OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools

[spdrun]

We’re not arguing reality. We’re arguing whether unequal punishments SHOULD exist, not whether they DO exist.

[FlyerInHi]

Of course unequal punishment should exist. So many factors to consider.

Back to the vehicular assault example. What if we find out the fireman belongs an extremist group. he’s been exchanging mail with other members about Jewish people taking over the world so they should be killed.

We also know that he rents in an area where successful Jewish buyers are paying cash for houses. He was complaining to some friends about that.

The victim was a guy wearing a yarmulke.

Do the facts change anything?

[spdrun]

Nope.

Punishment for deliberate assault should be pretty much the same regardless of the victim. What if the firefighter was himself of Chinese origin and he was upset about wealthy Chinese investors from Hong Kong buying up houses? He hit an Asian gentleman who was carrying an open house flyer and getting into his Tesla Model S, with malice aforethought.

What if he ran into a guy in a BMW because he thought a rich guy in a BMW was boinking his wife?

Should this be punished any differently than your Jewish example? My opinion is “no.” Random yet premeditated violence should be punished similarly regardless of the victim and perpetrator.

[FlyerInHi]

Ok. But didn’t you say earlier that judges should have discretion, and that justice should be rehabilitative?

Maybe we should have formulaic computer based sentencing systems. Input the crime, then out come the sentence.

Are parole boards biased also? Don’t they take certain factors into account?

How about a top student at Stanford vs a high school drop out? I know you’ll say that it doesn’t matter.

In reality people want different treatment based on the circumstances. Hate crimes laws don’t discriminate against anyone. They just allow for some additional factors and additional punishment to be considered.

[spdrun]

There should be a certain range of sentence permitted. This range should not be altered by the victim’s race, gender, orientation, etc. In any case, the basic offense should be the same regardless, with no additional “bias” charges slapped on.

And no, I don’t think a top student at Stanford engaging in random violence is any better than an HS dropout doing so. Though I suppose they’re more likely to get off, since they’ll more likely to be able to afford a good lawyer (think about how Leopold and Loeb didn’t go to the electric chair for their crimes).

[FlyerInHi]

Why limit to violence? There are plenty of other crimes.

Is dealing drugs to your college 2 roommates the same as dealing drugs to the neighborhood kids?

[spdrun]

Age affects the ability to make informed decisions, so no. Unless you’re saying that people of certain races and orientations are less capable of informed consent…

[FlyerInHi]

Spd, your position is consistent enough. Kinda anti establishment.

If I were a “good” person who might commit a crime, I’d worry about your justice because I couldn’t trot out my goodness for special treatment.

Ultimately there are many factors that affect how justice is rendered beginning with what the authorities decide to do.

Hate crime laws have minimal effect on how justice is rendered in reality. But I like the message they are sending. We can disagree on that.

Although they is no harm, certain people don’t like certain messages because they perceive them as eroding their own cultures. Just like the reading assigning that portrays gay families in a positive light doesn’t harm family values but some people still feel threatened.

Talking about special treatment, I don’t like the carve-outs for religious organizations. So anti science. I wished more people agreed with me so we can change that. But for now, I just gotta suck it up.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Like 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?[/quote]

You’re mixing up special treatment for different types of offenders vs. special treatment for different types of victims.

Hate crimes pertain to the types of victims, not the background, etc. of the perpetrators. Why should one victim be more protected than another when the crime was the very same crime?

Let’s say that the perpetrator is the same, but one of his murder victims was black, while another one of his victims was white. How can you argue that the black victim (and the victim’s family) is more worthy of special treatment vs. the white victim/family when the crime was the exact same crime committed by the exact same perpetrator?

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]”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.[/quote]

Yes, it would be nonsensical. ALL people have the right to live in a safe environment, whether they are black or white. If the crimes are the same, the punishments need to be the same. No one category of victim should be exalted above the others. A crime against a Jew or a black person is every bit as bad as the exact same crime against a white person, and vice versa.

We cannot control how people think; we can only hope to control their actions. Their thoughts will not be changed by “hate crime” laws. If anything, these laws reinforce their beliefs that certain people are receiving unfair advantages, and that might justify in their minds the desire to punish people from this particular group even more.

EVERY victim needs to be protected equally, and the punishment for these types of crimes should be equally harsh, no matter the color, religion, background, etc. of the victim. I do not believe that people who commit random, violent crimes against whites (or women and other unprotected groups) feel any less “hate” than the criminals who commit crimes against any of the groups protected under “hate crime” laws.

[njtosd]

[quote=6packscaredy]”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.[/quote]

If hate crime laws were used as a logical response to discriminatory crimes, they would have been promulgated ages ago in response to the violence that is routinely inflicted upon women by men. I don’t hear anyone speaking up for such things. I don’t believe in concepts that are selectively applied.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=6packscaredy]”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.[/quote]

If hate crime laws were used as a logical response to discriminatory crimes, they would have been promulgated ages ago in response to the violence that is routinely inflicted upon women by men. I don’t hear anyone speaking up for such things. I don’t believe in concepts that are selectively applied.[/quote]

Bingo.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=njtosd]I don’t believe in concepts that are selectively applied.[/quote]

Like going easy a certain criminal because he is a member of an upstanding family, or because he’s a top student, or because community leaders wrote in support selecting that perpetrator for leniency?

Would you be against that kind of justice too?

Do we want a robotic justice system that says: commit A crime, get B punishment, without prejudice, no matter what the context or the circumstances are.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]Like 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?[/quote]

You’re mixing up special treatment for different types of offenders vs. special treatment for different types of victims.

Hate crimes pertain to the types of victims, not the background, etc. of the perpetrators. Why should one victim be more protected than another when the crime was the very same crime?

Let’s say that the perpetrator is the same, but one of his murder victims was black, while another one of his victims was white. How can you argue that the black victim (and the victim’s family) is more worthy of special treatment vs. the white victim/family when the crime was the exact same crime committed by the exact same perpetrator?[/quote]

Justice is about punishing the criminals and deterring crime.

Yes, the victims do get some degree of retribution. But our system is not about maximizing the amount of retribution. If it were we would have designed it differently.

It’s less about protecting victims who have already suffered harm. It’s more about punishing the criminals. Hate crimes laws do that.

Why would you be ok with going lenient on some criminals because of their backgrounds? Past glory is no indication of current status or future performance, is it?

It seems more unjust to treat certain perpetrators differently for reasons unrelated to the crimes themselves.

Justice is about balance. I’m Ok with leniency for perpetrators in some cases, but I also want hate crime laws to punish them more forcefully in other cases.

The law is just one part of justice… The application of justice depends on enforcement agencies, prosecutors, the defense, juries, judges… Hate crimes laws just allow that extra punishment when the community feels it’s appropriate.

[spdrun]

That’s what ranges of sentencing are for. No need to tack on ADDITIONAL crimes.

[Author]

Posts