The Responsibilities of Citizenship

[Omni]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

I do agree with them.

Reading is hard

I know, just keep trying.

[bcsapper]

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

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

Quite the opposite.  It tells the public that justice is variable.

[Omni]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Quite the opposite.  It tells the public that justice is variable.

Based on the nature of the crime. Why is that hard to understand?

[bcsapper]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Based on the nature of the crime. Why is that hard to understand?

Because it's based on the nature of the victim of the crime. 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Because it's based on the nature of the victim of the crime. 

No I'm afraid not. It's based on the nature of the perpetrator. 

[bcsapper]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

No I'm afraid not. It's based on the nature of the perpetrator. 

Have to disagree there. It seems our entire argument has been about different responses to a crime based on who the victim is. 

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Have to disagree there. It seems our entire argument has been about different responses to a crime based on who the victim is. 

No, it's based on the intent of the perp.

[bcsapper]

7 hours ago, Omni said:

No, it's based on the intent of the perp.

Yes, but his intent is based on his victim.  We're coming full circle now.  If he does exactly the same thing to me, for different reasons, (with different intent), he should face exactly the same repercussions.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Quite the opposite.  It tells the public that justice is variable.

Certain crimes are intended to create offence beyond the immediate act of the crime itself. It's not the same as murder of an individual after a bar-fight, say for example, where two people have a serious disagreement that is between them.  A hate crime is directed at all people which the hater hates, not just the victim. The perpetrator is sending a "message" to the whole group. It is a form of terrorism, and so it should be on a different level.

[Argus]

19 hours 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. 

Most of who? Most progressives? Perhaps. I personally don't see the point of punishing someone more for punching a black guy or a jew because they were a black guy or a jew, as opposed to punching them because you're simply an A-hole.

[Argus]

19 hours 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.  

That's progressive BS. We all get concerned at violence perpetrated on innocent people, particularly by random strangers. A Black person is not more concerned by random violence than a White person. Further, the number of people, presumably White, who would attack a Black person simply because they ARE Black, is almost certainly hugely outnumbered by the reverse. That is what statistics show in the US, in any event, particularly with regard to sexual violence.

[Argus]

19 hours 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 you are operating under the theory that a greater punishment is a greater deterrent, which you seem to be doing, then the opposite is also clear. A lessor punishment is a lessor deterrent.

[Argus]

18 hours 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.

Studies have clearly demonstrated that without punishment to deter lawbreaking and rulebreaking, a certain fairly large percentage of the population will break the laws and rules. To say punishment is not a deterrent is simply unrealistic. It might not always act as an immediate deterrent, particularly to people who are intoxicated, say, but if the laws weren't there I can assure you there would be far, far more assaults, both by people we know and by random idiots on the streets, buses and subways.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Omni said:

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.  

What if I beat someone up because he looks like a geek? Or a fatty? Or because he has stupid looking hair? That's okay, right?

[Argus]

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

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.

Mainly all we track are indigenous crimes. We don't track, say, how much crime is commited by someone who is Black or Latino vs someone who is White, like the Americans do.

[Argus]

13 hours 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. 

He's never suggested this. If anything, Dialamah has suggested this.

[Omni]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, but his intent is based on his victim.  We're coming full circle now.  If he does exactly the same thing to me, for different reasons, (with different intent), he should face exactly the same repercussions.

Speaking of going in circles! Listen, if a guy punches you because you had a disagreement, he has committed assault. If he punches you simply because your skin was black, he has again committed assault, but if the race thing can be proven, he has crossed the line and could suffer greater repercussions. 

[Omni]

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

That's progressive BS. We all get concerned at violence perpetrated on innocent people, particularly by random strangers. A Black person is not more concerned by random violence than a White person. Further, the number of people, presumably White, who would attack a Black person simply because they ARE Black, is almost certainly hugely outnumbered by the reverse. That is what statistics show in the US, in any event, particularly with regard to sexual violence.

Punishment for crimes is not based on the ratio's among races. 

[Omni]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

if you are operating under the theory that a greater punishment is a greater deterrent, which you seem to be doing, then the opposite is also clear. A lessor punishment is a lessor deterrent.

It may or may not be a deterrent, the object is you do a worse crime, you pay a higher price.

[Omni]

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

What if I beat someone up because he looks like a geek? Or a fatty? Or because he has stupid looking hair? That's okay, right?

nope. It's still assault. Thought you'd know that.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

nope. It's still assault. Thought you'd know that.

What I know is the mentality of people who would beat people up because they look like a geek or a pussy or a fatty or a freak is exactly the same mentality that would beat someone up because they were Black or gay. 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

It may or may not be a deterrent, the object is you do a worse crime, you pay a higher price.

But it's not a worse crime. It's exactly the same crime.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

What I know is the mentality of people who would beat people up because they look like a geek or a pussy or a fatty or a freak is exactly the same mentality that would beat someone up because they were Black or gay. 

Well then maybe you should seek to have the laws changed to include fatty's then. Good luck.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

But it's not a worse crime. It's exactly the same crime.

Not according to Canadian laws.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

That's progressive BS. We all get concerned at violence perpetrated on innocent people, particularly by random strangers. A Black person is not more concerned by random violence than a White person. Further, the number of people, presumably White, who would attack a Black person simply because they ARE Black, is almost certainly hugely outnumbered by the reverse. That is what statistics show in the US, in any event, particularly with regard to sexual violence.

 

But this is Canada, where statistics show that "aboriginals" get it more from "whites".   It must be a responsibility of Canadian citizenship !