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.

mattyrm wrote:
I don't want to see a "special punishment", I want equal punishment.

I also point out that it is utterly ludicrous that a man can daub "ISLAM IS COMING" on a war memorial and then successfully argue that it had "nothing at all to do with his Religious beliefs"

No matter how much of save the whales, holistic healing, jumper knitting, tree hugging socialist somebody is, can any of them actually read that and say with a straight face that it is a correct judgement? Religiously motivated graffiti isnt Religiously motivated? How do you possibly square that circle?

As I explained above, the law does not consider religiously motivated crimes to be hate crimies. Crimes based on hatred due to a persons religion are hate crimes.

The law is more nuanced than you seem to want to give it credit for. Breath deep, and understand what the actual rule is.

Lastly, I am truly stunned that liberal people are so self loathing that they seem to side with the slime that attack war memorials.

I don't see anybody siding with anybody. I dont' see anybody self loathing, either.

There's a reason that lawyers go to school for many years, and tend to be kinda smart. It's because the law is complicated.

Ouze wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Lastly, I am truly stunned that liberal people are so self loathing that they seem to side with the slime that attack war memorials.

I am also stunned in that you are able to label the innermost emotions of a whole range of people by how they vote. I'm further stunned that you appear to believe what you posted actually happened in this thread, that someone sided with people who attack war memorials.

However, I won't assume every conservative thinks the way you do, because that would be a simplistic and naive way of viewing the world.

Alright, so if your basically saying that this travesty of justice is entirely fair, and that Muslims bless their little cotton socks shouldbe given preferential treatment to everyone else, then how the feth are you not siding with them?

And its perfectly sensible to label people by how they vote.

BNP voters - Very right wing
Conservative - Somewhat right wing
Labour - Pinko Socialist.

See. Makes perfect sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I don't want to see a "special punishment", I want equal punishment.

I also point out that it is utterly ludicrous that a man can daub "ISLAM IS COMING" on a war memorial and then successfully argue that it had "nothing at all to do with his Religious beliefs"

No matter how much of save the whales, holistic healing, jumper knitting, tree hugging socialist somebody is, can any of them actually read that and say with a straight face that it is a correct judgement? Religiously motivated graffiti isnt Religiously motivated? How do you possibly square that circle?

As I explained above, the law does not consider religiously motivated crimes to be hate crimies. Crimes based on hatred due to a persons religion are hate crimes.

The law is more nuanced than you seem to want to give it credit for. Breath deep, and understand what the actual rule is.

Lastly, I am truly stunned that liberal people are so self loathing that they seem to side with the slime that attack war memorials.

I don't see anybody siding with anybody. I dont' see anybody self loathing, either.

There's a reason that lawyers go to school for many years, and tend to be kinda smart. It's because the law is complicated.

I breathe very deeply, you need plenty of oxygen when your always angry.

And I fully understand the law. In a nutshell, If you get busted for a "hate crime" you get a far worse sentence to someone who wasnt, even if your crime was identical. Indeed, the law does not consider religiously motivated crimes to be hate crimes, but crimes based on hatred due to a persons religion are considered hate crimes.

Change the fething law.

mattyrm wrote: Alright, so if your basically saying that this travesty of justice is entirely fair, and that Muslims bless their little cotton socks shouldbe given preferential treatment to everyone else, then how the feth are you not siding with them?

Is... is that really what you think I said? Tell me, for I wish to know. I'd especially like you to quote me from this thread showing me how you got... where you are, with that. Totes serious.

I don't think he should have been charged with a hate crime because I'm not sure there even should be hate crimes on the books, just actual crimes. I would prefer him charged with vandalism and don't think it would have mattered much what he actually spray painted; I don't think I value intent so much as much as I value actions (although there should be leeway in sentencing).

And when I said it, you agreed with me! So, like I said, I'm honestly perplexed how you're drawing these inferences.

This seems relevant to this thread. Thank you Rowan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB0ZOu_EZ2M

The theory behind hate crime legislation is based on the purpose of sentencing being to serve as a deterrent, and motive being a factor in sentencing. Someone who attacks someone they don't know because they hate the person before getting to know them is regarded as more dangerous and in need of more deterring. If you're going to ignore motive in sentencing and focus only on the acts and outcomes, you're essentially doing away with all charges of conspiracy.

Your example of judging people by how their vote is a great example of why judging people by how they vote is a very poor rule of thumb.

Whilst the BNP are a far right party with a racist leadership, there are people who vote BNP because they mistakenly believe all their 'white working class' rhetoric and take them to be a replacement of the Labour Party as it was.

And whilst the Labour Party might have the odd Skinner or McDonnell, those members with Marxist leanings were expelled en masse and Clause Four struck decades ago. Enriching big military firms with a war of aggression whilst slashing benefits and education funding is hardly the sort of behaviour most political scientists would class as "pinko".

mattyrm wrote:
I breathe very deeply, you need plenty of oxygen when your always angry.

And I fully understand the law. In a nutshell, If you get busted for a "hate crime" you get a far worse sentence to someone who wasnt, even if your crime was identical. Indeed, the law does not consider religiously motivated crimes to be hate crimes, but crimes based on hatred due to a persons religion are considered hate crimes.

Change the fething law.

Well, I think those laws are dumb, and should be changed. (and arguably unconstitutional in the US).

You also miss the point that the crimes in this story weren't identical. Conspiracy is always going to bring a higher sentencing than a solo act.