Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.