Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, dialamah said: My view is that inasmuch as the justice system is about punishment, additional punishment for crimes with the designation of "hate" doesn't do squat for deterrence and does nothing to protect targeted groups any better than just regular punishment would. But having and using such legislation does allow us to signal our collective disapproval of beating or killing someone because they are gay/Muslim/Jewish/etc. It also helps in the tracking of violence against certain groups; analysts do like to know why someone was attacked whether its a woman by her husband, a gangster by a rival gang or a Jew by a White Supremacist. I agree. There's nothing wrong with a hate crime designation. It's like bank robbery or driving without due care and attention. It's the idea that somehow the system should take such a crime more seriously than a similar crime perpetrated for other reasons that I cannot understand. That would actually be a hate crime in itself, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I agree. There's nothing wrong with a hate crime designation. It's like bank robbery or driving without due care and attention. It's the idea that somehow the system should take such a crime more seriously than a similar crime perpetrated for other reasons that I cannot understand. That would actually be a hate crime in itself, I guess. Bank robbing and bad driving don't threaten any specific identifiable group. Unless of course you only rob Jewish banks or only drive over Muslims. Get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Omni said: Bank robbing and bad driving don't threaten any specific identifiable group. Unless of course you only rob Jewish banks or only drive over Muslims. Get it? Doesn't matter. Get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Doesn't matter. Get it? Maybe not to you, but it does to Canadian law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, Omni said: Maybe not to you, but it does to Canadian law. Yes, but who argues about what is? We all know what is, on any subject. We argue about what should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Yes, but who argues about what is? We all know what is, on any subject. We argue about what should be. On this particular subject I have no argument with "what is". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, Omni said: On this particular subject I have no argument with "what is". Obviously. I do though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Obviously. I do though. You're allowed your opinion. Maybe send a post to Trudeau and see if he'll change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Doesn't matter. Get it? It does to progressives. They have a list of 'protected' people, as Jonathan Hadr said, and they consider them more important than straight white people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Omni said: You're allowed your opinion. Maybe send a post to Trudeau and see if he'll change it. I did. He told me to haul my stupid English arse back to Yorkshire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I did. He told me to haul my stupid English arse back to Yorkshire. Maybe you got him on a bad day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I agree. There's nothing wrong with a hate crime designation. It's like bank robbery or driving without due care and attention. It's the idea that somehow the system should take such a crime more seriously than a similar crime perpetrated for other reasons that I cannot understand. That would actually be a hate crime in itself, I guess. One aspect of a hate crime is the effect it has on others of the same group. If anti-rape groups/activists were randomly attacking and castrating men a few times a year for the offense of being heterosexual, the larger group of heterosexual men might start feeling like targets. This is different from a random crazy deciding to castrate a man because he thinks it will give him magic powers or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, dialamah said: One aspect of a hate crime is the effect it has on others of the same group. If anti-rape groups/activists were randomly attacking and castrating men a few times a year for the offense of being heterosexual, the larger group of heterosexual men might start feeling like targets. This is different from a random crazy deciding to castrate a man because he thinks it will give him magic powers or something. Absolutely. By all means punish anyone who commits a hate crime in any manner you see fit. I am not advocating reducing their punishment to that handed out for a similar crime carried out for another reason. I am simply saying make sure punishment in the second example is increased to equal that of the hate crime. There's no reason not to do that, and no downside. Individuals matter as well as groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Absolutely. By all means punish anyone who commits a hate crime in any manner you see fit. I am not advocating reducing their punishment to that handed out for a similar crime carried out for another reason. I am simply saying make sure punishment in the second example is increased to equal that of the hate crime. There's no reason not to do that, and no downside. Individuals matter as well as groups. Hate crimes receive harsher penalties quite rightly because they may well have a deleterious effect on an entire community, for one thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just now, Omni said: Hate crimes receive harsher penalties quite rightly because they may well have a deleterious effect on an entire community, for one thing. But surely the punishment is what it is. No member of an identifiable group is going to worry about whether or not an unrelated criminal committing an unrelated crime gets the same penalty. To provide a lesser level of protection based on one's non association with a group is deplorable. Hateful, even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Absolutely. By all means punish anyone who commits a hate crime in any manner you see fit. I am not advocating reducing their punishment to that handed out for a similar crime carried out for another reason. I am simply saying make sure punishment in the second example is increased to equal that of the hate crime. There's no reason not to do that, and no downside. Individuals matter as well as groups. Do you think terror crimes should be punished more harshly than similar crimes for other reasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, dialamah said: Do you think terror crimes should be punished more harshly than similar crimes for other reasons? Obviously not. I would have a hard time defending that, wouldn't I? If someone blows up bank full of people for financial reasons they should be dealt with just as harshly as anyone who blows up a cafe full of people for sectarian or political reasons. Edited May 12, 2017 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, bcsapper said: But surely the punishment is what it is. No member of an identifiable group is going to worry about whether or not an unrelated criminal committing an unrelated crime gets the same penalty. To provide a lesser level of protection based on one's non association with a group is deplorable. Hateful, even. The idea of increased penalties for hate crimes is not an attempt to provide a lesser level of protection for anyone, but rather to serve as a deterrent to harming a larger group than the individual affected by the crime. It seems fairly obvious to most of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Omni said: The idea of increased penalties for hate crimes is not an attempt to provide a lesser level of protection for anyone, but rather to serve as a deterrent to harming a larger group than the individual affected by the crime. It seems fairly obvious to most of us. The harshness of the penalty does that, surely? Nobody who is going to beat up a Jew, for instance, considers the disparity more than the ramifications. Edited May 12, 2017 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, bcsapper said: The harshness of the penalty does that, surely? Nobody who is going to beat up a Jew, for instance, considers the disparity more than the ramifications. They may not consider them but they will have to suffer them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, Omni said: They may not consider them but they will have to suffer them. Well yeah, but we're arguing the rights and wrongs of making other bad people suffer them too. I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Well yeah, but we're arguing the rights and wrongs of making other bad people suffer them too. I'm all for it. I don't think that's what we are "arguing" at all. People who are convicted of crimes must suffer the consequences. Some consequences, based on the nature of the crime, are more severe than others. That nature in this case, is if the crime committed can be shown to have been premeditated in such a way to inflict harm on a specific group such as ethnicity, race, religion, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 41 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Obviously not. I would have a hard time defending that, wouldn't I? If someone blows up bank full of people for financial reasons they should be dealt with just as harshly as anyone who blows up a cafe full of people for sectarian or political reasons. I believe that past a certain point, penalties for crime is irrelevant in terms of deterring people or rehabilitating them, so mostly it is just punishment, our society showing our disapproval, anger and vengeance on behalf of the victims. Strictly as punishment, I do believe that some crimes deserve more than others -generally those crimes committed against children, or those who are physically or mentally impaired. I'm not sure I believe crimes of terror or hate are worse than the same crimes committed for monetary gain, revenge for perceived wrongs, domestic abuse or family honor. Just going to have to think on it some more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 hour ago, bcsapper said: I did. He told me to haul my stupid English arse back to Yorkshire. Yah he told me I should go to the Catskills. Don't worry about it, consider the source, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted May 12, 2017 Report Share Posted May 12, 2017 38 minutes ago, bcsapper said: The harshness of the penalty does that, surely? Nobody who is going to beat up a Jew, for instance, considers the disparity more than the ramifications. Bang on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.