising the special nature of hate crime, would not reduce the excess of hate crime.

It wasn't a genuine example from life. I thought that was pretty clear in the first place.

biccat wrote:Let me put this simply. If you have the choice between:
A) Increase penalties to reduce real crime by 10%.
B) Increase penalties to reduce hate crime by 10%.

Which option would you choose?

Those are not the only options.

Kilkrazy wrote:My original table was intended to demonstrate the mathematics of how increasing the penalty for violent crime without recognising the special nature of hate crime, would not reduce the excess of hate crime.

Again, I agree.

But like I have said before, I would rather see real crime reduced than simply reducing hate crime. If increasing punishment reduces crime, then we should increase punishment for real crime, thereby reducing crime the most.

This might not reduce the percentage of hate crime to real crime, but it serves the most good.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Let me put this simply. If you have the choice between:
A) Increase penalties to reduce real crime by 10%.
B) Increase penalties to reduce hate crime by 10%.

Which option would you choose?

Those are not the only options.

So you're backing away from your original assumptions now?

No, he's just disagreeing with your logically fallacious argument.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why exactly is this not being investigated for being a hate crime?

Because LGBT people are second class citizens in many peoples' eyes, not deserving of the same rights as everyone else?

All animals are equal... but some animals are more equal than others.

Equal justice under the law is a core tenant. IMHO it should not matter why someone committed a crime or who they committed it against. Murder 1 is Murder 1. Rape is Rape. Apply the standards equally, let the case be argued entirely on the merits of THAT CASE and let the jury hand down the punishment that they see fit.

I said it before and I'll say it again... politicians pander to special interest groups to buy votes and "Hate Crime" legislation is nothing more than that.

Hate crime legislation doesn't punish crimes that wouldn't already be punished, so I call bs on that.

The Green Git wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why exactly is this not being investigated for being a hate crime?

Because LGBT people are second class citizens in many peoples' eyes, not deserving of the same rights as everyone else?

All animals are equal... but some animals are more equal than others.

Equal justice under the law is a core tenant. IMHO it should not matter why someone committed a crime or who they committed it against. Murder 1 is Murder 1. Rape is Rape. Apply the standards equally, let the case be argued entirely on the merits of THAT CASE and let the jury hand down the punishment that they see fit.

If you would do us the courtesy of thinking your argument through a little more, and/or reading the thread, you might notice that why someone committed a crime and who they committed it against is routinely considered important in many different crimes. "Murder 1" is differentiated from other kinds of murders by these factors, is considered a worse crime because of these factors, and punished more harshly because of these factors.

The Green Git wrote:[I said it before and I'll say it again... politicians pander to special interest groups to buy votes and "Hate Crime" legislation is nothing more than that.

Which is a larger voting bloc? Gay people, or people who oppose legal protections for gay people? Your argument fails on its face.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:My original table was intended to demonstrate the mathematics of how increasing the penalty for violent crime without recognising the special nature of hate crime, would not reduce the excess of hate crime.

Again, I agree.

But like I have said before, I would rather see real crime reduced than simply reducing hate crime. If increasing punishment reduces crime, then we should increase punishment for real crime, thereby reducing crime the most.

This might not reduce the percentage of hate crime to real crime, but it serves the most good.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Let me put this simply. If you have the choice between:
A) Increase penalties to reduce real crime by 10%.
B) Increase penalties to reduce hate crime by 10%.

Which option would you choose?

Those are not the only options.

So you're backing away from your original assumptions now?

No. I just don't accept that there are only two options.

Society has chosen a third option, to increase penalties overall, and to add an extra penalty to discourage hate crime. You don't like that, but it is still an option.

Kilkrazy wrote:No. I just don't accept that there are only two options.

Society has chosen a third option, to increase penalties overall, and to add an extra penalty to discourage hate crime. You don't like that, but it is still an option.

That's not a third option, that's the same as #2.

If increasing penalties reduces crime, it is better to increase penalties on all classes of crimes to do the most good, rather than simply increasing penalties on one type of politically unpopular crime.

You're not engaging honestly. I do not grant your premises, nor are they compatible with the rationales behind many of our laws (not just hate crime laws).

Mannahnin wrote:

Which is a larger voting bloc? Gay people, or people who oppose legal protections for gay people? Your argument fails on its face.

There is another bloc consisting of ordinary people who aren't gay and aren't anti-gay, who wanted to see greater legal protection for gay people because it was the right thing to do.

These laws were presented, debated and enacted during the course of several congresses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:No. I just don't accept that there are only two options.

Society has chosen a third option, to increase penalties overall, and to add an extra penalty to discourage hate crime. You don't like that, but it is still an option.

That's not a third option, that's the same as #2.

If increasing penalties reduces crime, it is better to increase penalties on all classes of crimes to do the most good, rather than simply increasing penalties on one type of politically unpopular crime.

It's not the same as 2.

Let me demonstrate.

Assume the penalty for assault is 12 months.
To discourage assaults, the average rate of which is increasing, the penalty is raised to 18 months.
Hate crime assaults run at a higher rate than average, so the penalty for hate crime assaults is increased to 20 months.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

The Green Git wrote:[I said it before and I'll say it again... politicians pander to special interest groups to buy votes and "Hate Crime" legislation is nothing more than that.

Which is a larger voting bloc? Gay people, or people who oppose legal protections for gay people? Your argument fails on its face.

There is another bloc consisting of ordinary people who aren't gay and aren't anti-gay, who wanted to see greater legal protection for gay people because it was the right thing to do.

These laws were presented, debated and enacted during the course of several congresses.

Agreed. This is an instance where our society is doing something admirable, trying to protect the more vulnerable among us. I was just disproving tGG's contention that these laws are only enacted out of selfishness.

Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not the same as 2.

Let me demonstrate.

Assume the penalty for assault is 12 months.
To discourage assaults, the average rate of which is increasing, the penalty is raised to 18 months.
Hate crime assaults run at a higher rate than average, so the penalty for hate crime assaults is increased to 20 months.

Yes, it's the same, because you're prioritizing penalties for hate crimes over penalties for real crime.

Example:
The penalty for assaults is 12 months. (110 assaults per year, 10 of which are hate crimes)
Every 2 month increase reduces crime by 10%. (-11 real crimes per year, -1 hate crime per year)
The penalty for assaults is raised to 18 months, and we see a 30% decrease in real crime. (-33 real crimes per year, -3 hate crimes per year)

Option 1: increase the penalty for assaults another 2 months, decreasing real crime by 10% (-11 more real crimes per year, -1 more hate crime per year)
Option 2: increase the penalty for hate crime assaults another 2 months, decreasing hate crimes by 10% (-1 more hate crime per year)

You're saying that option 2 is better, because it reduces the number of hate crimes. But option 1 both reduces the number of hate crimes and reduces the number of non-hate crimes.

Like I said a few posts ago: for all non-zero A & B and P<1, P(A+B) < A + P(B).
(A = # of non-hate crimes, B = # of hate crimes, P = percent reduction in crime due to increased sentencing)

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not the same as 2.

Let me demonstrate.

Assume the penalty for assault is 12 months.
To discourage assaults, the average rate of which is increasing, the penalty is raised to 18 months.
Hate crime assaults run at a higher rate than average, so the penalty for hate crime assaults is increased to 20 months.

Yes, it's the same, because you're prioritizing penalties for hate crimes over penalties for real crime.

Example:
The penalty for assaults is 12 months. (110 assaults per year, 10 of which are hate crimes)
Every 2 month increase reduces crime by 10%. (-11 real crimes per year, -1 hate crime per year)
The penalty for assaults is raised to 18 months, and we see a 30% decrease in real crime. (-33 real crimes per year, -3 hate crimes per year)

Option 1: increase the penalty for assaults another 2 months, decreasing real crime by 10% (-11 more real crimes per year, -1 more hate crime per year)
Option 2: increase the penalty for hate crime assaults another 2 months, decreasing hate crimes by 10% (-1 more hate crime per year)

You're saying that option 2 is better, because it reduces the number of hate crimes. But option 1 both reduces the number of hate crimes and reduces the number of non-hate crimes.

Like I said a few posts ago: for all non-zero A & B and P<1, P(A+B) > A + P(B).
(A = # of non-hate crimes, B = # of hate crimes, P = percent reduction in crime due to increased sentencing)

You are still making the assumption that if hate crime sentences are increased, then non-hate crime sentences are not increased. You have made this assumption the basis of your two options, and it is in your maths. It is not true.

There is another option, which is PaA + PbB

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

true

shingouki wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

true

FALSE

Vulnerable as it relates to being "weak" physically... i'll point out that isn't what was meant by vulnerable.

Vulnerable because they get attacked on all sides is what was most likely meant.

when they go home their family attacks them verbally
when they walk down the street, people say horrible things to them
when they go to the store to buy food they are verbally assaulted
when they try to stop in and use the bathroom they are attacked because they are different

frgsinwntr wrote:

shingouki wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

true

FALSE

Vulnerable as it relates to being "weak" physically... i'll point out that isn't what was meant by vulnerable.

Vulnerable because they get attacked on all sides is what was most likely meant.

Wow. On no spectrum can you say your average man is more vulnerable than a woman or a child. Anything else is PC special interest nonsense.

really? have you ever been been bullied??

I added a bunch to my post above.

Is the average woman/child accosted every time they go out? the average transgendered person is.

frgsinwntr wrote:

shingouki wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

true

FALSE

Vulnerable as it relates to being "weak" physically... i'll point out that isn't what was meant by vulnerable.

Vulnerable because they get attacked on all sides is what was most likely meant.

when they go home their family attacks them verbally
when they walk down the street, people say horrible things to them
when they go to the store to buy food they are verbally assaulted
when they try to stop in and use the bathroom they are attacked because they are different

And with the exception of the last one none of those are actual crimes. EPIC FAIL.

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

Just because you ignore the statistics doesn't mean they're not out there. Or, ya know, mentioned in the thread.

Sebster wrote:When someone is beaten up because they were transgendered, they don't get to make a simple choice like 'stop going to the ATM at 3am', they have to stop being who they are, or live in fear. The crime simply is worse, because not only did the victim suffer, that whole minority community is now forced to fear for their own lives.

And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12. So yeah, when someone commits a crime and puts that kind of fear through the community, there is justification for greater punishment because the crime really is worse.

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

shingouki wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

true

FALSE

Vulnerable as it relates to being "weak" physically... i'll point out that isn't what was meant by vulnerable.

Vulnerable because they get attacked on all sides is what was most likely meant.

when they go home their family attacks them verbally
when they walk down the street, people say horrible things to them
when they go to the store to buy food they are verbally assaulted
when they try to stop in and use the bathroom they are attacked because they are different

And with the exception of the last one none of those are actual crimes. EPIC FAIL.

I'm going to have to say, your lack of empathy for people in this case is borderline sociopathic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

Just because you ignore the statistics doesn't mean they're not out there. Or, ya know, mentioned in the thread.

Sebster wrote:When someone is beaten up because they were transgendered, they don't get to make a simple choice like 'stop going to the ATM at 3am', they have to stop being who they are, or live in fear. The crime simply is worse, because not only did the victim suffer, that whole minority community is now forced to fear for their own lives.

And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12. So yeah, when someone commits a crime and puts that kind of fear through the community, there is justification for greater punishment because the crime really is worse.

+1 to this

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

Just because you ignore the statistics doesn't mean they're not out there. Or, ya know, mentioned in the thread.

Sebster wrote:When someone is beaten up because they were transgendered, they don't get to make a simple choice like 'stop going to the ATM at 3am', they have to stop being who they are, or live in fear. The crime simply is worse, because not only did the victim suffer, that whole minority community is now forced to fear for their own lives.

And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12. So yeah, when someone commits a crime and puts that kind of fear through the community, there is justification for greater punishment because the crime really is worse.

Your statistics aint gak. How many gay men are murdered? How many children?
How many women in the US are raped? How many gay men?
Nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I assume you mean nearly every violent crime.

No, nearly every crime is perpetrated because of some form of hate.

If someone hates sobriety, they probably partake in illicit drug use. If someone hates being poor, they may commit burglary. If someone hates doing their taxes, they may attempt to evade them, etc.

While I understand that Hate Crime laws were designed to combat prejudice, they do not function fairly. I could get stabbed for simply being white, but I guarantee that the perpetrator wouldn't see any extra sentencing because of this. It places the majority at a clear disadvantage, which makes little to no sense. It wouldn't be all that difficult to enforce strict laws against any form of violence. Why should impartial violence be deemed more acceptable?

Frazzled wrote:

Your statistics aint gak. How many gay men are murdered? How many children?
How many women in the US are raped? How many gay men?
Nonsense.

thats it. Dismiss everything that proves you wrong

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

shingouki wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

true

FALSE

Vulnerable as it relates to being "weak" physically... i'll point out that isn't what was meant by vulnerable.

Vulnerable because they get attacked on all sides is what was most likely meant.

when they go home their family attacks them verbally
when they walk down the street, people say horrible things to them
when they go to the store to buy food they are verbally assaulted
when they try to stop in and use the bathroom they are attacked because they are different

And with the exception of the last one none of those are actual crimes. EPIC FAIL.

I'm going to have to say, your lack of empathy for people in this case is borderline sociopathic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

Just because you ignore the statistics doesn't mean they're not out there. Or, ya know, mentioned in the thread.

Sebster wrote:When someone is beaten up because they were transgendered, they don't get to make a simple choice like 'stop going to the ATM at 3am', they have to stop being who they are, or live in fear. The crime simply is worse, because not only did the victim suffer, that whole minority community is now forced to fear for their own lives.

And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12. So yeah, when someone commits a crime and puts that kind of fear through the community, there is justification for greater punishment because the crime really is worse.

+1 to this

Oh contraire you're the one lacking empathy for all victims. How am I lacking empathy? I posted the freaking thread. I called for an investigation for hate crimes violations.

Frazzled wrote:Oh contraire you're the one lacking empathy for all victims. How am I lacking empathy? I posted the freaking thread. I called for an investigation for hate crimes violations.

Now i'm confused... you are posting inflammatory statments like "your statistics are gak!" to people who bring up the point that transgendered people face more threats and more danger each day statistically speaking... making them more vulnerable.... With out ANY back up as to why the statistics are "gak."

What is your stance? is this a hate crime? Should it be punished more?

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Like I said a few posts ago: for all non-zero A & B and P<1, P(A+B) > A + P(B).
(A = # of non-hate crimes, B = # of hate crimes, P = percent reduction in crime due to increased sentencing)

You are still making the assumption that if hate crime sentences are increased, then non-hate crime sentences are not increased. You have made this assumption the basis of your two options, and it is in your maths. It is not true.

There is another option, which is PaA + PbB

[note: i had to edit my post above because I said P(A+B) > A+P(B). This was wrong and it should have been P(A+B) < A+P(B)]

You seem to be missing the point, and that is: if increased punishment decreases crime, then an across-the-board increase in punishment will decrease crime more than a targetted increase in punishment.

Punishing hate crimes more than non-hate crimes is not better than punishing both equally. Decreasing non-hate crime through increased punishments is irrelevant to the comparison.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

Just because you ignore the statistics doesn't mean they're not out there. Or, ya know, mentioned in the thread.

Sebster wrote:And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12. So yeah, when someone commits a crime and puts that kind of fear through the community, there is justification for greater punishment because the crime really is worse.

Your statistics aint gak. How many gay men are murdered? How many children?
How many women in the US are raped? How many gay men?
Nonsense.

You post as if you think there will never be any consequences for any of it. It seems like you think that things posted on the internet don't count. Like no one you will ever meet or have met will ever read any of it, and no one will ever draw any conclusions about you as a person from them.

I have made a positive assertion: That minority groups who face prejudice are the victims of violent crime at a higher rate than the general populace. This is an accepted fact, and the basis of existing criminal law. Sebster has quoted a statistic that shows the average transgendered person is FIFTEEN TIMES more likely to be murdered than the average other American.

If you would like to disprove it, you might want to come up with some numbers. Right now you're just spewing garbage.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I assume you mean nearly every violent crime.

No, nearly every crime is perpetrated because of some form of hate.

If someone hates sobriety, they probably partake in illicit drug use. If someone hates being poor, they may commit burglary. If someone hates doing their taxes, they may attempt to evade them, etc.

This is a lie. You are playing games with words. No one (or such a small percentage that they are functionally irrelevant) does drugs because they "hate sobriety." No one commits burglary because they think it will stop them being poor. Try again.

Chrysaor686 wrote:It places the majority at a clear disadvantage, which makes little to no sense. It wouldn't be all that difficult to enforce strict laws against any form of violence. Why should impartial violence be deemed more acceptable?

False arguments again.

1. The majority is starting at an advantage. So this cannot be placing them at a "disadvantage" unless it has actually succeeded at reducing the rate of violent crime against (for example) black people below the rate of violent crime against white people. Which is obviously not the case.
2. We HAVE strict laws against violent crime. As people have been pointing out to Biccat for multiple pages, it's not an "either-or" proposition.
3. Sebster explained very clearly why hate crimes are worse. If I am robbed at an ATM at 3am, I can choose to not go to ATMs at 3am, and my community can take what happened to me as an example and be careful about going to ATMs at 3am. If I am beaten for being gay, I can't choose NOT to be gay, nor can other gay people. The community suffers more, and can do less about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Like I said a few posts ago: for all non-zero A & B and P<1, P(A+B) > A + P(B).
(A = # of non-hate crimes, B = # of hate crimes, P = percent reduction in crime due to increased sentencing)

You are still making the assumption that if hate crime sentences are increased, then non-hate crime sentences are not increased. You have made this assumption the basis of your two options, and it is in your maths. It is not true.

There is another option, which is PaA + PbB

[note: i had to edit my post above because I said P(A+B) > A+P(B). This was wrong and it should have been P(A+B) < A+P(B)]

You seem to be missing the point, and that is: if increased punishment decreases crime, then an across-the-board increase in punishment will decrease crime more than a targetted increase in punishment.

Punishing hate crimes more than non-hate crimes is not better than punishing both equally. Decreasing non-hate crime through increased punishments is irrelevant to the comparison.

Punishing both equally does nothing to combat the imbalance.

Premise 1: Groups subject to prejudice suffer from violent crime at higher rates than the population as a whole.
Premise 2: Increasing the punishment for a crime reduces the rate of that crime.
Premise 3: There is a point of diminishing returns for punishment where the rate of reduction in crime gets unproductively low; you cannot eliminate crime entirely through increased punishment.
Premise 4: The point of diminishing returns is higher for crimes seen as more heinous or wrong. Society does not feel oppressed or adjudge the justice system draconian, if, for example, we punish child molesters very harshly, while the general level of punishment isn't very high.
Conclusion: You reach the point of diminishing returns eventually if you just keep raising the level of punishment for everything.
Conclusion: We can reduce the rate of particular crimes we consider more reprehensible by punishing those more harshly, without creating the feeling that our entire justice system is draconian and cruel.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Oh contraire you're the one lacking empathy for all victims. How am I lacking empathy? I posted the freaking thread. I called for an investigation for hate crimes violations.

Now i'm confused... you are posting inflammatory statments like "your statistics are gak!" to people who bring up the point that transgendered people face more threats and more danger each day statistically speaking... making them more vulnerable.... With out ANY back up as to why the statistics are "gak."

What is your stance? is this a hate crime? Should it be punished more?

Because your statiustics are crap. 1 in 4 women is raped in their lifetime. How many gays are raped in their lifetime. The argument is absolute bs and just screams PC nonsense, which is why its stupid.

Mannahnin wrote:I have made a positive assertion: That minority groups who face prejudice are the victims of violent crime at a higher rate than the general populace. This is an accepted fact, and the basis of existing criminal law. Sebster has quoted a statistic that shows the average transgendered person is FIFTEEN TIMES more likely to be murdered than the average other American.

Sebster actually said (based on other people's quotes, yes, it's hearsay, but there's an exception for it...somehow)

And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12.

That would mean that the average transgendered person is 1500 times more likely to be murdered than an average American. The annual murder rate in the US is around 5.4 murders per 100,000 (which is where the 1/18,000 comes from). That would give the transgender community a murder rate of 8,100 murders per 100,000.

I find that statistic extraordinary, and given the lack of a citation, unbelievable.

You post as if you think there will never be any consequences for any of it. It seems like you think that things posted on the internet don't count. Like no one you will ever meet or have met will ever read any of it, and no one will ever draw any conclusions about you as a person from them.

Please. Get off your self avowed moral high horse. The ones arguing against hate crime legislation are arguing for more punishment and enforcement for all offenses. We want to see equal justice for all victims. You're the ones making some victims more special than others, and then trying to shout down those who disagree with you.
Sucker please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I have made a positive assertion: That minority groups who face prejudice are the victims of violent crime at a higher rate than the general populace. This is an accepted fact, and the basis of existing criminal law. Sebster has quoted a statistic that shows the average transgendered person is FIFTEEN TIMES more likely to be murdered than the average other American.

Sebster actually said (based on other people's quotes, yes, it's hearsay, but there's an exception for it...somehow)

And the fear is real, the average American has a 1/18,000 chance of being murdered, for the average transgendered person the rate is 1/12.

That would mean that the average transgendered person is 1500 times more likely to be murdered than an average American. The annual murder rate in the US is around 5.4 murders per 100,000 (which is where the 1/18,000 comes from). That would give the transgender community a murder rate of 8,100 murders per 100,000.

I find that statistic extraordinary, and given the lack of a citation, unbelievable.

Indeed. hvaing said that, murder is murder. make the world safe for everyone and exterminate the criminals.

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

People who have social stigmas and have less support in society are more vulnerable socially, even if they might physically be less so. Imagine a loner nerd, who exercises regularly and even does weight lifting occasionally, but is still into all the geeky things that tend to define that nerd. Now compare him to an equally well fit captain of the local football (gridiron football for non-US posters) team. sure, in a one on one fight the two might be equally matched because of their mutual exercises.

But those who commit hate crimes don't like one on one fights. So when he bullies the other guy, he brings his friends along with him-- something that the loner does not have. And how many people are going to stop a group of musclebound football players from beating up a nerd? Or a gay guy?

Friends or social acceptance is something that, in many areas, a gay man or lesbian woman would not have much of either. They are more vulnerable because of this status, whereas your wife and children are socially protected-- it may not seem like much, but it means more than you realize... just talk to someone who had lived a normal life before being outed in the bible belt, and how persecuted, abused, and neglected they (more likely than not) were afterwards.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I assume you mean nearly every violent crime.

No, nearly every crime is perpetrated because of some form of hate.

Jay walking is caused by hatred of zebra crossings.
Falsifying immigration forms is caused by hatred of not being able to have your wife in the country.
Putting sawdust in mince for hamburgers is caused by hatred of a diet lacking in fibre.
Ripping the "Do Not Remove" labels off mattresses is caused by hatred of labels you aren't allowed to remove.

Please.

Mannahnin wrote:This is a lie. You are playing games with words. No one (or such a small percentage that they are functionally irrelevant) does drugs because they "hate sobriety." No one commits burglary because they think it will stop them being poor. Try again.

I hate sobriety, and actively seek to escape it with drugs at any given opportunity. Most habitual drug users I know (which is most of the people I know) are exactly the same way, no matter their drug of preferrence. You must not partake in regular interaction with people who use drugs, or this would be very plain for you to see. This may not be the sole motive behind drug use, but it's definitely one of them.

Also, no one is going to burglarize a house if they have millions of dollars, because that would be absolutely unnecessary. Again, not the sole motive, but one of the many. It's also the most fundamental (because solving the problem behind this motive would prevent the crime completely).

False arguments again.

1. The majority is starting at an advantage. So this cannot be placing them at a "disadvantage" unless it has actually succeeded at reducing the rate of violent crime against (for example) black people below the rate of violent crime against white people. Which is obviously not the case.
2. We HAVE strict laws against violent crime. As people have been pointing out to Biccat for multiple pages, it's not an "either-or" proposition.
3. Sebster explained very clearly why hate crimes are worse. If I am robbed at an ATM at 3am, I can choose to not go to ATMs at 3am, and my community can take what happened to me as an example and be careful about going to ATMs at 3am. If I am beaten for being gay, I can't choose NOT to be gay, nor can other gay people. The community suffers more, and can do less about it.

1.) Not necessarily. There are more violent crimes committed against straight white males than any other group of people, even if it's not an even percentage per capita. It's simply not televised as readily because the motive is assumed to be something other than prejudice, and since the percentage is lower, it seems as if the problem is less severe.

2.) We may have strict laws against violent crime, but they are not impartial. It is more acceptable for someone to beat me to within an inch of my life than it is for someone to beat a transvestite to within an inch of their life, even if both crimes are motivated by prejudice. I find that to be pretty fethed up. If you made the laws against violent crime stricter all around, then that would help to prevent any type of violent crime.

3.) You will probably not get beaten for being gay unless you are unnecessarily flamboyant (otherwise, how would a random stranger even know?), which is just as preventable as getting robbed at an ATM at 3:00 in the morning. On the other hand, there are places where I literally cannot walk the streets around here because of the color of my skin; if I travel alone in Kansas City Missouri, there is a high chance of me getting beaten, robbed, shot or stabbed because I am white. Other races of people do not have that problem anywhere around here.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Like I said a few posts ago: for all non-zero A & B and P<1, P(A+B) > A + P(B).
(A = # of non-hate crimes, B = # of hate crimes, P = percent reduction in crime due to increased sentencing)

You are still making the assumption that if hate crime sentences are increased, then non-hate crime sentences are not increased. You have made this assumption the basis of your two options, and it is in your maths. It is not true.

There is another option, which is PaA + PbB

[note: i had to edit my post above because I said P(A+B) > A+P(B). This was wrong and it should have been P(A+B) < A+P(B)]

You seem to be missing the point, and that is: if increased punishment decreases crime, then an across-the-board increase in punishment will decrease crime more than a targetted increase in punishment.

Punishing hate crimes more than non-hate crimes is not better than punishing both equally. Decreasing non-hate crime through increased punishments is irrelevant to the comparison.

Your equation is still wrong. You are still missing the key point that the propensity of bigots to commit hate crimes is higher then the general propensity of the whole population to commit crimes.

The propensity of bigots to commit hate crime will not be reduced to zero at the same level of deterrence as general crime.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming they are more vulnerable? Thats a throw away argument. A gay man is substantially less vulnerable than my wife or children.

People who have social stigmas and have less support in society are more vulnerable socially, even if they might physically be less so. Imagine a loner nerd, who exercises regularly and even does weight lifting occasionally, but is still into all the geeky things that tend to define that nerd. Now compare him to an equally well fit captain of the local football (gridiron football for non-US posters) team. sure, in a one on one fight the two might be equally matched because of their mutual exercises.

But those who commit hate crimes don't like one on one fights. So when he bullies the other guy, he brings his friends along with him-- something that the loner does not have. And how many people are going to stop a group of musclebound football players from beating up a nerd? Or a gay guy?

Friends or social acceptance is something that, in many areas, a gay man or lesbian woman would not have much of either. They are more vulnerable because of this status, whereas your wife and children are socially protected-- it may not seem like much, but it means more than you realize... just talk to someone who had lived a normal life before being outed in the bible belt, and how persecuted, abused, and neglected they (more likely than not) were afterwards.

Again none of that is an actual, wait for it, crime. Its projection

None of that supports the argument that many of the "protected groups" are more vulnerable - which was the argument- than women or children.
As noted the best asnwer is actually to drop the hammer on all crimes. If all charges of murder get the death penalty, then there is no issue. Don't help one, help all.

Texas Death Row, a rising tide that raises all boats.

Kilkrazy wrote:Your equation is still wrong. You are still missing the key point that the propensity of bigots to commit hate crimes is higher then the general propensity of the whole population to commit crimes.

The propensity of bigots to commit hate crime will not be reduced to zero at the same level of deterrence as general crime.

Even granting that these assertions are true, they don't change the fact that higher enforcement of hate crimes is no better than higher enforcement of all crimes.

Whatever the reduction rate for hate crimes is by increased punishment, it cannot be higher than the reduction rate for hate crimes plus non-hate crimes if punishment is increased across the board.

If increasing punishment by 6 months decreases hate crimes by 10%, but non-hate crimes by only 1%, it's still a better crime deterrant to increase the penalty for both than it is to selectively increase the penalty for only "hate" crimes.

The only benefit of hate crime legislation is that it gives politicians cover by claiming that certain groups aren't as targetted.

"My administration reduced crimes against nerds from 5% of all crimes to 4% of all crimes"
"But overall, crime went up..."
"WE REDUCED CRIMES AGAINST NERDS!!!"

Frazzled wrote:
None of that supports the argument that many of the "protected groups" are more vulnerable - which was the argument- than women or children.

The argument that would be made here is one from systematic discrimination ending in a statement about the normative acceptability of prosecuting/persecuting/discriminating against said minority.

Frazzled wrote:
As noted the best asnwer is actually to drop the hammer on all crimes. If all charges of murder get the death penalty, then there is no issue. Don't help one, help all.

Statistically, that doesn't help in the sense of remission, it just makes the survivors feel warm and fuzzy.

Frazzled wrote:
Texas Death Row, a rising tide that raises all boats.

No, it just kills people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Even granting that these assertions are true, they don't change the fact that higher enforcement of hate crimes is no better than higher enforcement of all crimes.

At which point you make an argument from pragmatism; eg. "We can only enforce so many laws at so high a standard."

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Oh contraire you're the one lacking empathy for all victims. How am I lacking empathy? I posted the freaking thread. I called for an investigation for hate crimes violations.

Now i'm confused... you are posting inflammatory statments like "your statistics are gak!" to people who bring up the point that transgendered people face more threats and more danger each day statistically speaking... making them more vulnerable.... With out ANY back up as to why the statistics are "gak."

Because your statiustics are crap. 1 in 4 women is raped in their lifetime. How many gays are raped in their lifetime. The argument is absolute bs and just screams PC nonsense, which is why its stupid.

Who's shouting down arguments? The rate of sexual assault against women is awful. But that's no reason not to protect other people who are at risk.

Your whole argument is absolute bs and just screams bigoted, homophobic and racist nonsense, which it why it's stupid. How does that feel? Do you like having your own rhetoric used against you?

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people
http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Comparison%20of%20Hate%20Crime%20Formatted.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

Wiki wrote:Violent hate crimes against LGBT people tend to be especially brutal, even compared to other hate crimes: "an intense rage is present in nearly all homicide cases involving gay male victims". It is rare for a victim to just be shot; he is more likely to be stabbed multiple times, mutilated, and strangled. "They frequently involved torture, cutting, mutilation... showing the absolute intent to rub out the human being because of his (sexual) preference".[26] In a particularly brutal case in the United States, on March 14, 2007, in Wahneta, Florida, 25-year-old Ryan Keith Skipper was found dead from 20 stab wounds and a slit throat. His body had been dumped on a dark, rural road less than 2 miles from his home. His two alleged attackers, William David Brown, Jr., 20, and Joseph Eli Bearden, 21, were indicted for robbery and first-degree murder. Highlighting their malice and contempt for the victim, the accused killers allegedly drove around in Skipper's blood-soaked car and bragged of killing him. According to a sheriff's department affidavit, one of the men stated that Skipper was targeted because "he was a [see forum posting rules]."[27]

In Canada in 2008, police-reported data found that approximately 10% of all hate crimes in the country were motivated by sexual orientation. Of these, 56% were of a violent nature. In comparison, 38% of all racially motivated offenses were of a violent nature.[27]

In the same year in the United States, according to FBI data, though 4,704 crimes were committed due to racial bias and 1,617 were committed due to sexual orientation, only one murder and one forcible rape were committed due to racial bias, whereas five murders and six rapes were committed based on sexual orientation.[28] In Northern Ireland in 2008, 160 homophobic incidents and 7 transphobic incidents were reported. Of those incidents, 68.4% were violent crimes; significantly higher than for any other bias category. By contrast, 37.4% of racially motivated crimes were of a violent nature.[27]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

You post as if you think there will never be any consequences for any of it. It seems like you think that things posted on the internet don't count. Like no one you will ever meet or have met will ever read any of it, and no one will ever draw any conclusions about you as a person from them.

Please. Get off your self avowed moral high horse. The ones arguing against hate crime legislation are arguing for more punishment and enforcement for all offenses. We want to see equal justice for all victims. You're the ones making some victims more special than others, and then trying to shout down those who disagree with you.
Sucker please.

No, the hatred of bigots and racists is what makes some victims more special than others. If you perceive me as being on a "moral high horse", perhaps that's because your conscience is tweaking you. I'm not shouting you down, I'm standing up to your bullying, and asking you to use rational and reasonable arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You are playing games with words. No one (or such a small percentage that they are functionally irrelevant) does drugs because they "hate sobriety." No one commits burglary because they think it will stop them being poor. Try again.

I hate sobriety, and actively seek to escape it with drugs at any given opportunity.

You are playing semantic games. I've may or may not have known more drug-users and abusers than you have. I've known people who died of it. I've studied it formally in college. I've worked with addicts. You are distorting and stretching the meaning of the word "hate" to make a shallow, and invalid, rhetorical point. It's a terrible argument, and no one buys it. Please drop it. I'm not going to bother responding to it again because it's so poor.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:1. The majority is starting at an advantage. So this cannot be placing them at a "disadvantage" unless it has actually succeeded at reducing the rate of violent crime against (for example) black people below the rate of violent crime against white people. Which is obviously not the case.
2. We HAVE strict laws against violent crime. As people have been pointing out to Biccat for multiple pages, it's not an "either-or" proposition.
3. Sebster explained very clearly why hate crimes are worse. If I am robbed at an ATM at 3am, I can choose to not go to ATMs at 3am, and my community can take what happened to me as an example and be careful about going to ATMs at 3am. If I am beaten for being gay, I can't choose NOT to be gay, nor can other gay people. The community suffers more, and can do less about it.

1.) Not necessarily. There are more violent crimes committed against straight white males than any other group of people, even if it's not an even percentage per capita. It's simply not televised as readily because the motive is assumed to be something other than prejudice, and since the percentage is lower, it seems as if the problem is less severe.

2.) We may have strict laws against violent crime, but they are not impartial. It is more acceptable for someone to beat me to within an inch of my life than it is for someone to beat a transvestite to within an inch of their life, even if both crimes are motivated by prejudice. I find that to be pretty fethed up. If you made the laws against violent crime stricter all around, then that would help to prevent any type of violent crime.

3.) You will probably not get beaten for being gay unless you are unnecessarily flamboyant (otherwise, how would a random stranger even know?), which is just as preventable as getting robbed at an ATM at 3:00 in the morning. On the other hand, there are places where I literally cannot walk the streets around here because of the color of my skin; if I travel alone in Kansas City Missouri, there is a high chance of me getting beaten, robbed, shot or stabbed because I am white. Other races of people do not have that problem anywhere around here.

1. In most of the cases crimes against white males (particularly since most of them are commited by other white males) in this country are obviously not hate crimes. That being said, I agree that hate crimes against whites are probably underreported, and may indeed get attributed to some other cause. That being said, as a white dude I am honest enough to recognize that I am in the most advantageous position here, and not in need of extra protection.
2. I think it's pretty fethed up that gay people, black people, and other minorities are subject to these kind of hateful, awful, evil acts. I do not think it's fethed up that we as a society try to do something about that fact. I think that's extremely honorable and commendable of us, to try to do something to protect the most vulnerable and punish the wicked who do these evil things.
3. The first part of your argument I reject entirely. It's false. People find out sometimes even if the victim tried to be subtle. That being said, the idea that a person should HAVE to conceal who and what they are is possibly the most fethed up you've said.

Mannahnin wrote:If you would do us the courtesy of thinking your argument through a little more, and/or reading the thread, you might notice that why someone committed a crime and who they committed it against is routinely considered important in many different crimes. "Murder 1" is differentiated from other kinds of murders by these factors, is considered a worse crime because of these factors, and punished more harshly because of these factors.

Murder 1 is NOT differentiated by motive, but by forethought and planning. You do know the difference don't you?

I know most people only get what they know about the legal system from TV shows, but contrary to popular opinion motive is not even required to prosecute a criminal offense.

The Green Git wrote:I said it before and I'll say it again... politicians pander to special interest groups to buy votes and "Hate Crime" legislation is nothing more than that.

Mannahnin wrote:Which is a larger voting bloc? Gay people, or people who oppose legal protections for gay people? Your argument fails on its face.

Speaking of arguments that fall on their face... yours just did. Epic fail. If I am in favor of prosecuting all crimes equally I'm not opposed to legal protections for gays (or anyone else for that matter)...just opposed to EXTRA legal protections for any class. Equal protection under the law.

You claimed that Hate Crimes laws are only enacted to buy votes. This is an absurd claim, and you should be ashamed to have made it in public.

Even if you don't recognize the noble motives which prompted it; even if your own cynicism and selfishness prompt you to think of everything in terms of corruption and venality, the obvious hole in your reasoning is that you can get a lote more votes from bigots than from gay people. There are a lot more of them.

[

Mannahnin wrote:Your whole argument is absolute bs and just screams bigoted, homophobic and racist nonsense, which it why it's stupid. How does that feel? Do you like having your own rhetoric used against you?
.

I'm not the one calling people homophobes and racists because they want all crimes prosecuted with the severest punishments possible, including what you define as hate crimes. I'm not the one calling people homophobes and racists at all. But you know thats kind of par for the course.

Speaking of arguments that fall on their face... yours just did. Epic fail. If I am in favor of prosecuting all crimes equally I'm not opposed to legal protections for gays (or anyone else for that matter)...just opposed to EXTRA legal protections for any class. Equal protection under the law.

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:[

Mannahnin wrote:Your whole argument is absolute bs and just screams bigoted, homophobic and racist nonsense, which it why it's stupid. How does that feel? Do you like having your own rhetoric used against you?
.

I'm not the one calling people homophobes and racists because they want all crimes prosecuted with the severest punishments possible, including what you define as hate crimes. I'm not the one calling people homophobes and racists at all. But you know thats kind of par for the course.

+1 frazz

Of more relevance to the actual topic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/baltimore-trans-attack-mcdonalds

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually it is an excellent analogy because the flight path, which is experienced by anyone who has gone on a plane, is similar to the curve on a chart showing criminal offences decline in response to increasing punishment.

Seriously, I have no idea what the analogy is related to. Are you saying that the smaller jet (representing non-hate crimes?) needs to make way for the larger jet (representing hate crimes?).

Kilkrazy wrote:I have explained the maths several times in different ways. I do not believe you are stupid, however I know some people have a bit of a blind spot for maths.

If you find it difficult to understand the maths it may be better to keep away from arguments based on mathematics.

I actually have a pretty good grasp of mathematics. Maybe you're the one that isn't explaining it well?

Your first table merely showed that a 10% stepped decrease in crime would decrease hate crimes by 10%. This isn't particularly revolutionary, and if it's supposed to illustrate your point, then I'm not seeing it.

Kilkrazy wrote:You haven’t brought any evidence into the thread. You’ve made some claims grounded on faulty maths, and some suppositions.

Please point out where my math has been faulty. Not in rhetoric either, I want to see the actual error.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Actually it is an excellent analogy because the flight path, which is experienced by anyone who has gone on a plane, is similar to the curve on a chart showing criminal offences decline in response to increasing punishment.

Seriously, I have no idea what the analogy is related to. Are you saying that the smaller jet (representing non-hate crimes?) needs to make way for the larger jet (representing hate crimes?).

Kilkrazy wrote:I have explained the maths several times in different ways. I do not believe you are stupid, however I know some people have a bit of a blind spot for maths.

If you find it difficult to understand the maths it may be better to keep away from arguments based on mathematics.

I actually have a pretty good grasp of mathematics. Maybe you're the one that isn't explaining it well?

Your first table merely showed that a 10% stepped decrease in crime would decrease hate crimes by 10%. This isn't particularly revolutionary, and if it's supposed to illustrate your point, then I'm not seeing it.

Kilkrazy wrote:You haven’t brought any evidence into the thread. You’ve made some claims grounded on faulty maths, and some suppositions.

Please point out where my math has been faulty. Not in rhetoric either, I want to see the actual error.

I have already done that several times.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You haven’t brought any evidence into the thread. You’ve made some claims grounded on faulty maths, and some suppositions.

biccat wrote:Please point out where my math has been faulty. Not in rhetoric either, I want to see the actual error.

I have already done that several times.

Since you haven't and apparently are not willing to do so, I will assume you're conceding the point.

I see no further point in continuing this discussion if you're not going to participate honestly.

Just because you're unwilling to read doesn't mean your opponent hasn't already answered.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You haven’t brought any evidence into the thread. You’ve made some claims grounded on faulty maths, and some suppositions.

biccat wrote:Please point out where my math has been faulty. Not in rhetoric either, I want to see the actual error.

I have already done that several times.

Since you haven't and apparently are not willing to do so, I will assume you're conceding the point.

I see no further point in continuing this discussion if you're not going to participate honestly.

Since I have several times, I assert that you are the one who refuses to participate honestly, and I will assume that you are conceding the point.

Melissia wrote:Just because you're unwilling to read doesn't mean your opponent hasn't already answered.

If you would be so kind as to point out where Kilkrazy "point[ed] out where my math has been faulty"?

He has made some arguments that I didn't consider some arguments (which I subsequently demonstrated to be irrelevant), but nowhere did he actually address how my math was "faulty."

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:EDIT - I mean, don't you think there's something particularly odious, and particularly worse about the murder of James Byrd Jr, or Matthew Shepherd?

I think that if someone was killed in the manner that James Byrd Jr was killed, the people who did it should be... oh... set on fire in the town square would be a good place to start. Regardless of their motives.

If you check out that wiki article I quoted earlier, and/or its citations, you might observe that hated minority groups like this are more commonly killed in these brutal, barbaric ways. It's an expression of the hatred and intolerence and revulsion the murderers feel. It is their hate made physically manifest.

Monster Rain wrote:I find murders like that repugnant and worthy of barbaric recourse no matter why they were committed. Perhaps that is the source of my inability to understand why one should be punished more harshly than the other.

How about the fact that when crimes this barbaric happen, it's generally either a) a serial killer, or b) a hate crime? People do more and more brutal things to other people whose inherent qualities provoke in them fear and revulsion. People they think of as (in some ways) non-human, or "other".

How about the point about community harm/fear? The earlier example of being robbed at an ATM at 3am vs being beaten for being gay? In the former case the community can make an effort not to go to ATMs at 3am, or bring friends with them if they have to. But in the latter case you can't choose not to be gay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The argument is absolute bs and just screams PC nonsense, which is why its stupid.

Your whole argument is absolute bs and just screams bigoted, homophobic and racist nonsense, which it why it's stupid. How does that feel? Do you like having your own rhetoric used against you?

I'm not the one calling people homophobes and racists because they want all crimes prosecuted with the severest punishments possible, including what you define as hate crimes. I'm not the one calling people homophobes and racists at all. But you know thats kind of par for the course.

Your failure of reading comprehension is so total that it's actually pitiable. Even when I TELL YOU that I'm just giving you your own rhetoric back, you still can't perceive your own error.

I didn't even call you a bigot or a homophobe. I said "your argument screams", using your exact words.

If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, casts aspersions that others are homophobes and racists like a troll...

Don't duck arguments, shout down statistics, and call other people's arguments "PC nonsense" if you want an actual debate/exchange of ideas. If you use an invalid rhetorical tactic, you have no leg to stand on to complain when someone does it back to you in a paraphrase of your own words.

If you start throwing poo, expect to get smeared with some in return.

Mannahnin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I find murders like that repugnant and worthy of barbaric recourse no matter why they were committed. Perhaps that is the source of my inability to understand why one should be punished more harshly than the other.

How about the fact that when crimes this barbaric happen, it's generally either a) a serial killer, or b) a hate crime?

I don't understand your argument.

If you're asking whether or not I think serial murders and murders like that of James Byrd should be punished in the same manner, the answer is yes. To drag anyone behind a truck to death, regardless of motive, should be punished as harshly as possible. Draw and quarter the filth that did this to James Byrd Jr. If this had been done that to a white/asian/gay/etc person I'd say the exact same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:How about the point about community harm/fear?

Not for nothing man, if something like the above incident had happened in my neighborhood I'd be pretty nervous about it too and I'm not black.

Frazzled wrote:
If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, casts aspersions that others are homophobes and racists like a troll...

By intentionally misreading what Mannahnin wrote you're trolling right now.

Frazzled wrote:
Nonsense. Under the Frazzled Penal Code (TM), this would be at minimum, attempted manslaughter, warranting 20 years without parole. I don't care why you did it, just that you did it.

You realize that malice is a form of intention, right? And that it is therefore a form of response to a "why?" question?

Moreover, if you really don't care about the why of the matter you're precious castle doctrine isn't going to save you in matters of home defense.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I find murders like that repugnant and worthy of barbaric recourse no matter why they were committed. Perhaps that is the source of my inability to understand why one should be punished more harshly than the other.

How about the fact that when crimes this barbaric happen, it's generally either a) a serial killer, or b) a hate crime?

I don't understand your argument.

If you're asking whether or not I think serial murders and murders like that of James Byrd should be punished in the same manner, the answer is yes. To drag anyone behind a truck to death, regardless of motive, should be punished as harshly as possible. Draw and quarter the filth that did this to James Byrd Jr. If this had been done that to a white/asian/gay/etc person I'd say the exact same thing.

My point was that it's a documented sociological phenomenon that this kind of awfulness happens a lot more when the crime is motivated by hate; specifically of a person's race or sexual orientation, usually. Hate and dehumanization leads directly to a greater incidence rate of this kind of evil act.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:How about the point about community harm/fear?

Not for nothing man, if something like the above incident had happened in my neighborhood I'd be pretty nervous about it too and I'm not black.

If someone in my city is robbed at an ATM at 3am, I can conclude that I do not need to live my life in fear, because I don't generally go to ATMs at 3am.
If someone in my city is beaten in the street, murdered and their body mutilated for being a white dude of mixed swedish/irish parentage, with brown eyes and brown hair, and a nordic name, I have no choice but to be afraid.

Given that the premise of most legal systems is to act as a deterrent to illegal behaviour, it doesn't seem inappropriate where a crime is committed and proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been motivated by hatred of people who are black/ white/ male/ female/ trans/ cisgender/ gay/ straight/ short/ tall/ fat/ skinny/ etc, there is reasonable grounds to suspect that reoffending may be more likely than if the crime had other motives, and thus increase the penalty as a deterrent to the offender and anyone else whose hatred of the above is driving them towards criminal behaviour.

When a person kills another person, the law takes into account the extent to which the killer might have premeditated the killing. I doubt many would argue that manslaughter and the various degrees of murder should be homogenised into a single crime with a single sentence. The argument is there that if someone killed a random stranger because of their colour etc (yes, this includes black-on-white crime, those of you perceiving the legal system as being biassed in favour of "minorities"), the severity of the sentence should similarly take this into account.

lindsay40k wrote:Given that the premise of most legal systems is to act as a deterrent to illegal behaviour, it doesn't seem inappropriate where a crime is committed and proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been motivated by hatred of people who are black/ white/ male/ female/ trans/ cisgender/ gay/ straight/ short/ tall/ fat/ skinny/ etc, there is reasonable grounds to suspect that reoffending may be more likely than if the crime had other motives, and thus increase the penalty as a deterrent to the offender and anyone else whose hatred of the above is driving them towards criminal behaviour.

When a person kills another person, the law takes into account the extent to which the killer might have premeditated the killing. I doubt many would argue that manslaughter and the various degrees of murder should be homogenised into a single crime with a single sentence. The argument is there that if someone killed a random stranger because of their colour etc (yes, this includes black-on-white crime, those of you perceiving the legal system as being biassed in favour of "minorities"), the severity of the sentence should similarly take this into account.

Well can we come to common ground here
***Wackjobs who want hate crimes. OK, additional punishment.
***Wackjobs who want no hate crimes but more time in general. Ok, more time.
=
More time + even more time for a hate crime.
Can we go with that?

More time + even more time for hate crime. Sounds like a plan!

Actually, sounds like what we're presently doing.

Frazzled/Weineragnarok in 2012.

Rock the vote!

Mannahnin wrote:1. In most of the cases crimes against white males (particularly since most of them are commited by other white males) in this country are obviously not hate crimes. That being said, I agree that hate crimes against whites are probably underreported, and may indeed get attributed to some other cause. That being said, as a white dude I am honest enough to recognize that I am in the most advantageous position here, and not in need of extra protection.
2. I think it's pretty fethed up that gay people, black people, and other minorities are subject to these kind of hateful, awful, evil acts. I do not think it's fethed up that we as a society try to do something about that fact. I think that's extremely honorable and commendable of us, to try to do something to protect the most vulnerable and punish the wicked who do these evil things.
3. The first part of your argument I reject entirely. It's false. People find out sometimes even if the victim tried to be subtle. That being said, the idea that a person should HAVE to conceal who and what they are is possibly the most fethed up you've said.

1. The majority of violent crime against black males is committed by other black males, yet hate crimes are recognized more often because of their nature. White people are extremely susceptible to racism of a violent nature from minority races, and no one gives a gak (not even most white people) because 'we had it coming', and 'we're in the most advantageous position'. I should have every right to be treated impartially by the law in such situations, but I am not.
2. I find it pretty awful that any group of people is subject to hateful, awful, evil acts. Prejudice should be combated on all fronts, not just the most obvious ones. Whites are just as susceptable to racially motivated violence as any other race, as racial tension is both a vicious cycle and a never-ending catch-22 with fuel from either side. I still haven't heard anything from you regarding why increasing punishment for all violent crime wouldn't be a more effective deterrent than some ridiculously abstract hate crime laws that attempt to punish people for their motive (and shake the very foundation of the 'impartial law' system).
3. The idea that a person should have to avoid ATMs at night is also ridiculous, and reflects negatively on our society (though there are definitely better similar examples). You shouldn't have to conceal your identity any more than you should have to be restricted to certain areas at certain times because of crime, but that's unfortunately the way that society works. I'm not saying in the least that it's acceptable, but there are preventative measures that you can choose to take in either case if you are looking to avoid a criminal confrontation.

sebster wrote:Do you think spraypainting a swastika on the side of a synagogue should be punished differently to spraypainting a tag on someone's fence?

No, because it's fundamentally the same crime.

Also, I find street gangs to be just as atrocious as Nazis. Worthless pieces of gak with no positive consequence on the earth who revel in moral corruption and ensure that society must live in fear.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Whatever the reduction rate for hate crimes is by increased punishment, it cannot be higher than the reduction rate for hate crimes plus non-hate crimes if punishment is increased across the board.

That's only true if you're assuming that all rates of categories of crime respond the same way to increases in the severity of punishment. The quality of the assumption aside, when you make that assumption, and then leverage it within your conclusion (as you are here) you are begging the question.

Cryso, if you can't distinguish between street gangs and nazis, and can't distinguish between graffiti on a wall and a swastika spraypainted on a house of worship, you are not capable of discussing criminal justice in a functional way.

Thank you for clarifing that, so I know not to waste any more keystrokes.

I think your points and opinions stand for themselves without any need for retort anyway. They can be judged on their merits by the audience.

Frazzled wrote:

lindsay40k wrote:Given that the premise of most legal systems is to act as a deterrent to illegal behaviour, it doesn't seem inappropriate where a crime is committed and proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been motivated by hatred of people who are black/ white/ male/ female/ trans/ cisgender/ gay/ straight/ short/ tall/ fat/ skinny/ etc, there is reasonable grounds to suspect that reoffending may be more likely than if the crime had other motives, and thus increase the penalty as a deterrent to the offender and anyone else whose hatred of the above is driving them towards criminal behaviour.

When a person kills another person, the law takes into account the extent to which the killer might have premeditated the killing. I doubt many would argue that manslaughter and the various degrees of murder should be homogenised into a single crime with a single sentence. The argument is there that if someone killed a random stranger because of their colour etc (yes, this includes black-on-white crime, those of you perceiving the legal system as being biassed in favour of "minorities"), the severity of the sentence should similarly take this into account.

Well can we come to common ground here
***Wackjobs who want hate crimes. OK, additional punishment.
***Wackjobs who want no hate crimes but more time in general. Ok, more time.
=
More time + even more time for a hate crime.
Can we go with that?

That was the essence of my argument from the beginning.

Frazzled wrote:Well can we come to common ground here
***Wackjobs who want hate crimes. OK, additional punishment.
***Wackjobs who want no hate crimes but more time in general. Ok, more time.
=
More time + even more time for a hate crime.
Can we go with that?

No, because why not: "Even more time for all crimes"?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Whatever the reduction rate for hate crimes is by increased punishment, it cannot be higher than the reduction rate for hate crimes plus non-hate crimes if punishment is increased across the board.

That's only true if you're assuming that all rates of categories of crime respond the same way to increases in the severity of punishment. The quality of the assumption aside, when you make that assumption, and then leverage it within your conclusion (as you are here) you are begging the question.

As long as an increase in the severity of punishment has any detrimental effect, it is always true that increased punishment across the board will reduce crime more than increased punishment for specific crimes.

And yes, I am basing this on the assumption that increasing punishment decreases crime. Because that was part of the original premise I responded to.

Now, if you're accusing me of making the assumption that people will have the same reaction to punishment regardless of the label of their crime (that is, someone will think "hate crime is 5 years, I won't do it" versus "assault is 5 years...I can do the time"), then you might have a point. But you're not, so you don't.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well can we come to common ground here
***Wackjobs who want hate crimes. OK, additional punishment.
***Wackjobs who want no hate crimes but more time in general. Ok, more time.
=
More time + even more time for a hate crime.
Can we go with that?

No, because why not: "Even more time for all crimes"?

Because you can only really stick a needle in a guy's arm once?

Mannahnin wrote:Cryso, if you can't distinguish between street gangs and nazis, and can't distinguish between graffiti on a wall and a swastika spraypainted on a house of worship, you are not capable of discussing criminal justice in a functional way.

Thank you for clarifing that, so I know not to waste any more keystrokes.

I think your points and opinions stand for themselves without any need for retort anyway. They can be judged on their merits by the audience.

First of all, both crimes would be treated in the same way by our current judicial system, as from a state of neutrality, both crimes are vandalism.

Secondly, the only thing that a swastika on a pedagogue is denoting is 'The person who painted this swastika hates Jews a lot!', tapping into a deeply ingrained racial memory to make people uncomfortable.

When you see a gang tag on a fence, it denotes 'This is [insert criminal organization here]. We own this block, and everything on it.' This graffiti will undoubtedly be followed by further criminal action against other gangs and the general populace in this area (shootings, stabbings, robbery, etc.), which will be committed by an entire organized group of people. Please tell me, how is that not fundamentally worse?

I never said I could not tell the difference between Nazis and Street Gangs (and actually, Neo-Nazis ARE a gang, or several, which makes them the worst of both worlds), I simply find them to be equally reprehensible in separate ways.

Also, I would appreciate some amount of respect. I've done nothing but respond to your posts in a well-mannered, respectful way, despite you accosting me and insulting my intelligence at every available opportunity. If you concede to my arguments, that's fine, but please don't say 'You're stupid. I'm done. Everyone point and laugh'.

Frazzled wrote:Because you can only really stick a needle in a guy's arm once?

Not true. You can only kill a man once, but you can always execute him posthumously. Charles II did it.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nonsense. Under the Frazzled Penal Code (TM), this would be at minimum, attempted manslaughter, warranting 20 years without parole. I don't care why you did it, just that you did it.

You realize that malice is a form of intention, right? And that it is therefore a form of response to a "why?" question?

Moreover, if you really don't care about the why of the matter you're precious castle doctrine isn't going to save you in matters of home defense.

Right. The castle doctrine is entirely based off of the question of "why".

That is, the reason is "defending myself and my home". If you don't care why someone killed another, self defense is also out of the book.

biccat wrote:
As long as an increase in the severity of punishment has any detrimental effect, it is always true that increased punishment across the board will reduce crime more than increased punishment for specific crimes.

No, again, that is only true if you presume that increasing the severity of punishment has the same effect on all crimes. There is no reason to presume that punishing crime X and crime Y the same way will have the same impact on the rate at which those crimes occur, and by extension, there is no reason to presume that altering the punishment to X and Y in the same way will have the same effect on the change in the rate at which each crime is committed.
If you increase the punishment for crime X by two points in system A, and the punishment for all crime in system B (where both systems are identical) you might find that both systems reduced all crime by the same rate if the punishment increase only affected the rate of crime X. You might also find that in system A there would be a greater reduction in the overall rate of crime, if the mass increase featured in system B significantly diluted the social response to the increased punishment.

The only way your claim can be true is if you assume all crimes are equally sensitive to punishment, and that crime rates are insensitive to the way other crimes are punished (severe punishment creating the perception of heinousness).

biccat wrote:
And yes, I am basing this on the assumption that increasing punishment decreases crime. Because that was part of the original premise I responded to.

Now, if you're accusing me of making the assumption that people will have the same reaction to punishment regardless of the label of their crime (that is, someone will think "hate crime is 5 years, I won't do it" versus "assault is 5 years...I can do the time"), then you might have a point. But you're not, so you don't.

Are you having an off day? Ordinarily your reading comprehension is far better than this. You second statement is exactly what I'm claiming as an assumption of yours, your first statement has nothing to do with what I said at all.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nonsense. Under the Frazzled Penal Code (TM), this would be at minimum, attempted manslaughter, warranting 20 years without parole. I don't care why you did it, just that you did it.

You realize that malice is a form of intention, right? And that it is therefore a form of response to a "why?" question?

Moreover, if you really don't care about the why of the matter you're precious castle doctrine isn't going to save you in matters of home defense.

Right. The castle doctrine is entirely based off of the question of "why".

That is, the reason is "defending myself and my home". If you don't care why someone killed another, self defense is also out of the book.

biccat wrote:No, because why not: "Even more time for all crimes"?

Not all crimes are equal. Even within the same category or subcategory of crime, not all are equal.

Mannahnin wrote:You claimed that Hate Crimes laws are only enacted to buy votes. This is an absurd claim, and you should be ashamed to have made it in public.

Even if you don't recognize the noble motives which prompted it; even if your own cynicism and selfishness prompt you to think of everything in terms of corruption and venality, the obvious hole in your reasoning is that you can get a lote more votes from bigots than from gay people. There are a lot more of them.

I've got nothing to be ashamed of other than the time wasted with this thread. And you call me cynical? And motives for ideas you cling to are "noble" but others are "selfish"? That reminds me of a quote:

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
-John Adams

You're a hypocrite. You want to punish people that don't think like you BECAUSE they don't think like you, and you are prejudiced towards those that don't think like you. Admit it.

Are you claiming that I'm making a pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency, as a way of tricking you into something, as a way of excusing hypocritical behavior, or of being cowardly? I think you have misapplied your quote. We can solicit opinions from the gallery on whether my positions are consistent, and whether I use politeness as a shield to avoid confronting people.

I am intolerant of intolerance. I hate injustice and bigotry.

I don't want to punish people for the way they think. I want to see that people who commit hateful, evil acts are punished appropriately, and those acts recognized for what they are; not minimalized, trivialized, or explained away as being something less than or more acceptable than what they are.

People who merely think evil or stupid things can be responded to with words. Or by giving them enough rope to hang themselves with their own words.

TheGreenGit wrote:And motives for ideas you cling to are "noble" but others are "selfish"?

No, this is you distorting reality into two sides. It is more complex than that. I judge the motives for Hate Crimes laws to be noble because of the exact reasoning Kilkrazy laid out first. They are clearly an effort by the majority to protect oft-oppressed minorities.

Are you trying to argue that the idea of buying votes is not a selfish or venal one?

Melissia wrote:Right. The castle doctrine is entirely based off of the question of "why".

That is, the reason is "defending myself and my home". If you don't care why someone killed another, self defense is also out of the book.

Err... not exactly. Situation is not equal to motive.

Situation: I'm in my home and someone breaks in. They have a gun. I shoot them with my 12 gauge.

Whether I did it because I was afraid or did it because I'm a mean son of a bitch that will kill anyone who tries to kill me, the situation is the same.

Situations exist in the physical world. Motive exists only inside one's mind.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
As long as an increase in the severity of punishment has any detrimental effect, it is always true that increased punishment across the board will reduce crime more than increased punishment for specific crimes.

No, again, that is only true if you presume that increasing the severity of punishment has the same effect on all crimes. There is no reason to presume that punishing crime X and crime Y the same way will have the same impact on the rate at which those crimes occur, and by extension, there is no reason to presume that altering the punishment to X and Y in the same way will have the same effect on the change in the rate at which each crime is committed.

As I have said many times before, as long as the increase in punishment has a detrimental effect, there is no (societal costs aside) reason not to increase punishment for a crime.

If you increase punishment for A by 2 points and get a 10% reduction in crime, and increase punishment for B by 2 points and get a 4% reduction in crime, what is the rationale for increasing A by 2 points over B? Note that Kilkrazy's argument of increasing both is fallacious. All he is doing is moving the baseline and claiming a compromise.

An increase of both A and B by 2 points would reduce more crime (fewer victims overall) than simply an increase in A.

dogma wrote:If you increase the punishment for crime X by two points in system A, and the punishment for all crime in system B (where both systems are identical) you might find that both systems reduced all crime by the same rate if the punishment increase only affected crime X. You might also find that in system A there would be a greater reduction in the overall rate of crime, if the mass increase featured in system B significantly diluted the social response to the increased punishment.

Now you're changing the original premise: increasing punishment reduces crime. There are some other issues to consider here, but as my Civ. Pro. professor loved to say: if you change the facts, you can get whatever result you want.

dogma wrote:The only way your claim can be true is if you assume all crimes are equally sensitive to punishment, and that crime rates are insensitive to the way other crimes are punished (severe punishment creating the perception of heinousness).

I disagree with the first point, it is true as long as increased punishment reduces crime.

But I agree with the second point, if criminals are sensitive to punishment for other crimes, then there may be a reason to differentiate between hate and non-hate crimes. However, this is more likely to be true where the different crimes vary in degree rather than motivation. If the penalty for murder is the same for battery, you are likely to get more batteries that escalate to assault. But there are very few (if any?) normal crimes that escalate to a hate crime. The "hate" motivation is the impetus to create the crime, not to escalate it.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:And yes, I am basing this on the assumption that increasing punishment decreases crime. Because that was part of the original premise I responded to.

Now, if you're accusing me of making the assumption that people will have the same reaction to punishment regardless of the label of their crime (that is, someone will think "hate crime is 5 years, I won't do it" versus "assault is 5 years...I can do the time"), then you might have a point. But you're not, so you don't.

Are you having an off day? Ordinarily your reading comprehension is far better than this. You second statement is exactly what I'm claiming as an assumption of yours, your first statement has nothing to do with what I said at all.

That's not the assumption you claimed I was making.

"That's only true if you're assuming that all rates of categories of crime respond the same way to increases in the severity of punishment."

As in my above example, even if the value of increased punishment for crime X is less than the value of increased punishment for crime Y, there is still value in increasing punishment for both categories of crimes:
1) Decrease hate crime by 10%; or
2) Decrease hate crime by 10% and decrease non-hate crime by 4%.

Obviously option 2 is better in all cases.

This is ignoring the costs (both social and procedural) in such an increase. But the argument in this thread has never been about the societal cost of increased punishment for all types of crime, because that opens the door to the social cost of increased penalties for hate crimes, and again, dodges the original premise that I was responding to.

The Green Git wrote:Situations exist in the physical world. Motive exists only inside one's mind.

Many crimes are defined or altered by consideration of motive.

The Green Git wrote:Err... not exactly. Situation is not equal to motive.

Your situation defines your motive and, frequently, the other way around.

Your motive in killing that dude was to defend yourself. You were not maliciously trying to kill someone, you were just acting in self defense. Of course, if you had been sadistic or malicious even in your self defense, obviously your motives in killing weren't MERELY self defense, were they?

Either way it's self defense, but one is far less defensible in court than the other.

biccat wrote:
As I have said many times before, as long as the increase in punishment has a detrimental effect, there is no (societal costs aside) reason not to increase punishment for a crime.

That's simply not true. The most obvious reason is normative, and turns on what the population being bound to the law will accept (this may be what you mean societal costs). Alternatively, you have to consider the cost of enforcement and trial, both of which also tie into what society itself will bear. For example a hypothetical society might require a much higher standard of judicial and police professionalism when the punishment for an offense is death, meaning that it will necessarily cost more to apply such a punishment (note that this is basically what happens in the US vis a vis executions). Then there's the issue of requiring a positive reason in order to compel a positive action, though one might argue that maintaining a legal system is itself a positive action, and that any increase in punishment is merely a change in practice; though even then issue of forcefully lacking a reason to not do something is logically dubious as it implies the punishment for all crimes should be death, rather than simply than what is most effective at achieving the affect of the punishment (assuming severity is not a claim made relative to effective prevention).

biccat wrote:
If you increase punishment for A by 2 points and get a 10% reduction in crime, and increase punishment for B by 2 points and get a 4% reduction in crime, what is the rationale for increasing A by 2 points over B?

You've already nominated societal costs as a possible reason, and I nominated monetary costs above. One might also argue that given the limited resources resources of the judicial system, particularly as regards prison space, some crimes might be regarded as more detrimental to society than others, and therefore more worthy of the additional cost imposed by especially harsh sentences. Alternatively, one could adopt the position that justice is not merely about the prevention of crime, but a sort of "balancing of the scales" in which the criminal is forced to suffer in order to appease the victim, or friends and family of the victim.

biccat wrote:
An increase of both A and B by 2 points would reduce more crime (fewer victims overall) than simply an increase in A.

I've already explained why this isn't necessarily true. It may very well be the most likely outcome, but it isn't the only possible one. Moreover, if we're going to further ask questions of perceived justice, then one could argue a law which is enforced too harshly might serve to increase the overall rate at which people are victimized due to social unrest.

dogma wrote:If you increase the punishment for crime X by two points in system A, and the punishment for all crime in system B (where both systems are identical) you might find that both systems reduced all crime by the same rate if the punishment increase only affected crime X. You might also find that in system A there would be a greater reduction in the overall rate of crime, if the mass increase featured in system B significantly diluted the social response to the increased punishment.

biccat wrote:
Now you're changing the original premise: increasing punishment reduces crime. There are some other issues to consider here, but as my Civ. Pro. professor loved to say: if you change the facts, you can get whatever result you want.

The phrase "increased punishment reduces crime" does not imply that it always does so, not as I read it.

Frazzled wrote:Because your statiustics are crap. 1 in 4 women is raped in their lifetime. How many gays are raped in their lifetime. The argument is absolute bs and just screams PC nonsense, which is why its stupid.

The claim tht one in four women is raped is utter nonsense, and has been discredited for years. It is, ironically enough, PC nonsense itself.

http://www.iwf.org/news/show/19076.html

So it'd be nice if you could now retract your claim. Thanks.

Meanwhile, you didn't respond to my question about gay and transgendered people suffering violence at a greater rate (the poor vulnerable women you're worrying about actually suffer violence less often than men), therefore making them greater victims, therefore making your claim completely wrong.

It'd be nice if you could retract that as well, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I think that if someone was killed in the manner that James Byrd Jr was killed, the people who did it should be... oh... set on fire in the town square would be a good place to start. Regardless of their motives.

I find murders like that repugnant and worthy of barbaric recourse no matter why they were committed. Perhaps that is the source of my inability to understand why one should be punished more harshly than the other.

But you do get what I'm saying? I mean, imagine it was more humane, but motivated entirely out of a hatred of black people. And the guy said he did to terrorise the black community and drive them out of the area? Isn't that different to murder just because you really don't like a person?

Shouldn't there be a penalty for terrorising a minority?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:That would mean that the average transgendered person is 1500 times more likely to be murdered than an average American. The annual murder rate in the US is around 5.4 murders per 100,000 (which is where the 1/18,000 comes from). That would give the transgender community a murder rate of 8,100 murders per 100,000.

I find that statistic extraordinary, and given the lack of a citation, unbelievable.

I looked around at the time for something to clarify the stat at the time, and while I was able to find lots of journals quoting the number I wasn't able to find the original study (if one ever existed). I was increasingly sceptical of the claim myself (as you point out it's very extreme) and decided to remove it. I must have left it in by mistake.

I apologise, and retract the claim. Most actual studies I've seen show deaths for transexuals at three or more times the total population, but nothing like the claim I gave earlier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:No, because it's fundamentally the same crime.

No, the intent in each crime is vastly different, the effect on the community in each crime is very different, making them very obviously different crimes.

Be sensible.

dogma wrote:That's simply not true. The most obvious reason is normative, and turns on what the population being bound to the law will accept (this may be what you mean societal costs).

Dogma: I agree that there are a lot of other costs to consider (and that's what I meant by social costs). However, the original point I was responding to was Kilkrazy's benefits analysis: that there was some situation where the higher punishment of hate crime would be more beneficial than a higher punishment of all crimes (presumably in the same category).

This was a false statement, as I demonstrated.

I don't think that any of us here are qualified to make a reasoned assumption about these costs, which is why I oppose hate crime legislation on ideological grounds rather than on practical grounds. I would rather live in a society where all crime is punished equally than one where certain classes of victims are afforded special treatment based on sex, religion, or skin color.