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

[FlyerInHi]

Additional charges are appropriate when extra punishment is called for.

Prosecutors drop and add charges all the time. Hate crime laws give them the leeway to add charges in some cases.

[spdrun]

Having this leeway for people of certain ethnic and racial groups, but not for others, is patently unfair. A range of possible sentences is enough.

Point being, I don’t consider a racially, ethnically, etc motivated crime to be any worse than one motivated by other arcane motives. Say I got run down on a motorcycle because the driver was upset that bikers were keeping the driver up at 3 am revving their motors.

[FlyerInHi]

spd, that’s where we disagree.

I personally think that driving down from Lakeside to Hillcrest and killing a gay person because the killer hates gays is more heinous than killing the neighbor who slept with the wife.

Again justice is not just the law. The prosecutor needs to charge and win a conviction.

You don’t like the message. Good thing you’re in the minority.

[no_such_reality]

Shooter targeted Fashion island because “that’s where the rich people were.”

No talk of hate crime though…

[FlyerInHi]

If you feel passionately enough, feel free to work to overturn hate crime legislations, just like others have worked hard to get them on the books, or just like gays are working hard for full equality.

Isn’t hard work as opposed to laziness what counts?

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]If you feel passionately enough, feel free to work to overturn hate crime legislations, just like others have worked hard to get them on the books, or just like gays are working hard for full equality.

Isn’t hard work as opposed to laziness what counts?[/quote]

I believe the operative words last election were ‘you didn’t build that’.

[spdrun]

Personally, I think that the US is too much of a lost cause for me to have any chance to change it. I’d sooner move.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi] …..

I personally think that driving down from Lakeside to Hillcrest and killing a gay person because the killer hates gays is more heinous than killing the neighbor who slept with the wife.

. . .[/quote]

Why? And let’s add a wrinkle – what if the neighbor who slept with the wife was a woman? Which aspect of the neighbor would be considered most important, if you were the judge? Your preconceived notions kept you from identifying the gender of the “offender” . . .

[FlyerInHi]

spd, I get ya. You’re pretty consistent, so I can respect your point of view.

You’re like the anti-establishment tech entrepreneur, global citizen, who doesn’t give a shit about social issues. You want little restrictions and you can accept that there’s a price to pay for that.

I’m more establishment because I’m thankful of what the establishment has given me. But I realize that the establishment needs to evolve and stay relevant. Traditions are discriminatory by definition and need to change over time.

Traditionalists say they don’t like selective social processes, but that’s exactly what tradition is. You define certain moral values as good and others as bad to be discriminated against, so you can preserve and perpetuate a certain way of life.

spd, on criminal law, I could see you saying “you did the crime, you do the time” to your son, cousin or nephew who committed a crime. That’s the price to pay for a screw up.

People from good families will tell their criminal relatives: “don’t worry, dear, we will get the best lawyer for you. We will ask the bishop, the mayor, the firechief, the scout leader, to vouch for you.” That’s the very definition of a discriminatory, selective process which is deep seated and institutionalized.

As I said before, the law is at best 1/2 of justice. You need all the other social institutions to apply the law. That’s why I asked for data. How many people are charged and convicted of hate crimes? I think very few.

But the law does send a message. And, over time, messages work in changing the culture.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=njtosd][quote=FlyerInHi] …..

I personally think that driving down from Lakeside to Hillcrest and killing a gay person because the killer hates gays is more heinous than killing the neighbor who slept with the wife.

. . .[/quote]

Why? And let’s add a wrinkle – what if the neighbor who slept with the wife was a woman? Which aspect of the neighbor would be considered most important, if you were the judge? Your preconceived notions kept you from identifying the gender of the “offender” . . .[/quote]

Ok, you got me here…

But reality is also important here. Maybe the husband would not kill the neighbor but ask to join in a dream come true. A lot of straight men dream of lesbian sex, at least among the people I talk to.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd]
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.[/quote]

With regard to women, crimes are generally committed by men against women within the family or the same social group.

If men are married to women or live with them, I don’t see how that fits in the hate category, as I understand it.

But if you want to add women, and broaden the definition of hate crimes, feel free to work to convince our lawmakers. That doesn’t take away from the need of having hate crime laws to send a message.

[spdrun]

How would I say this — I have less of a problem with disparate sentences due to character and people asking the judge for leniency than people getting longer or shorter sentences largely due to differences in race or ethnicity. The latter smacks of repeating the mistakes of another era in reverse.

As far as people who “screw up”, I’d be more tolerant of people who do so in hot blood (say got in a barfight and it went too far) than people who do so in cold blood (“knockout game” type stuff, regardless of victim’s origin).

spd, on criminal law, I could see you saying “you did the crime, you do the time” to your son, cousin or nephew who committed a crime. That’s the price to pay for a screw up.
People from good families will tell their criminal relatives: “don’t worry, dear, we will get the best lawyer for you. We will ask the bishop, the mayor, the firechief, the scout leader, to vouch for you.” That’s the very definition of a discriminatory, selective process which is deep seated and institutionalized.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun] The latter smacks of repeating the mistakes of another era in reverse.[/quote]

Not quite.

The mistakes of the past were that people were resistant to change. Their hatred was so deep seated that enforcement and judicial institutions involved refused to enforce the law, and subverted the law.

I suggest that we look at reality — the data. Unequal prosecution and sentencing still exist today, generally to a lesser extent, but also to a greater extent in many cases.

If I recall, the data show drug dealing by Blacks is prosecuted and punished more harshly than the same crimes by Whites.

Some localities don’t even enforce the law, and that’s why we need mechanisms for the State and Federal governments to get involved.

Again, on hate crime laws, we need to look at the data. Are too many people charged and convicted of hate crimes? Does the data show that punishments don’t fit the crimes?

Where is the harm?

I think that hate crime laws are needed today for the messages they send. They may no longer be needed in the future.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

With regard to women, crimes are generally committed by men against women within the family or the same social group.

If men are married to women or live with them, I don’t see how that fits in the hate category, as I understand it.

[/quote]

1. I now believe you are brian.

2. I have known so many men over the years that dislike/hate women but are nonetheless hetero. They end up getting married, which is a pity.

3. How else would you categorize violence by men who attack women who they don’t know?

[spdrun]

2. There are probably more het folk of either gender who dislike the opposite gender than is the case with gay folk. More of a chance that they’ve been hurt during a bad relationship, since they’re actually interested in such.

[Author]

Posts