- This topic has 380 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 24, 2013 at 10:13 PM #768442November 24, 2013 at 11:19 PM #768445
CA renter
Participant[quote=jstoesz]Laws are laws. They should apply equally without prejudice. Beating a gay, straight, black, or white senseless without cause should mean the same damn sentence. You don’t beat someone to a a pulp without hate. It is not complicated! Everyone who commits this type of crime has hate…
The concept of hate crimes is insane![/quote]
Exactly.
November 24, 2013 at 11:25 PM #768446Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Ok. Let’s say we make punishments for all crimes more severe to the level you want. Done.
Would you be OK with hate crimes being punishable even more severely?[/quote]
You’re totally missing the point, brian. ALL crimes committed against random, innocent people are equally evil. All of these criminals (and victims) should be treated equally. We need to send a message to ALL of these criminals, not just the ones who target particular groups. ANY criminal who targets an innocent person from an non-“hated” group is just as guilty and evil as one who targets a person from one of the “chosen/hated” categories. The notion of “hate crimes” only applying to a particular category of victims is nonsensical and discriminatory.
November 25, 2013 at 1:37 AM #768447FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=CA renter]The notion of “hate crimes” only applying to a particular category of victims is nonsensical and discriminatory.[/quote]
Discriminatory against whom?
November 25, 2013 at 2:20 AM #768448Guest[quote=jstoesz]Laws are laws. They should apply equally without prejudice. Beating a gay, straight, black, or white senseless without cause should mean the same damn sentence. You don’t beat someone to a a pulp without hate. It is not complicated! Everyone who commits this type of crime has hate…
The concept of hate crimes is insane![/quote]
The penalty should be the same for the same crime? Really?
Do you take the perpetrator’s family background, history, service to the community, etc into account at sentencing?
November 25, 2013 at 7:23 AM #768452scaredyclassic
Participant“Nonsensical” is a little strong.
Let’s say we were back in the 1960’s and rage against blacks was still strong in the south. Would it be “nonsensical” to punish crimes against blacks a little stronger, in order to achieve the desired social goal of a society where people of all colors can be safe and secure?
Probably not.
reasonable people can disagree about who should be protected a bit more when to further which societal goal, or even if it shoudl be done, but it’s not irrational.
November 25, 2013 at 7:47 AM #768453ParticipantThere is more than one function to the justice system, and it doesn’t always result in what appears to be justice.
We are trying to rehabilitate people, to deter others from committing crimes, to give a sense of retribution to victims, to take the offendor out of society for our own safety, or perceived safety, and also to restore (to some extent) damage done to the victim and the social fabric.
and at the same time, we want the punishment to be relatively proportional to the offense….
these desires may often, very often, conflict with one another.
That is the nature of punishing crime with more than one goal in mind…
November 25, 2013 at 8:58 AM #768454spdrun
ParticipantThe problem in the South in the 1960ies was that crime against blacks was punished more leniently or often not prosecuted at all. Recreating this disparity in the opposite direction is just as immoral.
November 25, 2013 at 10:37 AM #768455Guest[quote=spdrun]The problem in the South in the 1960ies was that crime against blacks was punished more leniently or often not prosecuted at all. [/quote]
Because of?[quote=spdrun]
Recreating this disparity in the opposite direction is just as immoral.[/quote]
And the data to back it up is?November 25, 2013 at 1:32 PM #768456ParticipantMorality is ultimately a matter of opinion, not data, and my opinion is that punishments for like crimes should be like.
November 25, 2013 at 1:59 PM #768458GuestLike crimes, like punishment.
So a firefighter with a beautiful, moral family to support, who put a lifetime in community service should be punished the same as a hoodlum in East San Diego for the same crime?
November 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM #768459ParticipantIf the firefighter attacks a person randomly on the street without provocation, absolutely. And mitigation that their beaaaaudddiful family causes will be counterbalanced by the fact that their job is to help the public, and they violated that trust.
November 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM #768461GuestWhat about if he runs into someone and kills that person?
Does it depend on whether the driver is licensed to drive? Or what about if he endured stress from fighting fires and savings lives for the last 2 weeks?
Do the victims’ families care one bit? Are they getting the same justice?
November 25, 2013 at 2:31 PM #768462ParticipantDriver’s licensing is a fair factor because driving without a license is a CHOICE and in itself illegal. Membership in an ethnic group is not either.
November 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM #768463Guest[quote=spdrun] And mitigation that their beaaaaudddiful family causes will be counterbalanced by the fact that their job is to help the public, and they violated that trust.[/quote]
philosophicall/morally we could argue that people who are otherwise upstanding should be punished more harshly for the same crimes, because they had more advantages so they should know better. They violated the public trust.
But that’s not how it works in reality. Facts and reality do matter when sending messages.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.