The Responsibilities of Citizenship

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

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.  

I am arguing that.  Specifically.

I'm not arguing that any sentence for any hate crime is wrong, just that considering me less worthy of the same protection under the law is. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by bcsapper

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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.

Appreciate your honesty. I think crimes  engaging in cruelty to the vulnerable, children and animals all should be at the top along with terrorism and other violent crimes. For me the degree of violence and cruelty should factor in to the kind of sentence. In theory its supposed to. In reality it doesn't always. In terms of morality, you get a big debate over whether a petty criminal should get harsher sentences than white collar criminals. Often they do because they can't afford lawyers to get them off.

Its a complex mess but in relation to this topic hate crimes I believe for the most part are already dealt with properly as a personal opinion.

The legal system claims its moved away from just "punishing" and first and foremost wants to rehabilitate which is another debate in itself. I think myself its misguided on rehab in some cases such as sexual assault or murder or driving while drunk and then in other cases with petty crimes is too punishment focused. Its a complex topic for sure and there is no one easy one size fits all solution.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I am arguing that.  Specifically.

I'm not arguing that any sentence for any hate crime is wrong, just that considering me less worthy of the same protection under the law is. 

Well it's not less protection, I've already pointed that out, but you seem to want to continue to claim it is, so carry on.

[Rue]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I am arguing that.  Specifically.

I'm not arguing that any sentence for any hate crime is wrong, just that considering me less worthy of the same protection under the law is. 

...precisely and singling  out only certain forms of discrimination, but not all equally. does just that, lend to the appearance that some hatreds are more important tan others....which is why I believe the best laws to counter hatred don't focus on any one kind of hatred....and...the fact that Trudeau allowed a motion to focus and give special mention to one form of hatred but not others, was nothing more than crass ethnic pandering and if anything does more harm to Muslims than good by breeding resentment towards them as getting special treatment.

A good hate law does not discriminate or distinguish in who is being hated. Hatred is hatred. Its also difficult because we live in a democracy and there is a fine line between trying to prevent hate speech and suppressing free speech. Its a very slipperly slope and no lawmaker can tell you the line can b drawn clearly although I think the current laws in Canada do their best to juggle freedom of speech with speech that goes too far already.

 

 

[dialamah]

54 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. 

I've read some studies on this.  For the most part, the penalties are irrelevant because the perpetrator assumes he won't get caught.  

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Well it's not less protection, I've already pointed that out, but you seem to want to continue to claim it is, so carry on.

Not necessarily but it could open the door to less protection and it lends to the appearance of selecting out one form of hatred over others and that distinction or discrimination in singling out that one form of hatred  does create an appearance of bias, selectivity, and priority of importance as to whose hatred is more serious and that was and remains wrong,

You can say what you want but I am telling you when the MP and Trudeau singled out Islamophobia as they did but remained silent on anti-Semitic diatribes coming out of the same Mosques it spoke loudly to what BC is trying to point out. Its not just my religion  or ethnicity Judaism either that was given the loud message we don't count. I have never heard Trudeau once speak out about hateful speeches given by Mullahs in Canada about gays, women, Christians,  Bahaiis  Buddhists, Siekhs, either. 

He does not treat everyone the same.

 

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

just that considering me less worthy of the same protection under the law is

Nobody is 'protected' by punishments meted out to criminals.  What happens is that victims are revenged, through the State.   Your objection should more properly be "I want the State to revenge my injury as greatly as they do someone else's injury regardless of what motivated the attacker."  

IMO, of course.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

Not necessarily but it could open the door to less protection and it lends to the appearance of selecting out one form of hatred over others and that distinction or discrimination in singling out that one form of hatred  does create an appearance of bias, selectivity, and priority of importance as to whose hatred is more serious and that was and remains wrong,

You can say what you want but I am telling you when the MP and Trudeau singled out Islamophobia as they did but remained silent on anti-Semitic diatribes coming out of the same Mosques it spoke loudly to what BC is trying to point out. Its not just my religion  or ethnicity Judaism either that was given the loud message we don't count. I have never heard Trudeau once speak out about hateful speeches given by Mullahs in Canada about gays, women, Christians,  Bahaiis  Buddhists, Siekhs, either. 

He does not treat everyone the same.

 

Hate speech and hate crimes are two different things. I could say I don't like Jews or Muslims or Christians as long as I don't seek to bring harm to them. If I go out and beat someone up because they are a Jew, and that can be shown, I may receive a harsher sentence than if I just beat them up. Both are assault, one could have the addition of a hate crime.  

[Omni]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I've read some studies on this.  For the most part, the penalties are irrelevant because the perpetrator assumes he won't get caught.  

I think in many cases that's true. I recall reading way back when that an electrical technician in charge of installing one of the first electric chairs in some US state prison, ended up dying in that same chair for murder some time later. If anybody knew what could be in store for him for pulling that trigger, it would have been him.

[Hydraboss]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

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.

Then Canada should be tracking all crimes by the same terms as it applies to the perpetrator.  Let's see the race/gender/religion/country of origin stats of those who commit crimes.

You aren't opposed to that are you??

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

Then Canada should be tracking all crimes by the same terms as it applies to the perpetrator.  Let's see the race/gender/religion/country of origin stats of those who commit crimes.

You aren't opposed to that are you??

What makes you think they don't already provide those stats?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Nobody is 'protected' by punishments meted out to criminals.  What happens is that victims are revenged, through the State.   Your objection should more properly be "I want the State to revenge my injury as greatly as they do someone else's injury regardless of what motivated the attacker."  

IMO, of course.

Fair point.  But why should anyone else's revenge be any sweeter than mine.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Well it's not less protection, I've already pointed that out, but you seem to want to continue to claim it is, so carry on.

If it's not less protection then the reverse would not be more protection.  So why do it?

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Hydraboss said:

Then Canada should be tracking all crimes by the same terms as it applies to the perpetrator.  Let's see the race/gender/religion/country of origin stats of those who commit crimes.

You aren't opposed to that are you??

They already track gender and ethnicity in the prison system, which is where many crime stats come from.   Country of origin overlaps with ethnicity so in many cases that would be redundant.  Religion is not tracked as far as I know.

 

 

[OftenWrong]

Sometimes the question of punishment does not hinge only on the specific crime itself, but whether it shocks the conscience of the public. This is what terrorism tries to do. Hate crimes seem worse to me because they are premeditated acts against anonymous persons as opposed to acts of passion or for personal gain. The kind of person capable of doing this is a highly sociopathic criminal. Hate crimes also encourage others of similar mentality to do likewise, both individuals and in groups.

[Omni]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If it's not less protection then the reverse would not be more protection.  So why do it?

Because it's to be more punishment.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Because it's to be more punishment.

To what end?  If it doesn't offer more protection, act as more of a deterrent, what's the point?

Edited May 13, 2017 by bcsapper

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

To what end?  If it doesn't offer more protection, act as more of a deterrent, what's the point?

Obviously the purpose is to try to achieve more protection. As is a life sentence for murder, for instance. So according to your reasoning, because severe sentences don't necessarily stop people from murdering, we should just excuse them and maybe give them a stern warning. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Omni said:

Obviously the purpose is to try to achieve more protection. As is a life sentence for murder, for instance. So according to your reasoning, because severe sentences don't necessarily stop people from murdering, we should just excuse them and maybe give them a stern warning. 

I don't see that as stemming from my argument at all, but as long you gave the same warning to everyone for the same crime, I could live with it.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't see that as stemming from my argument at all, but as long you gave the same warning to everyone for the same crime, I could live with it.

I'm afraid you'll have to live with it even though you don't understand it. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'm afraid you'll have to live with it even though you don't understand it. 

Oh I do.  It's but one thing among many. 

[OftenWrong]

52 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If it doesn't offer more protection, act as more of a deterrent, what's the point?

It satisfies the public that there is this thing called real justice. Strictly punitive measures are ok.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It satisfies the public that there is this thing called real justice. Strictly punitive measures are ok.

So you don't agree with punitive measures? 

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Omni said:

So you don't agree with punitive measures? 

I do agree with them.

Reading is hard

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

So you don't agree with punitive measures? 

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26833-the-responsibilities-of-citizenship/?do=findComment&comment=1243866