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.

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.

Sebster wrote: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.

I'm being perfectly sensible.

I understand that each crime has a different motive and effect on the community. I've even gone so far as to explain this; the Swastika is televised hatred, while the gang tag is a claim of ownership, which is ultimately the more detrimental of the two (even if it doesn't offend most people as easily). That's not the point, though.

The point is, if a police officer caught either vandal in the middle of either act, the only thing either lawbreaker could be charged and prosecuted with is vandalism (or perhaps criminal damage to property). This makes both crimes equal under the law. I made no assumption that they were equal under logic or morality. You could spraypaint a swastika on a buddhist temple, where it would lose all hateful connotations, but it's still the same crime under the law.

Do I believe one should be punished more severely than the other? No. There's really no fair and impartial way to gauge that sort of thing. Projection doesn't count for much.

Sometimes people walk home from the hardware store through a Jewish graveyard, stumble and fall over. By accident it sets off the spraycan of paint they had intended to use at home, and due to extraordinary bad luck it sprays the shape of a swastika on the graves.

I think you will agree that is a pretty unlikely scenario.

So here is a very simple case where a crime of vandalism is clearly due to religious bias. How can you say there is no fair and impartial way to gauge it?

Kilkrazy wrote:Sometimes people walk home from the hardware store through a Jewish graveyard, stumble and fall over. By accident it sets off the spraycan of paint they had intended to use at home, and due to extraordinary bad luck it sprays the shape of a swastika on the graves.

I think you will agree that is a pretty unlikely scenario.

So here is a very simple case where a crime of vandalism is clearly due to religious bias. How can you say there is no fair and impartial way to gauge it?

I never proposed such a ridiculous scenario; you're simply missing half the equasion. How do you gauge someone spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue to someone spraying a gang tag on a fence (which is a fundamentally worse for a community, but is not generally fueled by hatred or considered as morally reprehensible)? You can't, without writing a thousand different laws that all cater to a specific situation.

This is why you limit the punishment to the raw physical act itself. By committing this act, you break a contract with the government. If the punishment is harsh enough for this raw physical act alone, it will never happen in any form, no matter the motivation or intent, and the judicial system remains fair and impartial without having to become ridiculously abstract in order to cope with the multitude of motivations that a human being is capable of acting under.

Now, apply this same sentiment to violent crimes.

The swastika is also a symbol of ownership, for nazi-based groups.

Generally, neo-nazis use more than just a simple swastika to denote ownership of territory or superiority over another gang, because there are many many different sects of them. Incredibly ironically, they have adopted the same types of coded language and graffiti shorthand that predominantly black gangs invented.

It may very well be a neo-nazi who sprayed that swastika on the synagogue (which may be a threat or a cause for people to live in fear), or it could be a slowed kid who's just looking to piss people off the best way he knows how. There's no real way to tell. Either way, a plain swastika is not used to claim territory among neo-nazis.

And yet, they still use a swastika, whether or not it's a simple one or one that is altered to give uniqueness to the group involved.

Yes, that is true, but those few simple letters spell all the difference between extreme hatred and a combination of both extreme hatred and a surge in gang-related crime (which escalates the situation above and beyond a simple hateful message). That would be the worst-case scenario, in which the worst of both worlds collide.

However, that was not the presented case.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sometimes people walk home from the hardware store through a Jewish graveyard, stumble and fall over. By accident it sets off the spraycan of paint they had intended to use at home, and due to extraordinary bad luck it sprays the shape of a swastika on the graves.

I think you will agree that is a pretty unlikely scenario.

So here is a very simple case where a crime of vandalism is clearly due to religious bias. How can you say there is no fair and impartial way to gauge it?

I never proposed such a ridiculous scenario.
...
...

It isn't a ridiculous scenario. People do deface Jewish cemeteries with swastikas, in hate crimes.

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't a ridiculous scenario. People do deface Jewish cemeteries with swastikas, in hate crimes.

I was referring to the accidental application of a swastika. Any mention of that made it seem like you missed my point completely.

Someone can be murdered because they are gay. Someone can also be murdered for a completely inane reason. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because they are dead

You can either help to prevent crime based on prejudice (simultaneously making the system biased, making the majority an easy target and making non-prejudicial crime more acceptable to commit), or you can help prevent all crime by increasing punishment for all criminal activity. How is that not better or more effective in any way whatsoever?

I've been begging that question for a few pages now, and so far no one has bothered to answer me. That's the most important point of this discussion.

Hate crime laws do not discriminate for minorities or against majorities. They discriminate against people who want to commit hate crime.

The motivation for committing a hate crime is different to the motivation for committing a non-hate crime.

An increased penalty for a bias crime does not make a non-bias crime more attractive and likely to be committed.

Meh, a lot of morality systems rely on intentions and motivation for the actions-- if you never intended to cause the accident which killed someone, is it your fault? Possibly, but at least it's not as bad as actively driving into someone for fun or hate, which is far worse under these moral systems.

Certainly I agree with them on that aspect, at least.

Chrysaor686 wrote:I understand that each crime has a different motive and effect on the community. I've even gone so far as to explain this; the Swastika is televised hatred, while the gang tag is a claim of ownership, which is ultimately the more detrimental of the two (even if it doesn't offend most people as easily). That's not the point, though.

No, it is the point, and it is an obvious and clear one that you are doing your absolute level best to miss.

When Jewish people see swastikas being spray painted, they have pretty good reason to fear there will be attacks on them. People who need have no reason of being attacked will now be afraid.

The same thing does not come from some 12 year old painting his tag on a neighbourhood fence.

It's that simple. Just understand this, and move on.

I apologise if I'm dabbling in the forbidden lore of threadomancy, but there has been a recent development (it happend about 10 minutes from where I work, so its "water cooler talk" for my workplace) :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43050577/ns/local_news-baltimore_md/

Hate crime indictment of the two assailants.

Excellent!