"Queer or Female? Too Bad."

In the SST forum, users are free to discuss philosophy, music, art, religion, sock colour, whatever. It's a haven from the madness of Bulldrek; alternately intellectual and mundane, this is where the controversy takes place.
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

"Queer or Female? Too Bad."

Post by WillyGilligan »

Ada already found this one, but:
Bush has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.Read here, and get pissed off.

This is NOT my country.
The link he posted is http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/ ... index.html.

My reply (that got the 'polite' request to stop posting) was:
I've never been clear on this. Murder is illegal. The punishment is already scaled based on intent or accident. There is already protection under the law from violent crime. What extra protection does this add?

I have to look into laws on vote tampering, but are you saying that some gang of redneck thugs can legally throw rocks or some other mischief at women and gays on their way to the polls in order to intimidate them into not voting? That there is no recourse under current law for these groups that other groups enjoy?
We've talked about this way back when, but are there any new arguments for hate crime legislation? I don't think I'm whining that minorities are getting "special protection", but what do these laws add to the protection of minorities? All of the applications that I've heard of seem to have already been illegal. In the linked article, I found this:
But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.
What void would hate crime legislation have filled in the Shepard case? Are there hate crime laws that actually cover an act previously not illegal that should have been?
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

I wasn't very much into criminal law, but from what I remember hate crimes legislation is not really about broadening the scope of illegal acts, but about harsher punishment for certain acts which had already been considered illegal but which were in the given case committed with "hate". It's supposed to take into account the particular detrimental social effect of such crimes, hence harsher punishment for them.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

jo_alex wrote: It's supposed to take into account the particular detrimental social effect of such crimes, hence harsher punishment for them.
Please feel free to explain just what these detrimental "Social effect"'s are.
User avatar
Angel
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2002 9:35 am
Location: Further from Tubuai Island than any other Bulldrekker, except for maybe Toryu.

Post by Angel »

Murder isn't a federal crime, thus punishment for those found guilty varies from state to state, right? Could it be that making something a federal "hate crime" is an attempt to bring the punishment in some areas of the country up to socially (nationally) acceptable standards?
I personally think they should do away with varing sentencing guidelines and institute strict (and harsh) unified national sentencing standards, but that's just me.
- member since Sept 13th, 2000
Green-eyed kitten
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

Serious Paul wrote:
jo_alex wrote: It's supposed to take into account the particular detrimental social effect of such crimes, hence harsher punishment for them.
Please feel free to explain just what these detrimental "Social effect"'s are.
Hate crimes are supposed to cause more emotional distress in the society and are more likely to lead to other crimes being committed as acts of revenge than any other crimes.
User avatar
Moto42
Wuffle Master
Posts: 1634
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 5:15 am
Location: Tyler Texas
Contact:

Post by Moto42 »

Angel wrote:Murder isn't a federal crime, thus punishment for those found guilty varies from state to state, right? Could it be that making something a federal "hate crime" is an attempt to bring the punishment in some areas of the country up to socially (nationally) acceptable standards?
I personally think they should do away with varing sentencing guidelines and institute strict (and harsh) unified national sentencing standards, but that's just me.
I don't think so.
"Hate crime" legislation at the national level would only make the sentencing more harsh in a percentage of the cases, and it would do so in all states. (Or not, depending upon how 'enforceable' such legislation is.)
So the end result would be a spotty upgrade that only brings the sentencing "up to spec" every once in a while, while also making penalties harsher in areas where they were already "up to socially (ntionally) acceptable standards". (But only once in a while.)
"Hate crime" laws are just "Feel Good Legislation" in my opinion. Wether they don't do anything, improve the situation or make things worse, they look good on your political resume` because 'your the candidate that is willing to take a stand against racially motivated violence."
But then the Texas legal system wouldn't have the sterling reputation it enjoys today.</sarcasm>
Hello, I'm a signature VIRUS!
Copy me to your signature to help me grow.
User avatar
sinsual
Bondsman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 7:14 am
Location: Down the rabbit hole...
Contact:

Post by sinsual »

Hate Crime Legislation is ment more for those crimes that entail misdemeaner penalties. However, they are also able to add another charge in cases where evidence for a higher stance is lacking, IE: the difference between Murder One/Premeditation and Second Degree Murder. If you add Second Degree Murder with intent to Commit a Hate Crime, then the penalties can equal Murder One. Which in many states carries Life without Parole instead of say Life with chance for Parole or something along those lines.

Or, it can be the difference between say a petty thief that constantly robs one race. (say in an area where that race is in the minority or going to a specific area that is predominantly that race instead of near their home base) Instead of misdemeaner theft, which is basically a slap on the wrist, even if they have say 20 counts, they can make it Misdemeaner Theft and Hate Crime against blah blah. That can carry a stiffer penalty then just the theft alone.
www.evieshope.com
No infant should have Eye Cancer...
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

jo_alex wrote:Hate crimes are supposed to cause more emotional distress in the society and are more likely to lead to other crimes being committed as acts of revenge than any other crimes.
Emphasis is mine. Care to quantify this? (I'm pretty sure there isn't any such proof, but hey I've been wrong before.)

Why is it we feel the need to make up a whole new set of crimes, when we have existing laws? If the penalty for assault isn't enough, why can't we just increase it? If the definition of assault also needs to include as an aggravating factor racial, genetic, age, gender, national origin, ethnicity,ideology, political beliefs, and the rest of the 13 factors why can't we just add them to the existing laws, and give the judges and juries the latitude to say "Your crime is particularly heinous because factor X, as such we will sentence you to Y years in prison"

I fail to see where a new law has to be made here.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Angel wrote:Murder isn't a federal crime, thus punishment for those found guilty varies from state to state, right?
Wrong.

Murder can be prosecuted by the federal government, depending on the jurisdiction. A similar example is the death penalty. In Michigan the State does not administer the Death Penalty, but if you commit a felony punishable by death on Federal Lands in Michigan guess what? You're ass could find itself in front of a firing squad, or hung by the neck until quite dead.

Federal homicides cases generally occur in a number of cases: the murder of government officials, dignitaries, murders committed in Washington DC, on Merchant vessels, international waters, crossing state borders, and more.
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

Serious Paul wrote:
jo_alex wrote:Hate crimes are supposed to cause more emotional distress in the society and are more likely to lead to other crimes being committed as acts of revenge than any other crimes.
Emphasis is mine. Care to quantify this? (I'm pretty sure there isn't any such proof, but hey I've been wrong before.)

Why is it we feel the need to make up a whole new set of crimes, when we have existing laws? If the penalty for assault isn't enough, why can't we just increase it? If the definition of assault also needs to include as an aggravating factor racial, genetic, age, gender, national origin, ethnicity,ideology, political beliefs, and the rest of the 13 factors why can't we just add them to the existing laws, and give the judges and juries the latitude to say "Your crime is particularly heinous because factor X, as such we will sentence you to Y years in prison"

I fail to see where a new law has to be made here.
That's not my argument, that's something I heard being said to support hate crime legislation. It was followed by examples, indeed - listing riots and other revenge acts that occured in variuos US cities after crimes being committed on Black Americans, but I don't remember these details. Found this report if you want to read more about it.

I don't see the difference between creating new laws on hate crimes and broadening the scope of exisiting laws so as to give the judges the possibility to harshen the punishment when the "hate" factor is involved. The result is the same - when the "hate" factor is found the punishment you are faced with changes. What doesn't convince me about it is the vagueness of such a legislation in the first place. "Hate" factor will be difficult to establish and prove. I think the laws we have about committing crimes with/without premeditated intent are much more objective and they fulfill their role. But hey, I never believed in the argument that having stricter laws will reduce crime in the first place.
User avatar
TheScamp
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1592
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:37 am
Location: Inside 128

Post by TheScamp »

If the penalty for assault isn't enough, why can't we just increase it?
Um, wouldn't we have to pass new a law in order to do that?
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

TheScamp wrote:Um, wouldn't we have to pass new a law in order to do that?
Unfortunately. However I see modifying the existing laws as more desirable than creating "new" categories of legislation. Especially since they're not really new or needed.

If that makes any sense let me know, if not I'll try to put more effort into clarifying it.
User avatar
TheScamp
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1592
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:37 am
Location: Inside 128

Post by TheScamp »

Well, it sounds to me like you're advocating the addition of aggravating and/or mitigating factors to existing laws, and I'm not sure how that's different than most hate crime legislation.
User avatar
Angel
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2002 9:35 am
Location: Further from Tubuai Island than any other Bulldrekker, except for maybe Toryu.

Post by Angel »

Serious Paul wrote:
Angel wrote:Murder isn't a federal crime, thus punishment for those found guilty varies from state to state, right?
Wrong.

Murder can be prosecuted by the federal government, depending on the jurisdiction. A similar example is the death penalty. In Michigan the State does not administer the Death Penalty, but if you commit a felony punishable by death on Federal Lands in Michigan guess what? You're ass could find itself in front of a firing squad, or hung by the neck until quite dead.

Federal homicides cases generally occur in a number of cases: the murder of government officials, dignitaries, murders committed in Washington DC, on Merchant vessels, international waters, crossing state borders, and more.
Right.

My mistake, I should have said that the majority of murders aren't federal crimes or under federal jurisdiction.

Thanks so much for correcting me Paul, I am in your debt. :p
Last edited by Angel on Sun May 06, 2007 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- member since Sept 13th, 2000
Green-eyed kitten
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

No worries, even though I didn't mean it to seem so heavy handed. I think Hellion might be right. I did get up on the wrong side of the bed today.
User avatar
Iantha
Bulldrekker
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:37 pm
Location: GR, MI

Post by Iantha »

Serious Paul wrote:No worries, even though I didn't mean it to seem so heavy handed. I think Hellion might be right. I did get up on the wrong side of the bed today.
Nice to see you can admit that, Mr. CrankyPants!
User avatar
Daki
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10211
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Daki »

I am not up to date on criminal law, but would this bill allow for easier federal prosecution for violation of civil rights?
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

I can't understand why only certain groups should be protected by hate crimes legislation. If we think it's egregious to commit crimes while feeling some emotion, or when producing some emotion in the victim - a notion I am not entirely in agreement with - then we should be doing so evenly. Why is it more emotionally effecting to be beat up for being gay than it is to be beat up for being fat, or stupid, or annoying, or in the wrong place at the wrong time? If we're going to scale punishment based on emotional effectedness, how determined are we to be fair? Is it right to punish the victimization of a 25-year-old emotionally hardened gay man more than the victimization of an emotionally fragile 96-year-old pensioner, simply because he's gay? Isn't that discriminatory?

I was really hoping that something in this thread would convince me hate crimes legislation was justified, because I haven't made up my mind on the issue. I know I'm against it, but I don't know that I'm right.
User avatar
Jestyr
Footman of the Imperium
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:10 am
Location: BNE/.au
Contact:

Post by Jestyr »

I can't understand why only certain groups should be protected by hate crimes legislation.
Well, are they? There are plenty of minorities with violent subcultures; if hate crimes legislation affects crimes based on, say, race, then it should protect a white guy beaten up for being white just as much as it protects a black guy, asian guy or anyone else.
__
Jeff Hauze: Wow. I think Jestyr just fucking kicked my ass.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

Jestyr wrote:There are plenty of minorities with violent subcultures; if hate crimes legislation affects crimes based on, say, race, then it should protect a white guy beaten up for being white just as much as it protects a black guy, asian guy or anyone else.
Right, but that's still just "violence for reasons of race." What about "for reasons of intelligence?" Or "for reasons of weight?" Why do we only protect certain types of discrimination?
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Jestyr wrote:Well, are they?
As I understand it, No they are not.
There are plenty of minorities with violent subcultures; if hate crimes legislation affects crimes based on, say, race, then it should protect a white guy beaten up for being white just as much as it protects a black guy, asian guy or anyone else.
One would think but I have certainly (And I'd be willing to admit that I am not the authority here.) never heard of anyone being persecuted for beating a white man because he is white. Or a white woman. Or a white child.

As far as I can tell that's never happened.

I think 3278 raises a valid point. Why should beating a gay woman be worse than beating a fat woman? Why should beating a black man be worse than beating a retarded white man?
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

Serious Paul wrote:One would think but I have certainly (And I'd be willing to admit that I am not the authority here.) never heard of anyone being persecuted for beating a white man because he is white. Or a white woman. Or a white child.

As far as I can tell that's never happened.
Well, if you don't consider Jews white you might have a point here. ;)
Serious Paul wrote:I think 3278 raises a valid point. Why should beating a gay woman be worse than beating a fat woman? Why should beating a black man be worse than beating a retarded white man?
As far as I know handicap falls under the definition of hate crimes in certain legislations. So, obesity and being retarded would qualify, I think.

But yes, they did not create a legislation to punish any offense which has been committed with "hate" as an incentive, but rather which has been committed with "hate" directed against certain groups. As I mentioned before, the reasoning behind it was quite political.
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

Serious Paul wrote:One would think but I have certainly (And I'd be willing to admit that I am not the authority here.) never heard of anyone being persecuted for beating a white man because he is white. Or a white woman. Or a white child.

As far as I can tell that's never happened.
It got me curious. So I did some research and I found one for you. :)

"The Scotsman", 9 November 2006, "Lessons from Kriss Donald case"
IT HAS taken two and a half years, but justice has finally been done in the case of Kriss Donald, the 15-year-old from the south side of Glasgow who was randomly kidnapped, stabbed and set on fire in a racially-aggravated killing in 2004. Yesterday, the ring leader in the murder, Imran Shahid, his brother Zeeshan and accomplice Faisal Mushtaq each received lengthy prison sentences. Everyone in Glasgow, regardless of race, can sleep sounder knowing that Shahid is behind bars.

But before we close the book on this terrible hate crime, there are important lessons to be learned. Certainly, the Strathclyde Police have to be given their due for pursuing this complex case with vigour and professionalism. However, they do stand accused of letting Asian gang culture get out of hand in earlier years. The suggestion is that senior officers were frightened to take a pro-active stand against these criminals lest it be interpreted as picking on the Asian community. This was an error of judgment, as the leaders of the community were only too anxious for the local gangs to be dealt with. Better police liaison with local ethnic groups is the key to ensuring that this mistake is never repeated.

One person who comes out with credit in this deplorable affair is Mohammad Sarwar, the MP for Glasgow Central. Mr Sarwar braved threats from criminal elements in the Asian community to denounce the gangs and to use his influence with the Pakistani authorities to secure the extradition of the two Shahid brothers and Mushtaq last year. Mr Sarwar has also indicated publicly that he expects Strathclyde Police to pursue criminals in the Asian community as vigorously as those in the white community.

The broader Asian community is also to be congratulated for the selfless and unfailing help it gave the police during the investigations into the murder. It is sometimes the case that ethnic communities feel alienated from the police and from their white neighbours. This was not the case in this situation, which can only bode well for the future of community relations in Glasgow. Equally, the local white population has responded to the murder of Kriss Donald in a mature and sensible fashion, recognising it as the act of petty criminals rather than the Asian community as a whole.

The disreputable British National Party has tried to exploit the murder of Kriss Donald in the area, for its own seedy ends. For the most part, the citizens of Glasgow - regardless of race, creed or colour - have ignored this political opportunism. They must continue to do so, especially in next year's Holyrood elections. For the only way to end racist violence is for men and women of goodwill to seek to build a united community.
User avatar
UncleJoseph
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 8:32 am
Location: Central Michigan
Contact:

Post by UncleJoseph »

Serious Paul wrote:Why is it we feel the need to make up a whole new set of crimes, when we have existing laws?
Because politics demands that "someone do something" about the problem. Also because legislators are trying to make sure they have job security. Every year I have to learn new laws or revised laws to enforce, with ever more complicated enforcement procedures. Sometimes the same law changes several times over the course of just a few years, making it very difficult for law enforcement to remember what the hell they are supposed to do. Domestic Violence laws are really getting out of control with the procedural and reporting requirements.

Many of these changes come about because someone is victimized in a particularly noteworthy way. They get noticed in the news, and someone goes on a campaign to "Stop the victimization..." Some legislator picks up the ball trying to make his/her career out of "the cause." And then new legislation is passed because it pulls on the voting public's heartstrings. Lawmaking is not about the logical application of cost/benefit to society. It is about politics and propaganda.
If you take away their comforts, people are just like any other animal.
User avatar
Jestyr
Footman of the Imperium
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:10 am
Location: BNE/.au
Contact:

Post by Jestyr »

3278 wrote:
Jestyr wrote:There are plenty of minorities with violent subcultures; if hate crimes legislation affects crimes based on, say, race, then it should protect a white guy beaten up for being white just as much as it protects a black guy, asian guy or anyone else.
Right, but that's still just "violence for reasons of race." What about "for reasons of intelligence?" Or "for reasons of weight?" Why do we only protect certain types of discrimination?
Oh, that's a fair enough question, and one that I'm not entirely decided-upon myself, so I'm not gonna tackle it :) (Especially not 10 minutes after waking up.)

But your original point seemed to be that hate crimes legislation is unreasonable because it protects one *group* of people rather than another, which it doesn't. If it protects based on, say, sexual orientation, then it will protect _everyone_ who has a sexual orientation, regardless of what it is.
__
Jeff Hauze: Wow. I think Jestyr just fucking kicked my ass.
User avatar
sinsual
Bondsman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 7:14 am
Location: Down the rabbit hole...
Contact:

Post by sinsual »

Serious Paul wrote:
One would think but I have certainly (And I'd be willing to admit that I am not the authority here.) never heard of anyone being persecuted for beating a white man because he is white. Or a white woman. Or a white child.

As far as I can tell that's never happened.
Long beach, CA on Halloween
www.evieshope.com
No infant should have Eye Cancer...
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

I went back to skarka's LJ one more time to see if there was anything but drama in it. I found this:
fairgoldberry wrote:I see it as a matter of balance.

You see, there are degrees of murder that reflect the motive of said murder. For example, if you kill someone because you were in a car and he was on a bike, and you didn't pay attention, you get very different treatment than you do if you did it because you were in his will and he was rich and you put a pillow over his face. Likewise, a seventeen-year-old girl who beats her father to death in his sleep is going to jail for a good long time - unless her motive was that he'd been molesting her since she was five. In all cases, the victim's still dead, so why not the same penalty? Why do we have manslaughter voluntary and involuntary, homicide both wilful and negligent, and multiple degrees of murder?

Because under our laws motive and method count.

So, a hate crime isn't just a crime against a member of a disenfranchised or minority group. It's a crime committed where the motivation is *membership* in that group. The victim is chosen because he is or is perceived to be a member of that group. Consequently, as a matter of legal balance it makes sense to me that the victim be protected if that motive is more likely than, say, the color of pants he's wearing or the fact that he graduated from high school in 1998.

Hate crime legislation is often misunderstood because it doesn't seek to make something illegal that's currently legal. It seeks to establish a class of penalties and consequences based on motive and the likelihood that the person, given his freedom, would likely do it again; these consequences are also based on what is considered reasonable provocation for the action. It's perfectly reasonable to kill someone because he tried to kill you first. You're provoked by something society agrees is a reasonable incentive. When we suggest hate-crimes legislation to codify a class of motive and victim choice based on the victim's demographic, we're attempting to establish that membership in that demographic is legally considered unacceptable provocation for crimes against someone.

It's a little tricky, because it keeps getting spun incorrectly by both sides, but it makes more sense to me if I view it as a legal nuance to clear up some mushiness with regard to motive and reasonable provocation.

The reason I think it's necessary federal law? Because of that bit about 'reasonable provocation.' Making an attack on someone based on demographic a specific type of crime removes the worry that in certain parts of the country, homosexuality will be considered scary enough to be reasonable provocation, so a solid line, drawn to prevent that from happening, establishes a firm baseline. I wish it weren't true, but I hear enough people in Texas (though none in Austin proper) say things like, "If I thought that a fag was hittin' on me, I'd knock him into next week," and their friends, who would presumably make up that jury of their peers, nod and agree with them.

This is an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. While I still uneasily feel that this is trying to punish the thought crime of racism/homophobia/what have you, targeting situations where people may be trying to intimidate a given group makes some sense. What's the standard of proof that a crime was committed? Does the law that stopped Brasky's HOA from suing a group home out of the neighborhood qualify as "hate crimes legislation"?
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

WillyGilligan wrote:While I still uneasily feel that this is trying to punish the thought crime of racism/homophobia/what have you, targeting situations where people may be trying to intimidate a given group makes some sense.
Why? Isn't that covered by intimidation laws, inasmuch as we have such things? Why does there need to be a class of laws specifically for intimidating only certain groups?
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

I honestly don't know what the legality of intimidation is. That's part of the problem with discussing hate crime legislation. It's a class of laws, rather than one specific law where you can argue the loopholes and so on. One of skarka's friends says that the law which the president vetoed didn't protect any one gender or sexual orientation, it just referred to crimes motivated by gender or sexual orientation. Theoretically getting attacked for being a heterosexual male would fall under the same legislation. In that sense it'd be fair, but if it's already covered by other laws then it's just a bunch of lawmakers trying to look busy.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

WillyGilligan wrote:Theoretically getting attacked for being a heterosexual male would fall under the same legislation. In that sense it'd be fair...
No, it's not, because it only protects people being victimized for sexual preference [which 98 percent of the time, means "for being gay"]. This superficially looks fair - "because it covers in both directions" - but because it limits the protected class of person, it's not actually fair. It's the same problem I have with hiring laws: you can't not hire someone because they're black, but you can not hire someone because he's annoying. Why is "being black" protected, while "being annoying" isn't?

And how long is it, then, before we've added everyone and everything to the list, when you simply don't get to choose who you hire because it's wrong to discriminate against people for being unqualified. How long before everyone is equally protected under the law until - wait for it - the penalties for committing a crime are the same no matter what the reason for the crime was, because we find all crimes equally heinous.

Oh, wait.

What a waste, then, since we could have kept the system we had and simply outlawed all behavior we found antisocial, whatever the mindset of the person committing the crime. Which at the very least, would not have the dubious distinction of being though policing.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

UncleJoseph wrote:It is about politics and propaganda.
This, by the way, is the most true thing yet said in this thread regarding why these laws are actually passed.
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

3278 wrote:It's the same problem I have with hiring laws: you can't not hire someone because they're black, but you can not hire someone because he's annoying. Why is "being black" protected, while "being annoying" isn't?
Offhand, because there's a history of people being denied employment due to race, and less of a historical issue with annoyophobes. Also, people have more control over how annoying they are than they do over the color of their skin, or their gender or sexual orientation. Granted, being annoying is a subjective trait, but it has more direct effects on job performance than simply being black.
3278 wrote:And how long is it, then, before we've added everyone and everything to the list, when you simply don't get to choose who you hire because it's wrong to discriminate against people for being unqualified. How long before everyone is equally protected under the law until - wait for it - the penalties for committing a crime are the same no matter what the reason for the crime was, because we find all crimes equally heinous.
It doesn't have to inexorably lead to this conclusion, just like legalizing gay marriage doesn't lead us to legalize pedophilia. It's definitely a factor to consider in the wording of the law and the way you approach it (write new law, amend existing law, etc), but not on whether to legislate this at all. Again, it seems to me that if it's already covered in some other fashion, that should be taken into account, but the reverse also holds true. If it's not covered that should be considered. My other issue is that it would seem to be pretty hard to prove, but possibly even harder to defend against, the accusation of hatred. How do you prove that the suspect wouldn't have done the same thing to his own demographic? How do you convince a jury (assuming that it's true) that you murdered the guy because he was a dick or you were robbing him, and that his race/gender/sexual orientation wasn't a factor?

I'd like to say that accusation of a hate crime would be primarily used when it was obvious, but I'm led to believe that oftentimes (not every time) cops will tack on charges to get a perp to plea bargain.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

I stand corrected. I used the control F function and found it.
User avatar
UncleJoseph
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 8:32 am
Location: Central Michigan
Contact:

Post by UncleJoseph »

WillyGilligan wrote:I'd like to say that accusation of a hate crime would be primarily used when it was obvious, but I'm led to believe that oftentimes (not every time) cops will tack on charges to get a perp to plea bargain.
Let's get one thing straight: The "cops" generally don't have anything to do with what charges are brought up against a defendant. This is totally up to the prosecutor. An officer may arrest someone for one or several things, but the prosecutor still must authorize those charges in order for the arrest to carry forward to arraignment and/or trial. The "cops" have no authority to charge anyone for a crime (except for traffic infractions, which aren't crimes), even if they arrest a person on the spot. The only authority to charge someone comes from the prosecuting attorney, even if the charges come after the arrest. However, there is a growing trend in the legal system to charge someone with any and all charges that apply.

Also, in general, the "tacking on" of a hate crime depends on the victim, not the cops. With the exception of domestic assault and a few other specific crimes, victims must be willing to press charges...even for hate crimes. The general public tends to call things hate crimes when they aren't, or misinterpret situations as motivated by hate. Although sometimes the public hits the nail on the head, too.
If you take away their comforts, people are just like any other animal.
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

You know, I recall that you made this distinction a while ago. My apologies.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
UncleJoseph
Wuffle Initiate
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 8:32 am
Location: Central Michigan
Contact:

Post by UncleJoseph »

WillyGilligan wrote:You know, I recall that you made this distinction a while ago. My apologies.
I may have at some point. However, I believe it was a long-ass time ago. No apologies necessary, as it is a common misconception.
If you take away their comforts, people are just like any other animal.
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

The question at hand is what is the purpose of the legislation and the purpose of the punishment. If we really wanted criminals to be able to come back to society and function well, we're doing things all wrong. If we simply want people likely to do bad things hidden away somewhere for a long time, then we've met the goal. Assuming the latter is the case, the point of Hate Crimes legislation is to extend the sentence of someone who is more likely to perpetrate another crime, likely a violent one.

As the fairgoldberry quote previously posted mentions, different motives and intentions carry different sentences. What it fails to note is why. A homicidal maniac who kills because he enjoys killing can't be allowed to walk around where people are, since he will kill them. A man who killed another man for financial gain is pretty bad - lots of people have money, so he needs to be locked up for a long time. A man who killed in self-defense is probably ok to walk around, since he is unlikely to do it again, unless he is attacked in the future (and we don't care about attackers). A man who killed his wife's killer is unlikely to kill again unless he remarries and his wife gets killed again.

The point here is that the larger the potential group of victims, the longer the sentence needs to be. A man who beats another solely because that other is of a different race, in America, is very likely to encounter more people of that race and also beat them. Even if the crime, alone, carries a lesser sentence, the idea here is that he is much more likely to commit the crime again because it was against a member of a group rather than against a specific individual.

As for why we protect only certain groups -- it's difficult to define a lot of groups. Technically, many serial killers could be considered commiting hate crimes. For example, they'll often fixate on some aspect of a person - hair color, job, whatever. Carefully select them for that trait. That's a group of people, sure, but it's hard to identify, and the chances of a non-psychotic individual commiting crimes on such a basis are fairly small. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have things like racism, which is still quite prevalent. Many otherwise ordinary people can and will be racist on a regular basis. As long as they don't go around committing crimes based on that attitude, we don't prosecute it, but it's very easy to identify a member of that group and members of that group often identify themselves as within it.

People wearing orange pants probably don't consider themselves "orange pants wearers", although they'd agree with you if you asked them. Someone who is gay identifies with being gay. Someone who is American generally identifies with being American (or rails against the fate which made it so - which is like identifying with it). So not only do you have the easy identification of group membership, you also have a large group of people who may commit retaliatory crimes because they perceive themselves as being provoked by this act. See: just about every single riot, ever, in the US. So we bump up the punishment a notch to also placate those people and maintain order.

PS to Paul - Even as recently as 50 years ago, it would have been very obvious that non-white people were being persecuted for any crime against a white person. Or even looking at one funny. They were lynched for it.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Anguirel wrote:PS to Paul - Even as recently as 50 years ago, it would have been very obvious that non-white people were being persecuted for any crime against a white person. Or even looking at one funny. They were lynched for it.
I don't recollect saying it didn't happen that way. Or saying that nonwhites weren't persecuted for crimes against whites. So care to clarify or quantify this statement?
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

3278 wrote:It's the same problem I have with hiring laws: you can't not hire someone because they're black, but you can not hire someone because he's annoying. Why is "being black" protected, while "being annoying" isn't?
You can not hire someone even if he's black. Discrimination laws' protection works only if the person you are interviewing is well qualified for the job but you don't consider her/his application only because of her/his race, sexual orientation, etc. - meaning characeteristics which are usually irrelevant for your work performance. Why "being annoying" is not on the list? Cause this usually does effect your performance and working environment, which means that employers should have a right not to hire someone with that trait. These laws actually do make sense.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

jo_alex wrote:
3278 wrote:It's the same problem I have with hiring laws: you can't not hire someone because they're black, but you can not hire someone because he's annoying. Why is "being black" protected, while "being annoying" isn't?
You can not hire someone even if he's black.
Right, but not because he's black.
jo_alex wrote:Discrimination laws' protection works only if the person you are interviewing is well qualified for the job but you don't consider her/his application only because of her/his race, sexual orientation, etc. - meaning characeteristics which are usually irrelevant for your work performance. Why "being annoying" is not on the list? Cause this usually does effect your performance and working environment, which means that employers should have a right not to hire someone with that trait.
"Being annoying to the person who's hiring you" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your work performance, and there are a number of cases where "being black" or "being a member of african-american culture" could very strongly effect your work performance, if only for customer-driven reasons [and often for other reasons].

[edit: To be more clear: You can decide not to hire someone on the simple basis that you don't like them, as long as the reason you don't like them isn't race, or sex, or national origin, or any of the other groups protected by hiring laws. That's not right. Either we protect all groups equally, or we need a clear reason to specify certain groups. And the "two way street" - where I'm covered because it means someone can't discriminate against me for being white - isn't the answer. We should protect all groups, which means - oops, fairness coming! - we protect all individuals, regardless of group participation. Providing special legal protection for only certain groups is discriminatory, and the two-way street doesn't make up for that.

I believe you should have the right to hire or not hire anyone you choose, unless you are the government itself. If I own my own business, I believe I should be allowed to not hire someone on the basis that I don't like their eyes, or their car, or their skin color. My business, my choice. The government should simply not, in my opinion, be involved.]
jo_alex wrote:These laws actually do make sense.
No, they don't. Seriously, they really don't. All they do is placate those who cry loudest, and that's nothing like logical, sensical, or fair.
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

3278 wrote:I believe you should have the right to hire or not hire anyone you choose, unless you are the government itself. If I own my own business, I believe I should be allowed to not hire someone on the basis that I don't like their eyes, or their car, or their skin color. My business, my choice. The government should simply not, in my opinion, be involved.
If I did not already know the answer to this question, I would immediately ask you whether you are living in US. The massive practice of claiming protection under discrimination legislation which exists in US, is something legislators in Europe were really afraid of when they were introducing these laws into our legal systems. Hasn't happened yet on this side of the world.

If I had my own business I am sure I would think from time to time the way you do, since it makes your life much easier if you do not have to think about how to formulate your ad about a job vacancy, what questions to ask during the interview, how to evaulate the candidates, so that not to seem to be discriminating against anyone. I would probably prefer also to employ mostly men, since it would save me the trouble of having to find replacement when my female employees get pregnant, e.g. However, I do believe that the easiest way is not always the right one.
3278 wrote:
jo_alex wrote:These laws actually do make sense.
No, they don't. Seriously, they really don't. All they do is placate those who cry loudest, and that's nothing like logical, sensical, or fair.
This legislation does not placate those who cry the loudest. These laws are established to protect the ones who have a weeker bargaining position on the market. You can do something about your attitude - whether you would be annoying your potential employer or not, you can change the car you are driving if that is standing in the way of you getting hired. Changing your skin color or gender is a bit more problematic. I do not think that the whole society (all groups) needs that kind of protection.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

jo_alex wrote:The massive practice of claiming protection under discrimination legislation which exists in US, is something legislators in Europe were really afraid of when they were introducing these laws into our legal systems. Hasn't happened yet on this side of the world.
One of the many reasons I would rather be living in Europe than in America.
jo_alex wrote:If I had my own business I am sure I would think from time to time the way you do, since it makes your life much easier....

However, I do believe that the easiest way is not always the right one.
Nor do I, and I assure you, my position has nothing to do with ease of hiring. I believe it is right, not simply convenient.
jo_alex wrote:This legislation does not placate those who cry the loudest. These laws are established to protect the ones who have a weeker bargaining position on the market.
Can it not do both? And really, we've gone to "fair and equal" to "protect the weak," and let me tell you, I most definitely do not believe it is the government's job to protect the weak, any more than the strong.
jo_alex wrote:You can do something about your attitude - whether you would be annoying your potential employer or not, you can change the car you are driving if that is standing in the way of you getting hired. Changing your skin color or gender is a bit more problematic.
A common argument, but an immaterial one, in my mind. What you're saying is that it's okay to disciminate based on your choice of car [because you can change it] but not okay on the basis of skin color [which you cannot change]. This ignores the fact that it would be immoral to require a change of car in the first place, and that the freedom of the employer to choose should not in any way be based, in my opinion, on the ability of the employee to change. After all, it's not skin color but culture to which most racists object, and that is mutable, but I don't believe you're saying it's okay to discriminate based on race [culture] because of that.

You and I have striking differences of opinion on the role of government, because of our different backgrounds and cultures. I don't disagree that yours works well in your nation, but I do not believe it would work well here, and I certainly believe the government I have isn't working very well here. ;)
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

3278 wrote:
jo_alex wrote:This legislation does not placate those who cry the loudest. These laws are established to protect the ones who have a weeker bargaining position on the market.
Can it not do both? And really, we've gone to "fair and equal" to "protect the weak," and let me tell you, I most definitely do not believe it is the government's job to protect the weak, any more than the strong.
Of course it can do both, and yes, you are probably right that it does. I do believe though in protecting the weaker party on the market by the government. Hey, I'm dealing with consumer law at this moment. I need to believe that my work makes any difference. ;)
3278 wrote:You and I have striking differences of opinion on the role of government, because of our different backgrounds and cultures. I don't disagree that yours works well in your nation, but I do not believe it would work well here, and I certainly believe the government I have isn't working very well here. ;)
Yes, we do differ. And it does suck for you that your government is not doing its job properly. Though to be fair and square I am not that happy with my government's work in the last few years either. But I could switch a country. You moving to another state would not make that much of a difference. ;)
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

jo_alex wrote:I do believe though in protecting the weaker party on the market by the government.
That's a common difference in opinion between American conservatives and Europeans in general, who tend more toward what we would call "liberal," at least in a "governmental role" sense. And I think this works well in Europe, or at least well enough, although I'm certain it would infuriate me if I moved there. Still, at least then I would feel like I chose my system of government, and didn't have it forced on me, as anyone being born in any nation does.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

On a side note, relevant mostly to the various conversations with CE, I'd like to say that anyone who refers to "American culture" or "white culture in America," myself included, is an oversimplifying moron. America can look homogeneous, particularly when viewed by remote through media, but culturally, it is anything but. I have more in common, culturally, with a black man from rural Michigan than I have in common with white people from the city, or white people from the South, or white people from any coast. I don't know why I temporarily bought into this "white culture" thing, but I'm buying out now. There is no white culture in the US, and no dominant white culture in the US. Any appearance thereof is an artifact of abstraction.
User avatar
DV8
Evil Incarnate
Posts: 5986
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:49 am
Location: .nl
Contact:

Post by DV8 »

While that's true, I don't think you should overlook how easy it is to have, for instance, a common language. While there are a trillion nuances as you travel from the east coast to the west coast, or from the great lakes to the gulf of Mexico, the differences are less than when you do the same for Europe, or Asia, for the simple reason that the U.S. has a larger shared culture, which is part of the reason, I think, why the U.S. is such a strong and dominant cultural nation.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

DV8 wrote:While there are a trillion nuances as you travel from the east coast to the west coast, or from the great lakes to the gulf of Mexico, the differences are less than when you do the same for Europe...
I disagree.
DV8 wrote:...or Asia...
I agree.
DV8 wrote:...for the simple reason that the U.S. has a larger shared culture, which is part of the reason, I think, why the U.S. is such a strong and dominant cultural nation.
I know it looks that way, because many of us speak the same language, and we're all governed by a single overarching federation, but I do not agree that the US has a larger shared culture than, say, Europe. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "culture" and "larger" and "shared."

I agree it would be an error to overestimate the cultural differences within America, but I believe it is as much an error to believe America has fewer cultural differences than Europe. Asia, due to history, geography, and size, is another matter entirely.
User avatar
jo_alex
Bulldrek Pimp
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Contact:

Post by jo_alex »

3278 wrote:I agree it would be an error to overestimate the cultural differences within America, but I believe it is as much an error to believe America has fewer cultural differences than Europe. Asia, due to history, geography, and size, is another matter entirely.
Wait, you do not think that there are enough cultural differences within Europe due to its small size, not enough history records and not enough diverse geography?

OK, granted, it is not a big continent. But as far as historical and geographical diversity between various parts of it is concerned... the size really seemed not to matter in this respect.

I think it's as big a mistake to underestimate the cultural differences within America as it is within Europe.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

jo_alex wrote:
3278 wrote:I agree it would be an error to overestimate the cultural differences within America, but I believe it is as much an error to believe America has fewer cultural differences than Europe. Asia, due to history, geography, and size, is another matter entirely.
Wait, you do not think that there are enough cultural differences within Europe due to its small size, not enough history records and not enough diverse geography?
I think that Asia is vastly larger than Europe, and thus is more likely by virtue of sheer size to have more cultures, all other things remaining equal. [And this is mostly what I meant by "geography," too, but the layout of rivers and mountains in Asia also creates a number of artificial cultural subdivisions. By virtue of size and coincidence, Asia has by far the greatest number of types of environment, one of the greatest determining factors of culture.] I think the history of Asia also has lent it diversity in culture, from tribal diasporas to the varied experiences of people in Siberia and people in India.

I don't want to make it sound like the history and geography [we'll wrap "size" into "geography" for now] of Europe make it somehow homogeneous! It most certainly isn't. I only mean that Asia has a greater breadth of diversity than Europe. As for America and Europe...I guess I'd have to say, if pressed, that it's too close a tie for me to call for either side. You have Laplanders and Basque separatists, Scottish herdsmen and Czech politicians. By the same token, America has Dutch Amish and Washington loggers, texmex oil workers and French Canadian paper mill owners.

In my own state, depending on time of the year, you can end up with half the state not speaking English, temporary workers imported from Mexico who sometimes decide to stay, putting their children in school and hoping they'll learn enough English to get by, and teach the rest of the family. There's a sizeable population of people who speak a form of Dutch you could barely parse,* who don't use electricity. There's a sizeable population of decedents of slaves, people whose ancestors moved a couple of generations ago from the south because they couldn't make a living as farmers and so came to the north to find factory work. Mixed in are decedents of Finnish loggers, Dutch furniture makers, French trappers. When I go to the store, there's a really good chance that the guy next to me will be from a culture vastly more alien to mine than, say, yours would be to me. [And I find yours quite alien some days.]
jo_alex wrote:I think it's as big a mistake to underestimate the cultural differences within America as it is within Europe.
It is. There's no doubt about that. Absent a means of measuring cultural difference, though, all we can do is uselessly champion our sides, replacing information with rhetoric. History shows I'm capable of doing this for months, but it doesn't actually get us anywhere. ;)

[edit]*My bad. I don't think ours speak Nederlands; I think they speak German.[/edit]
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

I think communication and technology have reduced some barriers that had previously separated various cultures. However it has also allowed us to sharpen some differences, and create new ones.

I think we all tend to look at our neighbors and make broad sweeping generalizations. Asia is an easy example, most of us think of Asia as being Oriental, but I suspect India has a slightly different view on it's place in Asia when compared to the average American's assessment, or even the average Europeans.

While I don't think there is any way to force acceptance of other cultures, and nor do I think it should be forced, I do think it behooves everyone to learn more about the world around them.
Post Reply