Hate Laws

[Alliance Fanatic]

Are hate laws necessary in today's society. My answer is no they are'nt, I'll give my reason why.

If a person beats up a guy because he is sleeping with his girlfriend is'nt it motivated by hate

If a person beats up a homosexual is'nt it motivated by hate also

So I believe that they should both get the same penalty.

Lets also look at an example from the states, Jesse Dirkhising.

Why is'nt Jesse Dirkhising getting the same attention that Mathew Shepard is getting. Both crimes were brutal, however why is'nt the media telling the nation about the horrific crime that was commited by those who sodomized and raped Jesse Dirkhising.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art...99hatecrime.htm

Why the double standard, every human life is valuable. But it seems that the media finds it more tragic when a homosexual is murdered by white christians, than when a pedophile rapes a child.

[August1991]

Consider this AF.

1) You live in a sort-of dangerous neighbourhood. So, you are careful when you walk about at night. How much care do you take?

2) You are black living in a white neighbourhood where there have been attacks specifically against blacks. How much care do you take when going out?

The difference in care taken between 1 and 2 is the primary argument for tougher penalties in the case of a so-called hate crime. Note the key difference of observability.

[Argus]

Consider this AF.

1) You live in a sort-of dangerous neighbourhood.  So, you are careful when you walk about at night.  How much care do you take?

2) You are black living in a white neighbourhood where there have been attacks specifically against blacks.  How much care do you take when going out?

The difference in care taken between 1 and 2 is the primary argument for tougher penalties in the case of a so-called hate crime.  Note the key difference of observability.

Yeah, except that the only people who really need to fear walking around are women, especially the younger, better looking ones. And, not coincidentally, they also happen to generally be much less able to protect themselves than men, even Black men, hmm? So would it not make sense then to have tougher penalties for people who beat up women?

But really, it's all kind of silly. If we had intelligent judges with reasonable judgement people would get the sentences they deseve for violent attacks ON ANYONE. It's unfortunate so many of our judges are simply second rate lawyers with political connections.

[August1991]

So would it not make sense then to have tougher penalties for people who beat up women?

They are. The crimes directed specifically at women are treated more harshly.

If we had intelligent judges with reasonable judgement people would get the sentences they deseve for violent attacks ON ANYONE.

How do you define "the sentences they deserve"? That is the crux of the matter.

[DAC]

How do you define "the sentences they deserve"? That is the crux of the matter.

I think the Bible has a wonderful answer to that. People get all confused because they don't realize that "an eye for an eye" is direction specifically given to judges, to guide them to give just sentences.

Harsh? Barbaric? In the eyes of some people. But if a husband who battered his wife was convicted and given an exactly equivalent battering, he would think twice before doing it again! In fact, if he knew he would get that as a sentence, he would think three times before doing it once.

An added advantage is that the violent crime does not lead to costly imprisonment, then.

[caesar]

Yes, that would be barbaric and unacceptable and wouldn't do anything to address the problem. Remember the bible also, says; "vengeance is mine; sayeth the lord."

We do not need hate laws protecting any special interest groups. Any and all groups or individuals deserve the same protection regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever. Special laws for one group only in unnecessary and more likely to build resentment or mistrust as any criticism of such protected special groups is pounced on and called racist. Members of these groups are not above criticism. To silence any such criticism with hate laws is a loss of freedom of speech and the right to question actions.

[August1991]

I think the Bible has a wonderful answer to that. People get all confused because they don't realize that "an eye for an eye" is direction specifically given to judges, to guide them to give just sentences.

Old Testament Bible, not New. And arguably a good approach to justice several thousand years ago.

Another poster here has the line "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or some such.

To open debate, I'll ask a different moral question here, perfectly in line IMV with the question of hate crimes.

A rich widow with no children prepares a will leaving all to her beloved niece. While visiting the Grand Canyon, the aunt falls to her death. Captured on video providing a shove, the niece defends herself by saying that she is no threat to society (she only had one aunt and she'll clearly never kill again) and will now not get any of the aunt's money anyway.

What "sentence" does the niece "deserve"? Is the "eye for eye" fair in this case?

[Alliance Fanatic]

We do not need hate laws protecting any special interest groups. Any and all groups or individuals deserve the same protection regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or whatever. Special laws for one group only in unnecessary and more likely to build resentment or mistrust as any criticism of such protected special groups is pounced on and called racist. Members of these groups are not above criticism. To silence any such criticism with hate laws is a loss of freedom of speech and the right to question actions.

Becareful what you say, Gallant was called a bigot for going against C-250. As is any politician.

[Michael Hardner]

I think that the law should provide some kind of protection against organized hate, because it's usually planned in more of a rational way unlike other crimes of passion and it puts specific people at risk. Some kind of extra penalty might be appropriate to discourage that kind of thing.

But, I don't really agree with the specific hate laws that we currently have on the books...

[DAC]

Yes, that would be barbaric and unacceptable and wouldn't do anything to address the problem. Remember the bible also, says; "vengeance is mine; sayeth the lord."

That's why I mentioned the context, that "an eye for an eye" is addressed to judges doing their job, not to inviduals. Individuals are taught in OT as well as NT to forgive those who hurt them, to turn the other cheek, to leave vengeance to God.

Judges, on the other hand are charged to give a just respnse to cases brought before them. They are not there to give vengeance, but justice. And justice means that the penalty balances against the offence. Hence, "an eye for an eye".

What "sentence" does the niece "deserve"? Is the "eye for eye" fair in this case?

Yes. Anything less is not fair, and certainly not just. What other response is appropriate for someone who deliberately kills in an ugly way -- think of that long fall -- someone who has given her reason only for gratitude?

[DAC]

I think that the law should provide some kind of protection against organized hate, because it's usually planned in more of a rational way unlike other crimes of passion and it puts specific people at risk. Some kind of extra penalty might be appropriate to discourage that kind of thing.

But, I don't really agree with the specific hate laws that we currently have on the books...

Right on. That's in effect an application of the distinction we make between pre-meditated crimes and crimes of passion.

[August1991]

Yes. Anything less is not fair, and certainly not just. What other response is appropriate for someone who deliberately kills in an ugly way -- think of that long fall -- someone who has given her reason only for gratitude?

I agree but not because of justice or fairness. I'm thinking of the rich uncle and nephew who go to the Grand Canyon next week. If the judge lets the niece off, what is the nephew going to think?

We impose sentences not by fairness but to deter others from committing a crime and causing greater harm.

Deterrence is the critical factor in fixing sentences.

[idealisttotheend]

If you argue for an eye for an eye, how can you claim the moral high ground? If I take your eye and you take mine in return are we not both morally deprived? After all, I may have taken your eye because I feel that you have wronged me so it is simply a question of who is more justified not who is more moral.

Either taking some one's eye is wrong or it is not. If it is wrong then the principle of justice says that anyone who cannot follow societie's rules and takes someone's eye should be taken out of scoiety in a way that is seen as punishment. Not that society should debase itself to the same level and take their eye.

[Argus]

So would it not make sense then to have tougher penalties for people who beat up women?

They are. The crimes directed specifically at women are treated more harshly.

More harshly than what, August? Sexual violence against women is not, to my thinking, treated nearly harshly enough. Sexual violence is not treated harshly enough. And in particular that worst sort of nightmare - the attack of a stranger - is not dealt with *nearly* as severely as it ought to be.

If we had intelligent judges with reasonable judgement people would get the sentences they deseve for violent attacks ON ANYONE.

How do you define "the sentences they deserve"? That is the crux of the matter.

It should not be difficult. There are always sentence ranges set out by parliament. You decide, on your experience, if this is one of the milder cases you've seen, meritting a sentence towards the lower end of the scale, or one of the worst, which should get something up towards the top. Unfortunately, sentences which rise past the midrange of any sentence scale are rare, and those at the top of the scale almost unheard of, regardless of the severity of the crime and the criminal history of the perpetrator. Our judges - most of them second rate lawyers with pull, and washed up political hacks, seem to lack the intestinal fortitude to clobber violent criminals with maximum sentences.

[Argus]

I think that the law should provide some kind of protection against organized hate, because it's usually planned in more of a rational way unlike other crimes of passion and it puts specific people at risk. Some kind of extra penalty might be appropriate to discourage that kind of thing.

I'm not sure I agree that hate crimes are usually planned, but even if so premeditation has always been a cause for giving out a more severe sentence. Regardless of the race of the victim.

[Argus]

If you argue for an eye for an eye, how can you claim the moral high ground?  If I take your eye and you take mine in return are we not both morally deprived?  After all, I may have taken your eye because I feel that you have wronged me so it is simply a question of who is more justified not who is more moral.

No, that doesn't work for me. That's like saying if you try to kill me, but in our fight I manage to kill you I'm as morally tainted as you are. But I was defending myself.

In any event, we punish people in part to show a just reward for their violence, so the more severe the crime the more severe the punishment should be. And we do this not merely on behalf of the person you wronged but to prevent other people from behaving as you, to keep peace in the community.

Either taking some one's eye is wrong or it is not.

I agree in theory, but is Paul Bernardo's murder of a helpless young girl on the same moral plateau as my killing Paul Bernardo?

[DAC]

If you argue for an eye for an eye, how can you claim the moral high ground?  If I take your eye and you take mine in return are we not both morally deprived?  After all, I may have taken your eye because I feel that you have wronged me so it is simply a question of who is more justified not who is more moral.

You could probably split it differently but for the sake of clarity, let me suggest four modes of "taking an eye".

The first is unprovoked attack. The second is vengeance, the third is self-defence while under attack; the fourth is judicial punishment.

No reasonable person will say the first is acceptable. The second we can understand, but if we want any society left, we have to reject it, however sympathetic we may be to the injured avenger. The third is entirely different. Leaving aside a very few true pacifists who stick to their principles under attack, we all recognize that the fault lies with the attacker. If it were a five year old child attacking a heavyweight wrestler, we might change our mind, but in normal circumstances we recognize that self-defence is justified.

The question comes with the fourth. If in the name of justice a third party “takes the eye” of the offender, do we adopt the offender’s morals? The answer is clearly “No”. If it were “Yes”, we would be barred from any punishment. We would have to say, “Go in peace”, to the offender.

But what about rehabilitation? That means applying force to compel somebody to change, while we have discarded the right to use force against that person. The theory which rejects justice says that all attacks on another person are equally wrong. If on that theory you seize somebody and compel him or her to go through some rehabilitation program, you are just as bad as the person whom you are trying to rehabilitate. It may be different in degree than “an eye for an eye”, but it is not different in principle.

The principle of justice is critical here. Justice requires a punishment that matches the offence. The offender renders himself or herself liable to punishment by the harmful deed done. His or her normal civil rights are voluntarily set aside by the choice to break the law. Therefore the legal punishment by third parties is right, not wrong.