Let me correct myself. When I stated that those laws did not make sense, I meant that they do not make sense and thus should not exist, not that they do not have logic behind them, however faulty that logic may be. I know what the law is, but I disagree with it.
I'm not a devil's advocate. I actually disagree with you. I'm not trying to show you another point of you. I plainly state that you are wrong. Your logic is faulty, my friend.
You really are being disingenuous. A reasonable person would expect to cause death to the owner of the pills, or if not, it is at least a lesser form of homicide. On the other hand, if I tell you to kill yourself and you do, that is no fault of mine. You chose to kill yourself.
But that's an explicit threat. Isn't the point of hate crime legislation that it punishes for the implicit threat made by the crime? If so then why can you not make implicit threats such as, "Niggers who sleep with white women should die." That is perfectly legal.
I told you why that wouldn't be murder in the first degree. The argument is that you don't have the ability to decide properly. That is why you get a lesser sentence. This is logically sound. And nice job trying to attack my character. I am opposed to hate crime legislation. I believe it to be unfair and I've told you why I believe it to be so.
And yet, in your scenario the victim had no way of changing the outcome. In this case, the "victim" had the choice to live or die and they chose to die. Why should that be anyone's problem?
It should not be taken into account because punishing me for what I am likely to do in the future goes against western justice ideals. For that very reasoning, hate crime laws are flawed. I don't care about the homosexuals in this way because they deserve the same treatment and protection under the law. Special punishment for their aggressors is unjust.
But I can do the same thing by just saying it and actively campaigning against them. That is not illegal, so why does it add to sentencing when a crime is committed? Could it be that it's because society is intolerant of unpopular opinions? They are wrong in my opinion, but they deserve equal protection under the law, and that includes fair sentencing.
And yet it isn't a hate crime to beat up fans of the Dallas Cowboys, even though my drive to beat them up might be the same. Why is that not a hate crime? Or better yet, what if I targeted people that were only between the statures of 170cm to 200cm? Is that a hate crime?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(law)
Different from motivation. By kicking your ass because you're a homosexual, I intended to kick you ass just the same as if you had pissed me off in any other number of ways. I am guilty of assault. The intent is the same, however my motivation for the crime is different. The reason I was willing to bring about such outcome should not be taken into account because I already knew that beating you up was illegal.
The act of hating someone or some group is not and should not ever be illegal.
Why? The "act" of hating? What constitutes hate as an act rather than a thought? Is murdering a Jewish man the act of hating Jews? Or is it just the murder of a Jewish man? Why is it worse because I hated his heritage as opposed to just him or his whole family? What if I intended to intimidate his family, but not because of their ancestry? Is that a hate crime? Or is it only a hate crime when I target a larger group? How large and defined does the group have to be?
It, again, all depends. Though, I don't know of an intentional murder that isn't just murder in the first degree. I may be mistaken, if so, please feel free to explain to me how. From my perspective, the thief will get charged with many charges, but that of murder will be applied just as it would in any other such familiar case. So I don't know where you get that the law considers that more murderous, though it is still murder.
The reasoning is that you may not be in full control of your senses when you kill said man, therefore you did not have the capacity to judge your actions and your capacity to process intent was impaired. Notice, that this gets you a lower sentence, not a greater one. What argument can you make for hate crime legislation?
Nope, dumb girl killed herself by her own choice. Was it fucked of for that lady to do it? Yes, but it isn't murder, and don't you dare call it that. In what world do you hold and individual responsible for someone else's actions? If I kill myself because of your horrible reasoning, should you be charged with murder? Let's say you insulted me with the purpose of making me feel like a dumbass. Is that murder? Let's say you knew I might kill myself because I'm easily swayed to strong feelings? Is that murder? I would argue no, since in all cases, I have the ability to not kill myself.
That's intent, not motivation. Think, "Did I want this to happen?" That's intent. "Why did I want this to happen or not?" Is not intent, that's motivation. Hate crimes are derived from motivation and not intent, and so are very much ridiculous.
But that's intent, because the thief inadvertently killed while thieving; he did not intend to kill, while his motivation was monetary and so is not murder. If I kill an asshole, my intent was to kill him and it doesn't matter why I felt like this asshole needed to die. Murder is murder and is derived from intent, not motivation. You should go back and re-read that post.
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. The fact is, that an attack on an individual cannot constitute an attack on a whole populace, even if that is the intent. Acting aggressively to a population results in the same thing, and yet only explicit threats are illegal. Punish crimes and hate crimes will be just as punished as any other crime, but why is that not enough? Or is it a hate crime when they bully some nerdy kid at school and beat him up? After all, it can be meant to intimidate all the other weak nerdy kids in school, yet this is not a hate crime. Why? Because implicit threats always exist. 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. To treat an individual as a representation of a group, would also require that the group the perpetrator is part of to be punished. After all, they are the ones that drove him to act irrationally and hatefully, so why are they not part of the intimidating factor? They very much are, and the fact that they are still out there means that hate crime legislation isn't very effective, unless you want to throw the book at some jerk that you think deserves disproportionate punishment.
Motivation is different than intent. If I have intent to murder, then it is murder, if not, it may be manslaughter. If I kill someone because I personally hate him, it's murder. If I murder someone because I want to feel what it's like, it's still murder. My motivation matters not, my intent to commit the crime does, and so hate crimes are an irrational thing. I don't think what happened was right, and he should be punished, but the fact is that his motivation shouldn't matter, only his intent to violate privacy, which is a serious thing.
Because intent to commit a crime matters, but not the motivation behind it. For example, if I murder a man because I want to fuck his wife, or because I want to know what it feels like, it is still murder. My intent, was to murder. However, if I kill a man for being gay, versus if I kill him for fun, then why tack on because of my motivation? It simply does not make sense to do this, as crime in this case was the intent, but why does his motivation matter? Why not just prosecute the crime?
That may be, however what the "victim" decides to do should not be on the "perpetrator." The fact is that he taped him and outed him, and he violated his privacy, but he did not kill him. This is no hate crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, my dad hasn't even died, yet. You got lucky. I don't even have a lawn.
Let me correct myself. When I stated that those laws did not make sense, I meant that they do not make sense and thus should not exist, not that they do not have logic behind them, however faulty that logic may be. I know what the law is, but I disagree with it.
I'm not a devil's advocate. I actually disagree with you. I'm not trying to show you another point of you. I plainly state that you are wrong. Your logic is faulty, my friend.
You really are being disingenuous. A reasonable person would expect to cause death to the owner of the pills, or if not, it is at least a lesser form of homicide. On the other hand, if I tell you to kill yourself and you do, that is no fault of mine. You chose to kill yourself.
But that's an explicit threat. Isn't the point of hate crime legislation that it punishes for the implicit threat made by the crime? If so then why can you not make implicit threats such as, "Niggers who sleep with white women should die." That is perfectly legal.
I told you why that wouldn't be murder in the first degree. The argument is that you don't have the ability to decide properly. That is why you get a lesser sentence. This is logically sound. And nice job trying to attack my character. I am opposed to hate crime legislation. I believe it to be unfair and I've told you why I believe it to be so.
Your arguments were erroneous in nature, so yeah, I still argue with you. Or is the point of arguing only agreeing with you?
And yet, in your scenario the victim had no way of changing the outcome. In this case, the "victim" had the choice to live or die and they chose to die. Why should that be anyone's problem?
It should not be taken into account because punishing me for what I am likely to do in the future goes against western justice ideals. For that very reasoning, hate crime laws are flawed. I don't care about the homosexuals in this way because they deserve the same treatment and protection under the law. Special punishment for their aggressors is unjust.
What worries me about your post is why a church had government funding.
He hasn't heard about it because what you say didn't happen.
But I can do the same thing by just saying it and actively campaigning against them. That is not illegal, so why does it add to sentencing when a crime is committed? Could it be that it's because society is intolerant of unpopular opinions? They are wrong in my opinion, but they deserve equal protection under the law, and that includes fair sentencing.
And yet it isn't a hate crime to beat up fans of the Dallas Cowboys, even though my drive to beat them up might be the same. Why is that not a hate crime? Or better yet, what if I targeted people that were only between the statures of 170cm to 200cm? Is that a hate crime?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(law) Different from motivation. By kicking your ass because you're a homosexual, I intended to kick you ass just the same as if you had pissed me off in any other number of ways. I am guilty of assault. The intent is the same, however my motivation for the crime is different. The reason I was willing to bring about such outcome should not be taken into account because I already knew that beating you up was illegal.
The act of hating someone or some group is not and should not ever be illegal.
Why? The "act" of hating? What constitutes hate as an act rather than a thought? Is murdering a Jewish man the act of hating Jews? Or is it just the murder of a Jewish man? Why is it worse because I hated his heritage as opposed to just him or his whole family? What if I intended to intimidate his family, but not because of their ancestry? Is that a hate crime? Or is it only a hate crime when I target a larger group? How large and defined does the group have to be?
It, again, all depends. Though, I don't know of an intentional murder that isn't just murder in the first degree. I may be mistaken, if so, please feel free to explain to me how. From my perspective, the thief will get charged with many charges, but that of murder will be applied just as it would in any other such familiar case. So I don't know where you get that the law considers that more murderous, though it is still murder.
The reasoning is that you may not be in full control of your senses when you kill said man, therefore you did not have the capacity to judge your actions and your capacity to process intent was impaired. Notice, that this gets you a lower sentence, not a greater one. What argument can you make for hate crime legislation?
What stigma? The guy was already known to be gay, well before the incident. So again, how is this a "hate crime" and why does his motivation matter?
Nope, dumb girl killed herself by her own choice. Was it fucked of for that lady to do it? Yes, but it isn't murder, and don't you dare call it that. In what world do you hold and individual responsible for someone else's actions? If I kill myself because of your horrible reasoning, should you be charged with murder? Let's say you insulted me with the purpose of making me feel like a dumbass. Is that murder? Let's say you knew I might kill myself because I'm easily swayed to strong feelings? Is that murder? I would argue no, since in all cases, I have the ability to not kill myself.
That's intent, not motivation. Think, "Did I want this to happen?" That's intent. "Why did I want this to happen or not?" Is not intent, that's motivation. Hate crimes are derived from motivation and not intent, and so are very much ridiculous.
But that's intent, because the thief inadvertently killed while thieving; he did not intend to kill, while his motivation was monetary and so is not murder. If I kill an asshole, my intent was to kill him and it doesn't matter why I felt like this asshole needed to die. Murder is murder and is derived from intent, not motivation. You should go back and re-read that post.
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. The fact is, that an attack on an individual cannot constitute an attack on a whole populace, even if that is the intent. Acting aggressively to a population results in the same thing, and yet only explicit threats are illegal. Punish crimes and hate crimes will be just as punished as any other crime, but why is that not enough? Or is it a hate crime when they bully some nerdy kid at school and beat him up? After all, it can be meant to intimidate all the other weak nerdy kids in school, yet this is not a hate crime. Why? Because implicit threats always exist. 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. To treat an individual as a representation of a group, would also require that the group the perpetrator is part of to be punished. After all, they are the ones that drove him to act irrationally and hatefully, so why are they not part of the intimidating factor? They very much are, and the fact that they are still out there means that hate crime legislation isn't very effective, unless you want to throw the book at some jerk that you think deserves disproportionate punishment.
Motivation is different than intent. If I have intent to murder, then it is murder, if not, it may be manslaughter. If I kill someone because I personally hate him, it's murder. If I murder someone because I want to feel what it's like, it's still murder. My motivation matters not, my intent to commit the crime does, and so hate crimes are an irrational thing. I don't think what happened was right, and he should be punished, but the fact is that his motivation shouldn't matter, only his intent to violate privacy, which is a serious thing.
Because intent to commit a crime matters, but not the motivation behind it. For example, if I murder a man because I want to fuck his wife, or because I want to know what it feels like, it is still murder. My intent, was to murder. However, if I kill a man for being gay, versus if I kill him for fun, then why tack on because of my motivation? It simply does not make sense to do this, as crime in this case was the intent, but why does his motivation matter? Why not just prosecute the crime?
That may be, however what the "victim" decides to do should not be on the "perpetrator." The fact is that he taped him and outed him, and he violated his privacy, but he did not kill him. This is no hate crime.