Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Blue_Strife on June 28, 2007, 02:26:21 AM
-
There's something inherently wrong with this world if **** like this can happen.
http://bookshop.livejournal.com/834653.html
Read, and discuss.
-
. . .
DAMN YOU INDIANA!!!
A fuckin' hate crime is a FUCKIN' HATE CRIME!
If you're the only god damn state that doesn't have a law passed about hate crimes, don't you think you should follow suit?
Murder is murder.
Murder is not justifiable in any way, shape, or form!
This pisses me off so much. If I lived in Indiana, this is what my next school report would be about.
Those damn bastards.
-
WHAT
THE
****?
-
I kinda lost interest after a little while, but I don't believe in hate crimes. All crimes are hate crimes. Hell, if someone was pissed at their boss and killed them, they killed them because they hated them, and they should be charged for murder. If someone killed someone and they were gay or black or whatever, it was because they hated them, and killed them, and it should be charged for murder. Murder is murder, and should be treated as such no matter who the victim was. When we start making differant laws for differant people, it just seperates us even more.
-
Think of "hate crime" as "anti-different-race-or-sexuality crime" and then restate that paragraph.
Also, that's a pretty bad story. Poor guy.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Think of "hate crime" as "anti-different-race-or-sexuality crime" and then restate that paragraph.
Also, that's a pretty bad story. Poor guy.
Well either way murder is murder, and they shouldn't charge it differant for differant motives. If you kill someone because they're gay, or if you kill someone cuz they banged your wife, you still killed a guy.
-
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
Originally posted by Razor
Think of "hate crime" as "anti-different-race-or-sexuality crime" and then restate that paragraph.
Also, that's a pretty bad story. Poor guy.
Well either way murder is murder, and they shouldn't charge it differant for differant motives. If you kill someone because they're gay, or if you kill someone cuz they banged your wife, you still killed a guy. [/B]
Word.
But killing someone cause he likes sex with men rather than sex with women (using Arnold Shwar's words here), is still pretty dumb.
The closer thing I can find to that is gang fights.
But i dont think gangs do this to ya. I think those people were just crazy. DOnt know, too many factors could've got in their heads.
-
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
Originally posted by Razor
Think of "hate crime" as "anti-different-race-or-sexuality crime" and then restate that paragraph.
Also, that's a pretty bad story. Poor guy.
Well either way murder is murder, and they shouldn't charge it differant for differant motives. If you kill someone because they're gay, or if you kill someone cuz they banged your wife, you still killed a guy. [/B]
I might disagree.
Well, perhaps not to the extent where they should be charged differently (I'm a little selfconflicting on that) but at least looked at in a different light.
I mean, if I killed Apex because he raped and killed my parents, siblings, children, cousins, relatives, friends, acquaintances, pets and former employers that I left on good terms with, as far as murder goes, it would be more acceptable than if I killed him because I was a homophobe, and he didn't rape and kill my parents, siblings, children... etc.
Ok, so that might not work that way in a court of law, but then again it hasn't come up, yet.
-
I agree entirely Razor.
When the law FAILS to protect the innocent, who will? For example, a girl I know was RAPED when she was 12, by an 18 year old. Now, this girl, who I might be going out with shortly, has gotten over it, but for years, she didn't know what to do. Where was the law when this happened? Where was anyone? 7 years have passed since then, and the guy still walks the streets free as a ****ing bird. That's wrong.
Maybe I'm a bit of a vigilante in some ways, but if you hurt the people I care about, watch your ****ing back, because I'm not merciful...
But if I did kill this guy who raped her, or even attacked him in defence of her, I'd be the one arrested. Hell, if I had BEEN THERE when it was happening and tried to defend her (at 13 lol) I could have been sent to Juvi. WHAT THE HELL? The law system has some serious issues when it comes to defending the innocent...
-
The law is far too forgiving.
This is really just my personal opinion, but if you committed a crime, and you meant to do it (ie you didn't just do it by accident, like manslaughter or something), then the reason that you give shouldn't have any effect whatsoever. In fact, you shouldn't even be able to give a reason. "Because he was gay", or "because he banged my mother", or "because he sent me haxx", or "because he was under my car tyres at the time"; whatever, nobody cares. Get to jail, fatty.
If on the other hand, it was clearly not a hate crime or similar, then the reason it happened is an important thing. Like DB said, murder is murder.
-
Yeah, but your opinion focuses more on the murderer than the murdered.
What if I went back in time and killed Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden? Would I still be an evil person who should be sent to jail for a good 20 years, or would I be an American hero (that is, a hero to the Americans, rather than a hero that is American)?
I know a quite a few million hard headed patriots who would disagree with you.
-
If I were to kill Bill Nye for no reason, wut then? Huh? HUH?! GANGSHOT
Razor has a valid point. Except Razor if you killed Bin Laden you would be rich. There's actually bounties on his head.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Originally posted by DragonBlaze
Originally posted by Razor
Think of "hate crime" as "anti-different-race-or-sexuality crime" and then restate that paragraph.
Also, that's a pretty bad story. Poor guy.
Well either way murder is murder, and they shouldn't charge it differant for differant motives. If you kill someone because they're gay, or if you kill someone cuz they banged your wife, you still killed a guy. [/B]
I might disagree.
Well, perhaps not to the extent where they should be charged differently (I'm a little selfconflicting on that) but at least looked at in a different light.
I mean, if I killed Apex because he raped and killed my parents, siblings, children, cousins, relatives, friends, acquaintances, pets and former employers that I left on good terms with, as far as murder goes, it would be more acceptable than if I killed him because I was a homophobe, and he didn't rape and kill my parents, siblings, children... etc.
Ok, so that might not work that way in a court of law, but then again it hasn't come up, yet.[/B]
99% of the time when someone kills someone it is not becase they raped everyone they know. A lot of people kill other people for no reason, like all these school shootings you hear about, most of the victums are random people. Most of the time when you kill someone its because for some reason or another, you hate them. And then theres the times when someone just ends up being unlucky and gets in the way of somone and gets killed that way.
What it boils down to is people kill eachother because they hate eachother. Whether it be for being gay or because they did something to you, you hated them and killed them. The reasons we hate someone shouldn't make the sentencing any better or worse. There ARE times when stuff like your example come up, but MOST murders aren't like that, and thus thats not really enough to back up the whole murder catagory.
And really, who are WE to play god and decide who lives and who dies. Unless the law utterly fails to do its job, we have no right to go off doing what WE think is best. Sure maybe it sounds fine to some of you who think you're 'way' is better than the law. But think of it this way, what if someone hated you for something or other and decided THEY thought you should die, think they should have the right to do what they thought was right? The point is the law, and the right to kill, should not be given to indeviduals.
-
DragonBlaze, my hypothetical takes place within that 1%.
-
The problem is that the view most people come from when they don't support hate crime legislation is that they see it as giving more value to the life of some than of others. They think that just because some guy was killed becausae he was black doesn't mean his life is worth more (And thus the criminal should be punished more severely) than someone elses. They view that a murder is a murder and should be punished in equal ways.
The problem with this is that it is not about giving more value to certain lives - it is giving less value to the criminals who commit hate crimes. If a man kills another man for sleeping with his wife, then he is a murderer. If a man kills another man for being Mexican, then he is both a murderer and a racist.
Under that example, racism could fall under free speech - a guy is allowed to hate blacks, we have no right to police his opinion, right? Right, EXCEPT when that opinion leads to action infringing the rights of others. It lines up with applying moral values into the legal system - "Oh, you killed a man? You are a horrible person!" "You killed a man because he was black? You think he really had a choice in the situation? That is just despicable. You are disgusting."
It's a tough subject, but through that view, hate crimes follow the view that racism is bad, and removing hate crimes appears to be a sort of indirect approval of racism. It certainly doesn't have to be - some people don't view the situation like that, but still.
-
What should be charged more though; A dude killing another dude for sleeping with his partner, or a white dude killing a brown dude for no apparant reason? (both rethorical and conceptional)
-
The dude who killed the black man, because not only is he a murderer, but he's a racist and uses that as motivation to kill. The other guy, although still a murderer, simply has anger problems.
Counter example: Guy A kills someone for insulting him and his family. Guy B kills someone for being asian. Guy C kills a child. Who should have the worst sentence?
Most will say guy C, because it's a child, and killing a child just seems morally wrong - the kid has yet to live most of his life, was probably an innocent, and couldn't defend himself. But, again, this is applying our own morals to the legal system - if any life is worth the same as any other, than he should be charged like Guy A. But because we believe that violence against children is wrong, we punish Guy C worse, just like because we believe that racism is wrong, we punish Guy B more than Guy A.
-
Damn Guy C, damn you!
Yeah if you go to jail for killing a child, you're not coming out of there happy.
-
Theres a problem with your logic Osmose.
not only is he a murderer, but he's a racist
Racism is only one means of hate. Real life example here, a guy and his wife were in a car fighting about something. The guy then throws his wife out of the car, backs up, and runs her over, killing her. This man clearly has some temper issues, but he killed his wife basically cuz he hated her cuz she argued with him. Was it the wifes fault for argueing? No, cuz she had a right to her own opinions.
So we get a guy who killed a person for being black, and we got a guy who killed his wife for having her own opinions. Neither victums are at fault, but we charge guy A more for killing a black man? Racism is a menas of hate, just like 'killing your wife for arguing with you'.
If we'd use your logic saying not only is person A a murderer, hes a racist, THEN we'd have to do the same for every other murder, such as in person B's case, and say not only were they a murderer, they were a tempermental person who kills wives for arguing with them.
You could charge anyone who intentionally killed someone with two charges, the actual crime and the intentions. Thus we shouldn't limit the 'hes a murder AND ' to only the racist.
-
Charging for both the crime and the intent is not viable because intent challenges a person's opinion directly (Rather than only considering it when it is the cause of harm/violation of others). See, anyone can be a racist - it's their right to free speech. It is highly discouraged and even banned in the form of segregation of public services, but that doesn't mean you can't be a racist yourself, as you have the right to an opinion.
Also,
If we'd use your logic saying not only is person A a murderer, hes a racist, THEN we'd have to do the same for every other murder, such as in person B's case, and say not only were they a murderer, they were a tempermental person who kills wives for arguing with them.
I believe we actually do that, otherwise motive would never be considered. I mean, how would we distinguish between a hate crime and a normal murder otherwise?
We don't limit this kind of treatment to racists, but to any crime that involves what our society believes is an extremely heinous crime. Like Guy C. Using your logic, Guy C shouldn't be charged worse than guys A or B because hating a child is just a form of hate.
It's just the same as how we don't punish thieves as much as murderers - we certainly don't want people to steal stuff, but stealing is not as bad as murder. So we punish murder because it is worse than stealing. We believe that violence against children is wrong. So a murderer whose crime is against a child is punished worse. We believe that racism is wrong. So a murderer whose crime is against another race (And is racially motivated rather than by some other factor) is punished worse.
Your stance basically appears to be that you believe all hate, no matter the motivation behind it or the circumstances around it, is equal (and wrong). I could be wrong, but society's view is that hate is subjective to the context it is used in, and thus we punish accordingly.
-
I agree with your child statements. But like you said before, a child has their whole life ahead of them, and on top of that, they are less capable of defending themselves and what not.
However, like in my example, a white wife and a black person, lets say about the same age. If I were to kill one of them, for whatever reason, I shouldn't be charged more for killing the black person because his skin color is black as opposed to a lighter sentance for killing the wife because her skin color is white. Or lets say I do kill a child, i shouldn't be charged more for killing a black child than killing a white child.
The motives should be looked at in order to determain who the killer was and everything and to solve the case. But I don't think that a motive should make the sentance worse or lighter.
I know society thinks that way, but I disagree with it.
I think everyone should be treated equally and such, and no special treatment for anyone because of their race, and of course, no dissadvantages because of it. This is something completely unrelated, but I pay a lot more for my car insurance than my girlfriend, we have simular cars, I have a better driving record, I'm older, and I have a high GPA, but i pay MORE cuz I'm a guy. And studies actually show that girls get in just about as many accidents as guys now. Another example is that if a family is poor and needs federal aid or whatever, it is far more likely that a black family will get it because their a minority, even if the white family needs it just as bad or more. Or like in my area, its mainly white people, but we have minorties around. When looking for a job (or at least my job) whenever a minority applies, they automatically get the job so we can fill our 'diversity thing' even if 50 other people who were more qualified applied. I just think that if we really want equality and whatnot, we should actually treat everyone equally, and not give special treatment to someone because of thier skin color or sex. Thus if a white man kills a black man, it should be treated the same if a black man killed a black man, or a white man killed a white man.
-
I agree that the minority forced hiring thing is utterly wrong, but I agree with charging someone more for commiting a hate crime. Basically, once a person is dead, they're dead. The punishment handed out does not do the dead person any favours. HOWEVER, by pouring on extra punishment for hate crimes, the public gets the idea that hate crimes are awful things, and people grow up knowing that equality is the way to go.
Basically, murder is murder, but racism and that is a different problem which needs to be adressed. This way the punishment system works two ways. You might think it's disrespectful to those murdered to have so much politics riding on the fate of their attackers but it's really helped. Hate crimes are looked upon with so much shock that minority groups are a great deal safer nowadays.