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.

It's all hypothetical...but I don't know that I'd be as furious if my Missus (Half African American/Half Latino) were to be killed in say...a random store hold up as opposed to being killed by some one who targeted her simply due to the color of her skin...
I'd be devastated reguardless...but I honestly think I'd want to see the racist guy suffer more.

Lesson to learn from all this - if you are going to beat someone to death, scream "I am doing this because you cut me off at a stoplight, not because you are different than me."

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.

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

Imagine two aircraft coming in to land at an airport.

One of them is a big airliner with 500 passengers. It's 10 miles out, at 5,000 feet. The second is a small regional jet, with only a dozen passengers. It's 20 miles out, at 11,000 feet.

If the flight controller gives the same rate of descent of 500 feet per mile for both aircraft, the second one cannot land safely. He needs to make an adjustment for the regional jet.

The extra penalty for hate crimes is like the adjustment to the rate of descent for the second aircraft.

biccat wrote: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!!!"

What is your evidence for this claim?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

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.

AWESOME. The victim has been blamed!

Chrysaor686 wrote: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.

Yes.

That is a hate crime or bias crime, and there are laws against it.

If it happened to you, your attacker would receive a more severe punishment.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
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.

Bias crime law protects you as a white, Roman Catholic heterosexual against depredations that might occur because someone hates you because you are a white, Roman Catholic heterosexual.


It works the same for all victims. It doesn’t give any extra legal protection to particular classes. It weighs more heavily on people who commit crimes for reasons of bias.

Soladrin wrote:

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.

In my country, it's called being a giant pussy.

Word


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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.

Exactly.
Now lets use this instance. Is battery appropriate? Is battery aggravated with a hate crime appropriate?
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.

Kilkrazy wrote:Imagine two aircraft coming in to land at an airport.

One of them is a big airliner with 500 passengers. It's 10 miles out, at 5,000 feet. The second is a small regional jet, with only a dozen passengers. It's 20 miles out, at 11,000 feet.

If the flight controller gives the same rate of descent of 500 feet per mile for both aircraft, the second one cannot land safely. He needs to make an adjustment for the regional jet.

The extra penalty for hate crimes is like the adjustment to the rate of descent for the second aircraft.

I have no idea how this is even relevant. This is a seriously terrible analogy.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote: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!!!"

What is your evidence for this claim?

I have pointed it out many times in this thread.

Decreasing crime across the board does not address the prevalance of hate crimes relative to real crime. Increasing penalties for hate crimes is worse than increasing penalties for real crime (on the assumption that increased penalties are a deterrant). However, decreasing hate crime relative to real crime improves hate crime statistics. This is especially true if hate crime prosecution takes resources from non-hate crime prosecution (which it inevitably will).

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Imagine two aircraft coming in to land at an airport.

One of them is a big airliner with 500 passengers. It's 10 miles out, at 5,000 feet. The second is a small regional jet, with only a dozen passengers. It's 20 miles out, at 11,000 feet.

If the flight controller gives the same rate of descent of 500 feet per mile for both aircraft, the second one cannot land safely. He needs to make an adjustment for the regional jet.

The extra penalty for hate crimes is like the adjustment to the rate of descent for the second aircraft.

I have no idea how this is even relevant. This is a seriously terrible analogy.

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.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote: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!!!"

What is your evidence for this claim?

I have pointed it out many times in this thread.

...

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.