|
On October 29 2011 05:11 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity. In the US depending on state if you can prove that the fat guy was beat up becuase he was fat you can charge him with a hate crime, which is not a crime in itself it is a modifier to a crime. It's harder on violent crimes, but discrimination/harassment in say a work place it's actually very much the same. So i don't get what you're trying to say becuase it's not based in US law. On October 29 2011 05:17 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:15 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 05:10 Bibdy wrote:On October 29 2011 04:48 Velocirapture wrote:
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda. You've got a really odd definition of 'agenda' if you think such a thing involves discussing things like this on a video game forum. People are really just trying to get to the bottom of the implications in our definition of what a hate crime is. Ultimately it boils down to a conflict between some group (sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, whatever) wanting to be treated the same by the majority of society, while simultaneously wanting extra protection when they get targeted for discrimination by the minority of society. And that's just the way it is. The rational is quite easy If i attack a person because he is a part of a group, then there is no reason why i wouldn't attack more people that belong to that group. If i attack a person for being that person then my attacks would logically stop at that person. That is the clear difference. It's easier to prove that a person did something because they were black or a midget or homosexual then it is to say becuase he was a toyota car owner. And so protected groups are just the easier groups of hate crimes to identify.And again a hate crime isn't a crime in itself it is a modifier to an excising crime that allows the judge to make much harsher sentencing. If you attack a fat person you are likely to attack other fat people but fat people are not offered the same kind of protection as gay people
See now you're just not paying attention.
|
On October 29 2011 05:16 joyeaux wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 08:05 WTFZerg wrote:
I can kick someone out of my privately owned restaurant for whatever I want, so bad example.
Not in the US you can't. Title II of the Civil rights act of 1964 outlaws racial discrimination in places of public accommodations, including restaurants.
Which is actually a bit of a double edged sword, as one could kick a minority out for being a jackass, and they can throw in the race/minority card.
Nobody has the full story but the people involved and we all know how the media loves sensationalist journalism.
Special treatment for a group is only going to lead to more hate and less acceptance of that group.
|
On October 29 2011 05:28 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:16 joyeaux wrote:On October 28 2011 08:05 WTFZerg wrote:
I can kick someone out of my privately owned restaurant for whatever I want, so bad example.
Not in the US you can't. Title II of the Civil rights act of 1964 outlaws racial discrimination in places of public accommodations, including restaurants. Which is actually a bit of a double edged sword, as one could kick a minority out for being a jackass, and they can throw in the race/minority card. Nobody has the full story but the people involved and we all know how the media loves sensationalist journalism. Special treatment for a group is only going to lead to more hate and less acceptance of that group.
No, no they cant. To prove that they are being racially discriminatory, you need to prove that they threw you out solely because of his race. I am not sure what is difficult about this concept in relation to the thread. To prove a hate crime, to prove discriminatory action, you need to prove that the person did the action because of race, religion, sexual orientation etc. That can only be done in court.
|
On October 29 2011 05:15 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:10 Bibdy wrote:On October 29 2011 04:48 Velocirapture wrote:
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda. You've got a really odd definition of 'agenda' if you think such a thing involves discussing things like this on a video game forum. People are really just trying to get to the bottom of the implications in our definition of what a hate crime is. Ultimately it boils down to a conflict between some group (sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, whatever) wanting to be treated the same by the majority of society, while simultaneously wanting extra protection when they get targeted for discrimination by the minority of society. And that's just the way it is. The rational is quite easy If i attack a person because he is a part of a group, then there is no reason why i wouldn't attack more people that belong to that group. If i attack a person for being that person then my attacks would logically stop at that person. That is the clear difference. It's easier to prove that a person did something because they were black or a midget or homosexual then it is to say becuase he was a toyota car owner. And so protected groups are just the easier groups of hate crimes to identify. And again a hate crime isn't a crime in itself it is a modifier to an excising crime that allows the judge to make much harsher sentencing.
I don't buy that. If the simple punishment of the act in itself (beating someone up) doesn't deter someone from committing the crime, what does a harsher punishment do? The last thing someone is thinking of when they do something like this, is the consequences. While harsher sentences make the rest us feel a little more benevolent about treating rogue elements of society in a strict fashion, it doesn't do much to console the victim(s) or prevent the act from happening.
Doing some Googling, apparently the number of hate crime instances since the early 1990s (when Hate Crime laws started popping up around the States) has remained relatively stagnant year after year. So, despite two decades of evidence that they're not helping stop the problem, we throw the Matthew Shepard act into the mix to protect people of different genders and sexual orientations. Again, it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but does it really help?
The rationale might seem sound on the surface, but it assumes the perpetrator is a rational person that gives a flying fuck about what society thinks and the consequences of their actions.
|
On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity.
Canadian hate crimes would allow for both of them, depending on the situation.
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.
So being fat could be considered a similar factor.
What I think you're having trouble with is that you feel that the list of "traits" that make a violent act a hate crime is arbitrary. Why does one group of people have special protection over another group of people? The reason is because, in fact, it isn't an arbitrary list. It's a list of groups of people who have an are being discriminated against. They are people who have been shown to require special protection.
So, for example, if there really was a group of people who went out targeting Starcraft players, then perhaps it would become part of hate crime law (generally after some sort of precedent setting case). the reality is that something like this simply hasn't happened yet.
Hate crimes are there because our society believes that there are groups of people who require protection. They are also there because we feel that someone who targets an entire group of people is a greater threat to society than someone who targets an individual. If a guy murders their wife because his wife was cheating, I would argue that they have much less chance of being a repeat offender than a guy who murders a stranger because they are black. Yes, this means someone who is targeting fat people would also be someone to worry about.
|
On October 29 2011 05:41 Avalain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity. Canadian hate crimes would allow for both of them, depending on the situation. (a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances. So being fat could be considered a similar factor. What I think you're having trouble with is that you feel that the list of "traits" that make a violent act a hate crime is arbitrary. Why does one group of people have special protection over another group of people? The reason is because, in fact, it isn't an arbitrary list. It's a list of groups of people who have an are being discriminated against. They are people who have been shown to require special protection. So, for example, if there really was a group of people who went out targeting Starcraft players, then perhaps it would become part of hate crime law (generally after some sort of precedent setting case). the reality is that something like this simply hasn't happened yet. Hate crimes are there because our society believes that there are groups of people who require protection. They are also there because we feel that someone who targets an entire group of people is a greater threat to society than someone who targets an individual. If a guy murders their wife because his wife was cheating, I would argue that they have much less chance of being a repeat offender than a guy who murders a stranger because they are black. Yes, this means someone who is targeting fat people would also be someone to worry about.
then we can establish that all hate crimes are equally as bad, and should be punished like hate crimes, and should not differ in punishment for similar acts against humans of different groups. For example attack gay punishment is equivalent to attack sc players, both are hate crimes, and should be punished as hate crimes, and the status of the victim does not play into the account of judging how severe the crime is
|
On October 29 2011 05:36 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:15 semantics wrote:On October 29 2011 05:10 Bibdy wrote:On October 29 2011 04:48 Velocirapture wrote:
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda. You've got a really odd definition of 'agenda' if you think such a thing involves discussing things like this on a video game forum. People are really just trying to get to the bottom of the implications in our definition of what a hate crime is. Ultimately it boils down to a conflict between some group (sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, whatever) wanting to be treated the same by the majority of society, while simultaneously wanting extra protection when they get targeted for discrimination by the minority of society. And that's just the way it is. The rational is quite easy If i attack a person because he is a part of a group, then there is no reason why i wouldn't attack more people that belong to that group. If i attack a person for being that person then my attacks would logically stop at that person. That is the clear difference. It's easier to prove that a person did something because they were black or a midget or homosexual then it is to say becuase he was a toyota car owner. And so protected groups are just the easier groups of hate crimes to identify. And again a hate crime isn't a crime in itself it is a modifier to an excising crime that allows the judge to make much harsher sentencing. I don't buy that. If the simple punishment of the act in itself (beating someone up) doesn't deter someone from committing the crime, what does a harsher punishment do? The last thing someone is thinking of when they do something like this, is the consequences. While harsher sentences make the rest us feel a little more benevolent about treating rogue elements of society in a strict fashion, it doesn't do much to console the victim(s) or prevent the act from happening. Doing some Googling, apparently the number of hate crime instances since the early 1990s (when Hate Crime laws started popping up around the States) has remained relatively stagnant year after year. So, despite two decades of evidence that they're not helping stop the problem, we throw the Matthew Shepard act into the mix to protect people of different genders and sexual orientations. Again, it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but does it really help? The rationale might seem sound on the surface, but it assumes the perpetrator is a rational person that gives a flying fuck about what society thinks and the consequences of their actions.
Did you check recidivism rates for the same crime? The threat of harsher punishment never ha stopped 1st time offenders. And we as a society actually shun bias actions upon people, racism for we are all neutral we should all start in the eyes of others as equals until they get to know us, not treated as lower human and have to prove other wise.
|
On October 29 2011 05:28 Seide wrote:
Special treatment for a group is only going to lead to more hate and less acceptance of that group.
The group the victim belongs to is irrelevant in a hate crime, what matters is the attacker's motivation.
If you shoot someone for being a muslim, and it turns out you're ignorant and the victim wasn't actually a muslim, it's still a hate crime.
|
88 voting no punishment, what the FUCK.
|
On October 29 2011 06:01 joyeaux wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:28 Seide wrote:
Special treatment for a group is only going to lead to more hate and less acceptance of that group. The group the victim belongs to is irrelevant in a hate crime, what matters is the attacker's motivation. If you shoot someone for being a muslim, and it turns out you're ignorant and the victim wasn't actually a muslim, it's still a hate crime.
exactly punish a crime for what it is committed, not for whom it was committed against
|
On October 29 2011 06:19 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 06:01 joyeaux wrote:On October 29 2011 05:28 Seide wrote:
Special treatment for a group is only going to lead to more hate and less acceptance of that group. The group the victim belongs to is irrelevant in a hate crime, what matters is the attacker's motivation. If you shoot someone for being a muslim, and it turns out you're ignorant and the victim wasn't actually a muslim, it's still a hate crime. exactly punish a crime for what it is committed, not for whom it was committed against
That is how a hate crime works, my friend! It does not seek or operate to reward a minority group with extra justice, but quite simply punishes hate.
|
I think any crime that is motivated by hate towards someone should be a hate crime. the person who beat that kid up should be charged with a hate crime. But i also think that if he had attacked someone solely for being fat then he should be charged with a hate crime as well, unfortunately the law doesn't work that way even though it should. And to those making arguments against hate crimes because they give people special treatment well the reason we have hate crimes is to discourage hate towards people for no reason other then that persons bigoted views, its meant to set an example, HATE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. We have punishments so that person will be responsible for his actions, but also to discourage certain actions from a society.
|
On October 29 2011 05:48 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 05:41 Avalain wrote:On October 29 2011 05:08 hitthat wrote:
He apparently doesn't understand morality and ethics, the majority of judicial systems work on not only finding guilt but motivation.
Well if you find the beating fat guy becouse of him being fat better than beating homesexual person becouse of being gay, I find this as a really horrible moral relativity. Canadian hate crimes would allow for both of them, depending on the situation. (a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances. So being fat could be considered a similar factor. What I think you're having trouble with is that you feel that the list of "traits" that make a violent act a hate crime is arbitrary. Why does one group of people have special protection over another group of people? The reason is because, in fact, it isn't an arbitrary list. It's a list of groups of people who have an are being discriminated against. They are people who have been shown to require special protection. So, for example, if there really was a group of people who went out targeting Starcraft players, then perhaps it would become part of hate crime law (generally after some sort of precedent setting case). the reality is that something like this simply hasn't happened yet. Hate crimes are there because our society believes that there are groups of people who require protection. They are also there because we feel that someone who targets an entire group of people is a greater threat to society than someone who targets an individual. If a guy murders their wife because his wife was cheating, I would argue that they have much less chance of being a repeat offender than a guy who murders a stranger because they are black. Yes, this means someone who is targeting fat people would also be someone to worry about. then we can establish that all hate crimes are equally as bad, and should be punished like hate crimes, and should not differ in punishment for similar acts against humans of different groups. For example attack gay punishment is equivalent to attack sc players, both are hate crimes, and should be punished as hate crimes, and the status of the victim does not play into the account of judging how severe the crime is
Sure, I can agree with that. But that's not to say that all crimes can be considered hate crimes. Beating someone up for their lunch money is not construed as the person hating people who have lunch money.
I can also agree that the status of the victim does not matter when judging the punishment. It's actually the motivation of the defendant that matters. For example, if the guy in this article wasn't actually gay it would still be considered a hate crime if the bully beat up the victim because he thought the victim was gay.
|
On October 29 2011 06:27 Avalain wrote:
I can also agree that the status of the victim does not matter when judging the punishment. It's actually the motivation of the defendant that matters. For example, if the guy in this article wasn't actually gay it would still be considered a hate crime if the bully beat up the victim because he thought the victim was gay.
Unfortunately this is technically not a hate crime in Ohio yet. Ohio hate crime statutes only protect against crime motivated by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, military status, disability, ancestry or housing accommodations. Our society, which refuses to tolerate hatred based on things like race and religion, is still relatively willing to accept hatred of gay people.
|
On October 29 2011 07:24 joyeaux wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 06:27 Avalain wrote:
I can also agree that the status of the victim does not matter when judging the punishment. It's actually the motivation of the defendant that matters. For example, if the guy in this article wasn't actually gay it would still be considered a hate crime if the bully beat up the victim because he thought the victim was gay.
Unfortunately this is technically not a hate crime in Ohio yet. Ohio hate crime statutes only protect against crime motivated by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, military status, disability, ancestry or housing accommodations. Our society, which refuses to tolerate hatred based on things like race and religion, is still relatively willing to accept hatred of gay people.
well in an ideal situation, we were intending to say
|
this kid obviously did nothing to deserve this. Regardless of your stance on people being homosexual, to beat the hell out of someone like that is wrong. Not only is it wrong, he should know what its like. How about going to prison and getting raped in the ass cuz the inmates know you're straight and your shit is still tight? I think that would do it
|
On October 29 2011 07:25 Blasterion wrote:
well in an ideal situation, we were intending to say[/QUOTE]
Absolutely I agree
|
To be honest, even if someone would be like:" I have sth. gainst homosexual orientation" he couldn´t say it because he get punished by the mods directly so this poll makes even more sense. Good job putting one up.
|
On October 29 2011 04:48 Velocirapture wrote:
This thread is too full of people who use their poor reading comprehension to bolster their 'set in stone' misconceptions (im lookin at you WhiteDog). The amount of non-sequitur posts would be bearable if they didnt cherry pick words out of context from good posts to push their agenda.
I don't understand people like you. We were, at first, arguing with people who said that if the crime is directed toward a member of the gay community because he is gay, the crime should be punished more heavily. I did not agree, but it's just a question of personnal point of view.
Then, at some point, it's like all the TL lawyer community came to argue about what a hate crime is legally and whatnot. I just don't care about that.
Also, what about the "agenda" thing, feel like you are some kind of activist fighting for your own conception of what is right or wrong. Can I not agree with you ? Can I have the right to think that any act toward child should be punished the same, no matter what community the child comes from ?
Also, I would be quite please if you refract yourself from pointing me. It's pretty ridiculous.
|
On October 29 2011 07:40 joyeaux wrote:well in an ideal situation, we were intending to say
Absolutely I agree[/QUOTE]
Well to be precise we meant hate crimes are still hate crimes and should be punished as hate crimes.
when a crime is committed in ill intent to physically harm someone of a specific trait.
The quality of the trait is irrelevant, but the motive for the attack makes the attacker more punishable than an attack that does not target people of a specific trait.
Of course once again the quality of the trait is irrelevant, there for,
if we are able to evaluate the punishment for hate crimes quantitatively
Hate crime against gays are as punishable as much as hate crimes are punishable for hate crimes against any other groups of people, but not more punishable than hate crimes against those groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
