Aaron Hall.

[Blue_Strife]

There's something inherently wrong with this world if **** like this can happen.

http://bookshop.livejournal.com/834653.html

Read, and discuss.

[Fortet]

. . .
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.

[Shady Ultima]

WHAT

THE

****?

[DragonBlaze]

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.

[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.

[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.

[HackersTotalMassLaser]

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.

[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.

[Shady Ultima]

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...

[Dragonium]

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.

[Razor]

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.

[HackersTotalMassLaser]

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.

[DragonBlaze]

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.

[Razor]

DragonBlaze, my hypothetical takes place within that 1%.

[Osmose]

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.