You cannot punish a crime more harshly because you think that it is also an implicit threat towards a wider group. This just doesn't make sense.
Yes you can - those are bias intimidation laws. It makes complete sense, regardless of whether you think they should actually exist. You use the word "implicit" - if there is implicit threat it is not a hate crime. The intent has to exist (motivation for a crime) and therefore be explicit. At least, if correctly used (and many times they aren't).
So what if some guys want to hold a parade celebrating the murder of black gentlemen? That same intimidation exists, yet it is not criminal.
Exactly. That's free speech vs. criminal acts. Bias intimidation laws can only be applied to crimes; parades aren't crimes.
Just so you know, the intent of bias intimidation laws are to give the ability to prosecute for crimes that a perpetrator applies to a large group of people on top of the crime committed. For example, if you place a burning cross in your neighbor's yard, it's a slight charge of destruction of private property which is nothing more than a fine. Bias intimidation is for the fact that the burning cross was meant to intimidate and harm a whole group of people, on top of the slight property harm.
Bias intimidation laws, or hate crimes, are now incorrectly thought to be "any crime against a minority are even worse than a regular crime". That is not the intent. If it is used in such a way it is incorrect.
particularly if based on some generally deplorable choice they have made in their lives.
Regardless of the other things you mentioned, it's no longer a majority that believes being gay is wrong in America. So it is a minority deplorable "choice" now.
This is, of course, a show trial put on by the Gay Mafia.
OMG, I'm gay! How can I join?
Given that the two had no information as to Clementi's psychological instability, there's no way that Ravi and Wei could have reasonably believed that this prank might drive Clementi to kill himself, and therefore, to say that Clementi's suicide was an intended result is preposterous.
Nobody said it was the intended result. He's not charged in any way with his suicide... in fact if the prosecution mentions it, it will likely be a mistrial.
If anybody "shares blame" for Clementi's suicide, it's the "gay rights" advocates.
OMG! I feel so bad now.
The prosecutors (persecutors) in this case need to be shot to death. For allowing the case to go forward, the judge also needs to be killed.
Oh awesome! Don't you wish we live din North Korea or Iran, where they'd actually do that! I wish I could kill everyone who I disagreed with, boy wouldn't that be a wonderful world! And the best part is, I can see how you live in Christ's love and live the life of a Christian for saying those words. God loves you, and wishes He could kill those damn prosecutors and judge!
It seems like a reasonable compromise. I wonder why he turned it down.
Probably because he doesn't feel that he should serve 3-5 years for the things that he did. Nor do I, and I'm not in any way saying he's innocent. And I'm gay. But I hate an overzealous justice system that spends our taxpayer money to put young men (barely not a child) in an expensive prison for so many years for the stupid shit that kids do. No, it's not okay for him to do the things he did. No, he shouldn't go unpunished. It was fucking awful that the poor young man committed suicide. Fucking awful, and I can imagine how much the family of the man and so many other people want Ravi to be punished harshly. But a justice system that puts a young man (almost a child) in jail for 5 years (oh and now it may be 10) for a spycam, and lets murderers go free after a few years on probation, is fucked up.
Once again, I am in no way approving Ravi's actions. He was wrong, and should be punished. But it is unjust that he should be put in jail for 3-5 years, and especially not 10 years, for what he did.
Regardles of motivation, it's still a crime to install a camera in somebody's place wihout permission. If the victim was female, you wouldn't see a lot of people defending the bastard.
Well, I don't think that's the controversy here. I think it's agreed it's a crime and the acts were wrong; what isn't agreed is the extremeness of the punishment, and the culpability of the defendant's responsibility of the victim's suicide. If the victim were a female, you wouldn't see charges brought against the teenager for 10 years in jail.
If public knowledge of a personal choice will lead to such an extreme reaction on the part of the person who is "outed", then the person should have thought about all that before he decided to have a sex life which involved such activity.
OK, so all I have to do to prevent you from preaching Christianity in your own personal time is for me and my friends to have an extreme reaction. That way, when we have an extreme reaction to your silly Christianity you will realize you should have thought about the fact that we didn't like it before deciding to do such things in your personal time.
Sure, it was tasteless and wrong for his room mate to video him. but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the guy killed himself,
Ummmm... apparently it does, because it was why he killed himself. (Regardless of whether one thinks he should of, or the defendant should be charged with a crime, it does relate)
Sorry, but that's the truth and if you don't like it maybe you should consider growing a pair of balls.
I've got a nice big, hefty pair of balls, and I don't post anonymously.
An annoying roommate you had... but this anecdote doesn't really relate to the story. The defendant, Ravi, was never kept out of the room and was never in the same room while his roommate was hooking up.
Once you start prosecuting people for what they believe, trouble is bound to follow. And by definition "hate crimes" are clearly prosecuting someone for what they believe or are thinking.
No, hate crimes aren't supposed to (regardless of whether or not they are applied incorrectly sometimes). The definition of a "hate crime" is not a crime involving the emotion hate. Hate crimes are always crimes against actions, not thoughts. The act of hating someone or some group is not and should not ever be illegal.
Sometimes, a prosecutor is influenced by a vocal community to bring hate crime charges against someone. Even if the defendant did not intend to cause harm to whatever group of people, the prosecutor brings the charges anyways. This is a fault of the system, a case where justice is not blind.
The vast majority of crime is all about money or some other gain and has nothing to do with hate at all.
I just want to point out that a hate crime is not any crime which involved the emotion of hate. It has to do with the intent to cause harm to a large group of people, beyond the person(s) involved in one particular attack.
The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes.
Absolutely positively incorrect. You have no fucking clue what it is.
A hate crime is a crime against a large group of people. They were designed to allow for punishment against a burning cross in a black person's yard. A burning cross in a yard is more than just an attack one someone's personal property, it is an attack on a certain community. So a hate crime is meant to provide a way for the perpetrator of a person who puts a burning cross on someone's yard to be punished for more than just a private property desecration (which is relatively minor) - it provides for a punishment for the attack on all of the blacks in the neighborhood.
It is not, and should not, be criminal to hate black people or gay people or Christians or whoever the fuck anyone wants to hate. Just because a hate crime is sometime improperly used doesn't cause the definition of it to change.
The very notion of hate crimes is dangerous. It essentially criminalizes feelings.
It isn't supposed to, in theory. It sometimes isn't used correctly.
A hate crime is a crime against a population - for example, a burning cross in a yard is more than just an attack one someone's personal property, it is an attack on a certain community. So a hate crime is meant to provide a way for the perpetrator of a person who puts a burning cross on someone's yard to be punished for more than just a private property desecration - to provide a punishment for the attack on all of the blacks in the neighborhood.
It is not, and should not, be criminal to hate black people or gay people or Christians or whoever the fuck anyone wants to hate. The hate crime is improperly used if a perpetrator did not intend to cause harm to a larger group of people. Unfortunately, it many times is - almost like a bad roll of the dice that a man got hurt because he happened to be apart of some minority, so now the punishment for the crime is four times as worse as if the crime was randomly against someone else.
The gay community needs to get over themselves. I'm starting to hate the gay community not because they're gay, but because they slam out stupid lawsuits like this that try to paint EVERYTHING as "hate crimes" when they're not. The gay community wanted us out of their bedrooms. Fine. They got their way. Now get the hell out of our court rooms.
This is about as ignorant as saying "the gay community has an agenda to do ". I'm a gay man and, I was not invited to the committee which decided what the prosecutor was going to charge Ravi for. I've never written any legislation which created the idea of a "hate crime" in the first place. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there was no mob of gay people at the court house unilaterally deciding the charges brought against Ravi and "slamming lawsuits" against Ravi.
Don't blame the gays, asshole. Blame the prosecutor.
They need to just start from scratch and create a limited subset of features that doesn't pretend to be C and doesn't lug around all of the past mistakes in the standard, and call it C+++.
I was clearing up a common misconception that religion and science have to be at odds. The faith in a creator is not diametrically opposed to accepting science.
Only as a matter of convenience. And you are correct that faith in a creator is not opposed to accepting science.
What is opposed to science is using the bible as evidence or proof.
My point was that I believe the OP was asking for advice on new careers, and he had a lot of responsibilities keeping him in his area. Given that, he really needs advice on a new career, and not for looking for a better job in the same career in a different city. I am presuming that the chances are good that, even if he liked the new job in the same career for a while, the same problems would eventually resurface.
Once he knows what he wants to do (because he obviously doesn't yet) - and he can't find what he wants to do in his own area - then I think it's safer to move... once he knows it's worth it, that is.
OK, granted, that is a possibility... but it's not good advice. Of all the available circumstances, with their probabilities of success and their ratios of risk to reward, your suggestion is just really off of what the OP was asking about.
Nothing personal, mind you... I just moved across country after living in the same place for 12 years and I love it. But I'm 30 not ~50 years old, so my parameters are different.
You are correct, but you apparently have no experience in a typical marriage with typical women and children. If you want to live the simple life, you can, but you have to find a wife who also wants to live that way, and raise your children up in that environment from the start.
I totally feel ya... my partner doesn't know shit about money and I am forced to compromise sound financial management of our finances for domestic peace from time to time (that's putting it lightly). You know the saying that opposites attract? It's always said with such romantic pretenses, but holy shit - the financial aspects of that saying sure does sting.
I guess that's probably some right wing spar or whatever, but it's missing the point. You don't have to spend $40K-$100K on universities. My parents were upper middle class, yet I went to the public university Georgia Tech for practically nothing thanks to the HOPE scholarship. When I say practically nothing, I actually mean nothing for tuition... my parents helped me with room and board. I want the best for my children too, but I don't feel the need to spend a half mortgage for their education when it doesn't have to be that way.
And you may not realize this, but if a child has a parent that dies, their social security benefits will go to the child until they are 18. I think the original poster meant social security, not medicaid, because it was in response to what happens if the parent dies.
There is a happy medium between, say, the "the valley" (in the bay area) and Red Cloud, Nebraska (it's a real place, with bad pizza - look it up!).
Ahem, The city owns and operates a swimming pool in its park,[10] and it maintains a nine-hole golf course that is claimed to be the third-best such course in the state.[11]
Not something VERY wrong. I don't have 6 months cash, but I am by no means in any dire straits... if I lost my job, I could A. find another job very easily, or B. live off of credit for 6 months easily.
Now don't get me wrong... it is better to have 6 months cash and no debt and live beneath your means, etc... but I'm not doing anything very wrong.
His most recent book in that universe, "Allow of Law" is excellent and essentially amounts to a demonstration that contrary to common belief, fantasy worlds can have guns and not suck.
The Gunslinger series didn't suck. (Even if the ending did...)
Now, if you want a *solid* fantasy series from start to finish (that's not quite so heavy), check out The Death Gate Cycle by Margaret Weiss and Tracey Hickman. Fantastic series with great character development and interesting situations.
Is it better than the Dragonlance series by the same authors? Because those were fucking awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot punish a crime more harshly because you think that it is also an implicit threat towards a wider group. This just doesn't make sense.
Yes you can - those are bias intimidation laws. It makes complete sense, regardless of whether you think they should actually exist. You use the word "implicit" - if there is implicit threat it is not a hate crime. The intent has to exist (motivation for a crime) and therefore be explicit. At least, if correctly used (and many times they aren't).
So what if some guys want to hold a parade celebrating the murder of black gentlemen? That same intimidation exists, yet it is not criminal.
Exactly. That's free speech vs. criminal acts. Bias intimidation laws can only be applied to crimes; parades aren't crimes.
Just so you know, the intent of bias intimidation laws are to give the ability to prosecute for crimes that a perpetrator applies to a large group of people on top of the crime committed. For example, if you place a burning cross in your neighbor's yard, it's a slight charge of destruction of private property which is nothing more than a fine. Bias intimidation is for the fact that the burning cross was meant to intimidate and harm a whole group of people, on top of the slight property harm.
Bias intimidation laws, or hate crimes, are now incorrectly thought to be "any crime against a minority are even worse than a regular crime". That is not the intent. If it is used in such a way it is incorrect.
particularly if based on some generally deplorable choice they have made in their lives.
Regardless of the other things you mentioned, it's no longer a majority that believes being gay is wrong in America. So it is a minority deplorable "choice" now.
This is, of course, a show trial put on by the Gay Mafia.
OMG, I'm gay! How can I join?
Given that the two had no information as to Clementi's psychological instability, there's no way that Ravi and Wei could have reasonably believed that this prank might drive Clementi to kill himself, and therefore, to say that Clementi's suicide was an intended result is preposterous.
Nobody said it was the intended result. He's not charged in any way with his suicide... in fact if the prosecution mentions it, it will likely be a mistrial.
If anybody "shares blame" for Clementi's suicide, it's the "gay rights" advocates.
OMG! I feel so bad now.
The prosecutors (persecutors) in this case need to be shot to death. For allowing the case to go forward, the judge also needs to be killed.
Oh awesome! Don't you wish we live din North Korea or Iran, where they'd actually do that! I wish I could kill everyone who I disagreed with, boy wouldn't that be a wonderful world! And the best part is, I can see how you live in Christ's love and live the life of a Christian for saying those words. God loves you, and wishes He could kill those damn prosecutors and judge!
It seems like a reasonable compromise. I wonder why he turned it down.
Probably because he doesn't feel that he should serve 3-5 years for the things that he did. Nor do I, and I'm not in any way saying he's innocent. And I'm gay. But I hate an overzealous justice system that spends our taxpayer money to put young men (barely not a child) in an expensive prison for so many years for the stupid shit that kids do. No, it's not okay for him to do the things he did. No, he shouldn't go unpunished. It was fucking awful that the poor young man committed suicide. Fucking awful, and I can imagine how much the family of the man and so many other people want Ravi to be punished harshly. But a justice system that puts a young man (almost a child) in jail for 5 years (oh and now it may be 10) for a spycam, and lets murderers go free after a few years on probation, is fucked up.
Once again, I am in no way approving Ravi's actions. He was wrong, and should be punished. But it is unjust that he should be put in jail for 3-5 years, and especially not 10 years, for what he did.
Regardles of motivation, it's still a crime to install a camera in somebody's place wihout permission. If the victim was female, you wouldn't see a lot of people defending the bastard.
Well, I don't think that's the controversy here. I think it's agreed it's a crime and the acts were wrong; what isn't agreed is the extremeness of the punishment, and the culpability of the defendant's responsibility of the victim's suicide. If the victim were a female, you wouldn't see charges brought against the teenager for 10 years in jail.
If public knowledge of a personal choice will lead to such an extreme reaction on the part of the person who is "outed", then the person should have thought about all that before he decided to have a sex life which involved such activity.
OK, so all I have to do to prevent you from preaching Christianity in your own personal time is for me and my friends to have an extreme reaction. That way, when we have an extreme reaction to your silly Christianity you will realize you should have thought about the fact that we didn't like it before deciding to do such things in your personal time.
Sure, it was tasteless and wrong for his room mate to video him. but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the guy killed himself,
Ummmm... apparently it does, because it was why he killed himself. (Regardless of whether one thinks he should of, or the defendant should be charged with a crime, it does relate)
Sorry, but that's the truth and if you don't like it maybe you should consider growing a pair of balls.
I've got a nice big, hefty pair of balls, and I don't post anonymously.
An annoying roommate you had... but this anecdote doesn't really relate to the story. The defendant, Ravi, was never kept out of the room and was never in the same room while his roommate was hooking up.
Once you start prosecuting people for what they believe, trouble is bound to follow. And by definition "hate crimes" are clearly prosecuting someone for what they believe or are thinking.
No, hate crimes aren't supposed to (regardless of whether or not they are applied incorrectly sometimes). The definition of a "hate crime" is not a crime involving the emotion hate. Hate crimes are always crimes against actions, not thoughts. The act of hating someone or some group is not and should not ever be illegal.
Sometimes, a prosecutor is influenced by a vocal community to bring hate crime charges against someone. Even if the defendant did not intend to cause harm to whatever group of people, the prosecutor brings the charges anyways. This is a fault of the system, a case where justice is not blind.
The vast majority of crime is all about money or some other gain and has nothing to do with hate at all.
I just want to point out that a hate crime is not any crime which involved the emotion of hate. It has to do with the intent to cause harm to a large group of people, beyond the person(s) involved in one particular attack.
The funny thing is, all crimes against another person are hate crimes.
Absolutely positively incorrect. You have no fucking clue what it is.
A hate crime is a crime against a large group of people. They were designed to allow for punishment against a burning cross in a black person's yard. A burning cross in a yard is more than just an attack one someone's personal property, it is an attack on a certain community. So a hate crime is meant to provide a way for the perpetrator of a person who puts a burning cross on someone's yard to be punished for more than just a private property desecration (which is relatively minor) - it provides for a punishment for the attack on all of the blacks in the neighborhood.
It is not, and should not, be criminal to hate black people or gay people or Christians or whoever the fuck anyone wants to hate. Just because a hate crime is sometime improperly used doesn't cause the definition of it to change.
The very notion of hate crimes is dangerous. It essentially criminalizes feelings.
It isn't supposed to, in theory. It sometimes isn't used correctly.
A hate crime is a crime against a population - for example, a burning cross in a yard is more than just an attack one someone's personal property, it is an attack on a certain community. So a hate crime is meant to provide a way for the perpetrator of a person who puts a burning cross on someone's yard to be punished for more than just a private property desecration - to provide a punishment for the attack on all of the blacks in the neighborhood.
It is not, and should not, be criminal to hate black people or gay people or Christians or whoever the fuck anyone wants to hate. The hate crime is improperly used if a perpetrator did not intend to cause harm to a larger group of people. Unfortunately, it many times is - almost like a bad roll of the dice that a man got hurt because he happened to be apart of some minority, so now the punishment for the crime is four times as worse as if the crime was randomly against someone else.
The gay community needs to get over themselves. I'm starting to hate the gay community not because they're gay, but because they slam out stupid lawsuits like this that try to paint EVERYTHING as "hate crimes" when they're not. The gay community wanted us out of their bedrooms. Fine. They got their way. Now get the hell out of our court rooms.
This is about as ignorant as saying "the gay community has an agenda to do ". I'm a gay man and, I was not invited to the committee which decided what the prosecutor was going to charge Ravi for. I've never written any legislation which created the idea of a "hate crime" in the first place. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there was no mob of gay people at the court house unilaterally deciding the charges brought against Ravi and "slamming lawsuits" against Ravi.
Don't blame the gays, asshole. Blame the prosecutor.
They need to just start from scratch and create a limited subset of features that doesn't pretend to be C and doesn't lug around all of the past mistakes in the standard, and call it C+++.
They did. Check out the D Programming Language.
I was clearing up a common misconception that religion and science have to be at odds. The faith in a creator is not diametrically opposed to accepting science.
Only as a matter of convenience. And you are correct that faith in a creator is not opposed to accepting science.
What is opposed to science is using the bible as evidence or proof.
My point was that I believe the OP was asking for advice on new careers, and he had a lot of responsibilities keeping him in his area. Given that, he really needs advice on a new career, and not for looking for a better job in the same career in a different city. I am presuming that the chances are good that, even if he liked the new job in the same career for a while, the same problems would eventually resurface.
Once he knows what he wants to do (because he obviously doesn't yet) - and he can't find what he wants to do in his own area - then I think it's safer to move... once he knows it's worth it, that is.
I wasn't insulting you or your comment, just posting what I read on Wikipedia about Red Cloud, Nebraska. I thought it was quaintly entertaining.
OK, granted, that is a possibility... but it's not good advice. Of all the available circumstances, with their probabilities of success and their ratios of risk to reward, your suggestion is just really off of what the OP was asking about.
Nothing personal, mind you... I just moved across country after living in the same place for 12 years and I love it. But I'm 30 not ~50 years old, so my parameters are different.
You are correct, but you apparently have no experience in a typical marriage with typical women and children. If you want to live the simple life, you can, but you have to find a wife who also wants to live that way, and raise your children up in that environment from the start.
I totally feel ya... my partner doesn't know shit about money and I am forced to compromise sound financial management of our finances for domestic peace from time to time (that's putting it lightly). You know the saying that opposites attract? It's always said with such romantic pretenses, but holy shit - the financial aspects of that saying sure does sting.
"Medicaid and public universities both work fine"
No, they don't.
I guess that's probably some right wing spar or whatever, but it's missing the point. You don't have to spend $40K-$100K on universities. My parents were upper middle class, yet I went to the public university Georgia Tech for practically nothing thanks to the HOPE scholarship. When I say practically nothing, I actually mean nothing for tuition... my parents helped me with room and board. I want the best for my children too, but I don't feel the need to spend a half mortgage for their education when it doesn't have to be that way.
And you may not realize this, but if a child has a parent that dies, their social security benefits will go to the child until they are 18. I think the original poster meant social security, not medicaid, because it was in response to what happens if the parent dies.
There is a happy medium between, say, the "the valley" (in the bay area) and Red Cloud, Nebraska (it's a real place, with bad pizza - look it up!).
Ahem,
The city owns and operates a swimming pool in its park,[10] and it maintains a nine-hole golf course that is claimed to be the third-best such course in the state.[11]
Not something VERY wrong. I don't have 6 months cash, but I am by no means in any dire straits... if I lost my job, I could A. find another job very easily, or B. live off of credit for 6 months easily.
Now don't get me wrong... it is better to have 6 months cash and no debt and live beneath your means, etc... but I'm not doing anything very wrong.
There's nothing "crazy" about being able to have a 30-year mortgage if you go into it with the full intention and ability to pay it off.
I don't think that was his point.
Being a developer can be a grind, but it's far from the worst job in the world,
In fact, it's consistently rated as being one of the best jobs in the world. :)
His most recent book in that universe, "Allow of Law" is excellent and essentially amounts to a demonstration that contrary to common belief, fantasy worlds can have guns and not suck.
The Gunslinger series didn't suck. (Even if the ending did...)
Now, if you want a *solid* fantasy series from start to finish (that's not quite so heavy), check out The Death Gate Cycle by Margaret Weiss and Tracey Hickman. Fantastic series with great character development and interesting situations.
Is it better than the Dragonlance series by the same authors? Because those were fucking awesome.