The Responsibilities of Citizenship

[dialamah]

2 hours 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?

As I understand it hate crimes are defined by legislation to apply to gender, race, sexual orientation, religion.  Can't remember if there is another category, but there is no geek, fatty or stupid-looking hair category, so beating somewhat up for those reasons would be a crime, but not a hate crime.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

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.

True'ish; I recently linked a report identifying differences between immigrant crime and non-immigrant crime, sentences and outcomes.

I think they should keep more detailed records though.  

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Not according to Canadian laws.

This discussion is over the merits, the wisdom, the justification of those laws. If all you're going to say is, in effect, 'the law is the law' then there's no discussion.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

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. 

I ought to have more properly said that increased punishments do not deter crime.  Is someone decides to commit a crime it doesn't matter if the potential penalty is 5 years or 20 years.  Only after caught does the lawbreaker care.   

I agree that no punishment at all would result in lots more crime.  Just where the line between actual deterrence and just punishment for revenge is, I don't know.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

This discussion is over the merits, the wisdom, the justification of those laws. If all you're going to say is, in effect, 'the law is the law' then there's no discussion.

Well all you're really saying is you don't agree with the law, and I happen to. As I've already pointed out here, if you attack someone, especially violently, and it becomes clear that the attack was motivated based on some or all of the criteria already explained, that attack could well harm more than just the individual. It may or may not deter such crimes, (I guess if you're a racist, xenohobe or whatever you're gonna do what you're gonna do) but the perp will face a stiffer penalty. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Well all you're really saying is you don't agree with the law, and I happen to.

Not quite. What I've done is presented logical arguments as to why the law makes no moral or ethical sense.

1 hour ago, Omni said:

As I've already pointed out here, if you attack someone, especially violently, and it becomes clear that the attack was motivated based on some or all of the criteria already explained, that attack could well harm more than just the individual.

No, you simply stated it as such. That doesn't make it true. Nor do i see any commonsense reason to believe it should be. If a Black person is beaten in the streets by a stranger because he's black, that will may well cause anxiety among the Black community more than the White community. But if a person is beaten in the streets by a stranger because the stranger didn't like fat people, that will cause an equal amount of anxiety among fat people. If a person is beaten because they're a geek that will cause more anxiety among geeks. Etc. etc. But really, anyone getting beaten in the streets in random attacks causes anxiety among the entire population.

1 hour ago, Omni said:

It may or may not deter such crimes, (I guess if you're a racist, xenohobe or whatever you're gonna do what you're gonna do) but the perp will face a stiffer penalty. 

Why should such a person be given a greater sentence because he doesn't like Black people than if he doesn't like old people?

[Omni]

49 minutes ago, Argus said:

Why should such a person be given a greater sentence because he doesn't like Black people than if he doesn't like old people?

Well perhaps then you should seek to have the law updated to include people over a certain age.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Why should such a person be given a greater sentence because he doesn't like Black people than if he doesn't like old people?

Gee I dunno, how many skinheads/ supremacist groups are there out to get old people? Your so-called "logic" is full of holes.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Omni said:

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. 

My nose is still broken either way.  No difference in the repercussions.  Shouldn't be I mean.  I know there might be, but I don't get to make the laws.  Just criticize them when they deserve it.

Edited May 14, 2017 by bcsapper

[Guest]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

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.

No, I disagree.  The victim of a crime has a right to be treated equally by the law regardless of motive.  As I just said to Omni, a broken nose is a broken nose.  It doesn't matter why my attacker gave me it.  By all means treat the hate crime as harshly as you wish.  Do whatever you feel is justified to make sure the correct message is sent so it never happens again.  Use that as yardstick for all future hate crimes.  Then just apply it to equivalent crimes that are carried out for other reasons. 

Why give the jerk a break just because he doesn't hate you?

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

My nose is still broken either way.  No difference in the repercussions.  Shouldn't be I mean.  I know there might be, but I don't get to make the laws.

 

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, I disagree.  The victim of a crime has a right to be treated equally by the law regardless of motive.  As I just said to Omni, a broken nose is a broken nose.  It doesn't matter why my attacker gave me it.  By all means treat the hate crime as harshly as you wish.  Do whatever you feel is justified to make sure the correct message is sent so it never happens again.  Use that as yardstick for all future hate crimes.  Then just apply it to equivalent crimes that are carried out for other reasons. 

Why give the jerk a break just because he doesn't hate you?

oftenwrong is absolutely right on this one.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

 

oftenwrong is absolutely right on this one.

No he isn't.  I am.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

No he isn't.  I am.

Sorry, but me, oftenwrong, and the Canadian legal system disagree with you.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Omni said:

Sorry, but me, oftenwrong, and the Canadian legal system disagree with you.

Probably on more issues than just this one.

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Probably on more issues than just this one.

Can't win 'em all as they say.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Can't win 'em all as they say.

True. I have to be satisfied with just winning on here. 

Edited May 14, 2017 by bcsapper

[Omni]

Just now, bcsapper said:

True. I have to be satisfied with just winning on here. 

Whatever blows your hair back.

[OftenWrong]

35 minutes ago, Omni said:

Sorry, but me, oftenwrong, and the Canadian legal system disagree with you.

Yeppers. Me and you buddy.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeppers. Me and you buddy.

Well you see I'm ethnic. I'm the product of Scottish immigrants, and I don't want anybody beating me up just because I pick up the bagpipes.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Omni said:

Whatever blows your hair back.

What hair?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Omni said:

Well you see I'm ethnic. I'm the product of Scottish immigrants, and I don't want anybody beating me up just because I pick up the bagpipes.

I really don't think any jury would convict in that case...

[OftenWrong]

19 minutes ago, Omni said:

Well you see I'm ethnic. I'm the product of Scottish immigrants, and I don't want anybody beating me up just because I pick up the bagpipes.

Well then, I'll raise a glass of Glenlivet and sing you this song-

Oh Danny Boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling, from glen to glen and down the mountain side...

[OftenWrong]

45 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The victim of a crime has a right to be treated equally by the law regardless of motive.

There are situations where that would not be fair, as there are different forms of murder, and countless scenarios in which they are enacted. Motive is part of the difference between first and second degree murder vs.manslaughter. The law recognizes that premeditated murder requires forethought and planning, and takes time to prepare. During this time the perpetrator has a chance to reconsider their actions, but if they choose to commit murder anyway, that's a different level of evil. Manslaughter applies when the perpetrator intended to cause harm to the victim, but not death. For example guy gets punched in a bar fight, falls over hit his head and dies. It was accidental but there was some intent to harm, and the victim may also be partly responsible, or wholly not responsible at all.

What you propose is a unilateral form of punishment regardless of the circumstances, which is like a mandatory sentence. Legal matters are more complicated than that, and should be decided by a judge on a case-by case basis.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

There are situations where that would not be fair, as there are different forms of murder, and countless scenarios in which they are enacted. Motive is part of the difference between first and second degree murder vs.manslaughter. The law recognizes that premeditated murder requires forethought and planning, and takes time to prepare. During this time the perpetrator has a chance to reconsider their actions, but if they choose to commit murder anyway, that's a different level of evil. Manslaughter applies when the perpetrator intended to cause harm to the victim, but not death. For example guy gets punched in a bar fight, falls over hit his head and dies. It was accidental but there was some intent to harm, and the victim may also be partly responsible, or wholly not responsible at all.

What you propose is a unilateral form of punishment regardless of the circumstances, which is like a mandatory sentence. Legal matters are more complicated than that, and should be decided by a judge on a case-by case basis.

 

 

Oh no, I understand there are differences as you describe.  I'm talking about the same crime. Fit of anger.  Premeditated. You name it. So long as the crime is the same, the punishment should be. I'm that important. 

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What you propose is a unilateral form of punishment regardless of the circumstances, which is like a mandatory sentence. Legal matters are more complicated than that, and should be decided by a judge on a case-by case basis.

Good point, I heard an interesting interview with a retired state judge from the US discussing MMS that was brought in in his state during his tenure. He mentioned one particular case where a high school grad. who was on his way to college with two scholarships, one for sports, one for academic achievement. The kid ended up in front of him because he got caught with a couple of joints. The case previous was with a guy who showed up regularly in front of the same judge for the same offense. He was forced to send them both to jail for 6 months due to MMS law. He was torn up because he knew the jail sentence would wreck this kids life, and had he have actually had the chance to be a JUDGE, he would have fined him a few hundred bucks and told him to not ever show up in his courtroom again, and hopefully the kid would have carried on to his college career. His closing comment was this kid was not really a criminal in my eyes, but he may very well be at the end of his sentence.