I'm going to cover my head and wince after I ask this...

[East_TN_Patriot]

Perhaps if more people hated the hate crimes, there wouldn't be a need for additional punishment for bigotry fueled violence.

If someone is stripped of their life or liberty, solely because they were born a certain way, the person that denied them their right to pursue happiness deserves a harsher punishment.

Every day of the week.

But by creating hate crime legislation, you are placing the value of one person's life above another, which is a violation of the legal principles our nation was founded on. Our system is based on the idea of equal protection under the law and the idea of "protected classes" with regards to hate crime legislation is wrong. How should it be fair and legal that if I am murdered that my life isn't worth an enhanced penalty because I don't have sex with another man, don't practice a certain religion, or don't have a certain color skin?

[RobertNashville]

I respectfully disagree; I think that is exactly what some people are suggesting with the "lifestyle" argument. Why mention it otherwise? The only reason one would even introduce the idea is to make a point that if it's a "lifestyle" that means they choose that path and if they don't like the special benefits our society has given to heterosexual couples, then that's just tough. I'm not aware of any homosexuals who want "more rights" than anyone else. They just want to have access to the same benefits we have attached to heterosexual marriage. As long as our government provides special benefits to heterosexual couples by sanctioning a religious ceremony, then they have an obligation under the principles of law to extend those same benefits to other domestic partnerships. This is why I advocate two major changes in governmental policy:

1) The state should not sanction "marriage," but should issue civil union recognition to any couples who want it and provide equal benefits to all forms of civil unions. If the religious aspect of marriage is important to a couple, then they are free to head to the church and participate in that religious ceremony, which would provide zero additional benefits. In short, the state would not recognize religious "marriage" and would only recognize the civil union.

2) Eliminate the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax, which will do away with all sorts of "special class" type benefits that are built into the tax code.

Lifestyle, genes, cosmic dust...I don't care what makes someone homosexual or heterosexual...how about we just do away with all benefits government bestows on "married couples"? If that wont' fly then as I already said earlier that I've no problem with "civil unions".

I am also all for doing away with any special tax benefits/breaks for "married couples" or any other group...regardless of whether it's the "fair tax" a flat tax or whatever; tax policy should be about collecting taxes, not manipulating social policy.

[Oh Shoot]

..how about we just do away with all benefits government bestows on "married couples"?...

Because it's not just the gummit. As mentioned above, it's insurance companies, banks (figure loans based on married joint income, whatever), adoption agencies, whatever, off top o' bean...

- OS

[Guest mosinon]

But by creating hate crime legislation, you are placing the value of one person's life above another, which is a violation of the legal principles our nation was founded on. Our system is based on the idea of equal protection under the law and the idea of "protected classes" with regards to hate crime legislation is wrong. How should it be fair and legal that if I am murdered that my life isn't worth an enhanced penalty because I don't have sex with another man, don't practice a certain religion, or don't have a certain color skin?

I get your point.You are arguing that a beating is a beating and a murder is a murder. It doesn't matter why you did what you did, it is just what you did. Compelling. But, taken to the logical conclusion, a two year old who shoots Dad in the back because he left his gun out gets the chair just the same as a mass murderer.

We will agree that seems crazy. Therefore, on some level, we will agree that motivation matters. A husband that comes home and finds his his wife with another girl in bed and shoots her is probably not the same threat to society that Ted Bundy was. Not that the guy who came home wasn't wrong, he should've got out a video camera (you could sell that stuff), not a gun but he isn't out actively hunting victims.

So we've decided that motivation matters and hence, it is an easy leap to say if commit a crime out of hate instead of out of greed then the punishment should be worse. It kind of makes sense. If I beat the crap out of you for a loaf of bread because my family is starving people can empathize with that. If I beat the crap out of you because you're listening to Lady gaga...well... let me use a better example. If I beat the crap out of you because you have blue eyes that isn't as easy to internalize as the bread thing.

Of course motivation matters but do we really need hate crime legislation? only if we hamstring the judges with mandatory sentences and such. There should be enough leeway in sentencing that people who commit crimes for heinous reasons are punished more severely than people who commit crimes for less heinous reasons.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Lifestyle, genes, cosmic dust...I don't care what makes someone homosexual or heterosexual...how about we just do away with all benefits government bestows on "married couples"? If that wont' fly then as I already said earlier that I've no problem with "civil unions".

I am also all for doing away with any special tax benefits/breaks for "married couples" or any other group...regardless of whether it's the "fair tax" a flat tax or whatever; tax policy should be about collecting taxes, not manipulating social policy.

That's what the Fair Tax does. It's a federal sales tax that everyone pays when they purchase goods and services. Everyone pays. Illegal aliens, tourists, drug dealers, everyone. The only tax break one would get is if they choose not to spend as much. It's no different than the state sales tax here in Tennessee in lieu of an income tax.

As another of my posts above notes, I never said that civil unions should get any sort of special government benefit. It would be a legal designation for couples because that relationship is important for civil law, probate & property law, and insurance purposes.

[Oh Shoot]

...So we've decided that motivation matters and hence, it is an easy leap to say if commit a crime out of hate instead of out of greed then the punishment should be worse. It kind of makes sense. If I beat the crap out of you for a loaf of bread ....

Holy crap. Totally lucid!

Seriously, a great condensation of the societal logic behind different levels of criminal charges/punishment.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

That's what the Fair Tax does....

I'm convinced the Fair Tax would have beau coup benefits we haven't even yet identified.

But it takes away gummit control, by making the source anonymous. And voting blocs can't be manipulated with tweaking the tax code. So we'll never see it.

- OS

Edited April 15, 2011 by OhShoot

[East_TN_Patriot]

I get your point.You are arguing that a beating is a beating and a murder is a murder. It doesn't matter why you did what you did, it is just what you did. Compelling. But, taken to the logical conclusion, a two year old who shoots Dad in the back because he left his gun out gets the chair just the same as a mass murderer.

No, that's not any sort of logical conclusion. There is simply nothing remotely similar about a 2 year old, who legally can't form criminal intent or be held criminally culpable for any crime whatsoever, and an adult who commits multiple cases of murder. That's about as absurd a comparison as any I've ever heard. I'm saying that if a rational adult commits a murder based primarily on the fact that the victim has some arbitrary characteristic the perpetrator doesn't like, the penalty should be the same. Our system says punishment should be based on the merits of the crime, not politically motivated labels.

There is plenty of discretion built into the law and sentencing to account for mitigating and aggravating factors, which is why we have manslaughter vs. murder (per your other absurd comparison between Ted Bundy and the cheating spouse scenario). Our system already accounts for motivation, but with the hate crime legislation, they've gone one step further and said that hating certain groups is worse than hating other groups. So, essentially, they are saying that one type of hate or prejudice is worse than another type of hate or prejudice.

If someone kills me because I am white, my killer is not going to be charged with a hate crime because I'm not a "protected class." If I kill a black man because he's black, I get an enhanced penalty. Explain to me how that is fair for anyone? A very good example of this situation was seen in the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murders here in Knox County. Five black offenders, one whom even made disparaging comments about the victims' race, and two white victims, yet it was not treated as a hate crime. The aggravating factor here is doing someone harm out of hate, not someone's race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation. Hate crime laws are concerned with arbitrary labels, not the actual harmful motivation behind a crime.

Edited April 15, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[strickj]

No, that's not any sort of logical conclusion. There is simply nothing remotely similar about a 2 year old, who legally can't form criminal intent or be held criminally culpable for any crime whatsoever, and an adult who commits multiple cases of murder. That's about as absurd a comparison as any I've ever heard.

There is plenty of discretion built into the law and sentencing to account for mitigating and aggravating factors, which is why we have manslaughter vs. murder (per your other absurd comparison between Ted Bundy and the cheating spouse scenario). Our system already accounts for motivation, but with the hate crime legislation, they've gone one step further and said that hating certain groups is worse than hating others. If someone kills me because I am white, my killer is not going to be charged with a hate crime because I'm not a "protected class." If I kill a black man because he's black, I get an enhanced penalty. Explain to me how that is fair for anyone? A very good example of this situation was seen in the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murders here in Knox County. The aggravating factor here is doing someone harm due to some arbitrary label, not someone's race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation. Hate crime laws are concerned with arbitrary labels, not the actual harmful motivation behind a crime.

Think about it.

When has there ever been a problem with "hate" crimes against white guys for being white?

[Oh Shoot]

No, that's not any sort of logical conclusion. There is simply nothing remotely similar about a 2 year old, who legally can't form criminal intent or be held criminally culpable for any crime whatsoever, and an adult who commits multiple cases of murder. That's about as absurd a comparison as any I've ever heard..

I do believe that part was hyperbole to make extended point.

The hate crime part of your argument is persuasive, though.

I rather see it as an "anti sociopath" effort, though, and not sure we indeed do need it, as basically motiveless violence is already sociopathic.

It's sort of like robbing a 7-11 with a handgun gets you more time than doing it with a machete.

- OS

[Guest mosinon]

No, that's not any sort of logical conclusion. There is simply nothing remotely similar about a 2 year old, who legally can't form criminal intent or be held criminally culpable for any crime whatsoever, and an adult who commits multiple cases of murder. That's about as absurd a comparison as any I've ever heard. I'm saying that if a rational adult commits a murder based primarily on the fact that the victim has some arbitrary characteristic the perpetrator doesn't like, the penalty should be the same. Our system says punishment should be based on the merits of the crime, not politically motivated labels.

There is plenty of discretion built into the law and sentencing to account for mitigating and aggravating factors, which is why we have manslaughter vs. murder (per your other absurd comparison between Ted Bundy and the cheating spouse scenario). Our system already accounts for motivation, but with the hate crime legislation, they've gone one step further and said that hating certain groups is worse than hating other groups. So, essentially, they are saying that one type of hate or prejudice is worse than another type of hate or prejudice.

If someone kills me because I am white, my killer is not going to be charged with a hate crime because I'm not a "protected class." If I kill a black man because he's black, I get an enhanced penalty. Explain to me how that is fair for anyone? A very good example of this situation was seen in the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murders here in Knox County. Five black offenders, one whom even made disparaging comments about the victims' race, and two white victims, yet it was not treated as a hate crime. The aggravating factor here is doing someone harm out of hate, not someone's race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation. Hate crime laws are concerned with arbitrary labels, not the actual harmful motivation behind a crime.

You keep saying intent doesn't matter while also saying it does.

I get it, it is a tough thing to wrap a mind around. Intent should not matter when it comes to the brown people but it should matter when it comes to two year olds.

Whatever works for you.

[BigK]

Because it's not just the gummit. As mentioned above, it's insurance companies, banks (figure loans based on married joint income, whatever), adoption agencies, whatever, off top o' bean...

- OS

Banks and insurance companies are out to make a buck any way they can legally get it. You can get joint loans w/out marriage. Business partners do it all the time. Qualifying for loans and getting insurance rates has become nearly a pure statistical game.

I thought the adoption agencies didn't have a problem giving gays kids to raise. I must be out of the loop on that one.

[Oh Shoot]

Banks and insurance companies are out to make a buck any way they can legally get it. You can get joint loans w/out marriage. Business partners do it all the time. Qualifying for loans and getting insurance rates has become nearly a pure statistical game.

I thought the adoption agencies didn't have a problem giving gays kids to raise. I must be out of the loop on that one.

Loans: Yes, biz partners can do it, because they can show the bank they have a legally contractual relationship, so that their assets can be lumped together. Same sex couples cannot as a matter of normal course. I suppose you can draw up papers of incorporation or of some other sort to perhaps link any two individuals together for the same purpose, but it's easier to just be "married" without additional intrigue.

As far as life insurance, a company will NOT simply not allow you to make just any one your beneficiary. I looked into that. Being a "friend" or "lover", indeed even "ex-husband/wife" on a new policy doesn't generally qualify.

SOME same sex couples are able to adopt, but it's almost always an additional hurdle. Most of them get the kid with only one having actual custodial rights.

Most things are possible with the right legal documents, I guess, but married folks get a lot by default just by that marriage. And there ARE still the gummit issues that no legal contract can change, like SSI survivor benefits, joint income tax filing, military spouse benefits, I'm sure some others.

- OS

Edited April 15, 2011 by OhShoot

[BigK]

...SOME same sex couples are able to adopt, but it's almost always an additional hurdle. Most of them get the kid with only one having actual custodial rights...

I guess if you're gay and want to adopt, you have to be on Oprah.

[Guest monkeyhumper]

I think the most important thing we need to do is find these psychopathic 2 year olds and eat them before they kill again.

I'm thinking a hearty stew.

~~

I read a good example using graffiti as the crime. If some spraypaint shows up on the garage of the Couple X that just moved into the neighborhood, if it's a smiley face, it's a base misdemeanor, and the perpetrators are slapped on the wrist. If it says "GO AWAY, N*****S", then you have the crime, as well as a much more powerful catalyst that elicits huge amounts of fear, and that victimizes an entire community of people.

(If the spraypaint said 'go away honkey', you know we'd just chuckle, open another PBR, and go back to listening to Sugar Ray.)

It really wasn't long ago when the "protected classes" were killed for their color resulting in little to no penalty at all for the acting party, and as long as bigotry exists, people need to know there are stiffer consequences for their hatred.

I get what is being said about 'all persons being equal' and all, but... they AREN'T equal. The protected classes are judged, suppressed, victimized, paid less, given fewer opportunities, on and on, etc, etc, etc, etc. If everyone WERE equal, the case against HCL could be effectively made.

[LagerHead]

[...]

I get what is being said about 'all persons being equal' and all, but... they AREN'T equal. The protected classes are judged, suppressed, victimized, paid less, given fewer opportunities, on and on, etc, etc, etc, etc. If everyone WERE equal, the case against HCL could be effectively made.

So what makes you think that someone who won't enforce a law against murdering another human is going to enforce one against hate crime? It's either against the law or it isn't. And I have never heard of someone being murdered out of love, have you?

[Mike.357]

And I have never heard of someone being murdered out of love, have

you?

I would say that this type of murder is fairly common. While it is a twisted way to show ones love domestic violence happens.

[LagerHead]

I would say that this type of murder is fairly common. While it is a twisted way to show ones love domestic violence happens.

I fail to see how domestic violence is a crime of love. I've known wife beaters and it was always a question of control, jealousy, and insecurity. Love never entered into the equation.

[Mike.357]

I did not explain it well.

In the mind of the abuser it is in the name of love. They beat and or kill their loved one because they love them sooooooo much. Like I said, twisted.

[USMCJG]

Perhaps if more people hated the hate crimes, there wouldn't be a need for additional punishment for bigotry fueled violence.

If someone is stripped of their life or liberty, solely because they were born a certain way, the person that denied them their right to pursue happiness deserves a harsher punishment.

Every day of the week.

BS. We already have a system in place that punishes people for the nature and severity of a crime without taking race, religion, creed etc. into account. When justice isn't blind to these things it can never be fair and equal. You can't really believe that we should all be equal under the law, except that some should be more equal than others can you? Hate crime laws divide. Period.

[USMCJG]

Think about it.

When has there ever been a problem with "hate" crimes against white guys for being white?

According to FBI statistics, there were 567 cases of racially motivated black on white crime in the year 1998 alone. In fact, per capita, racially motivated black on white crime is much more prevalent than racially motivated white on black crime. Just because it rarely makes the national news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And I still despise hate crime legislation, no matter which way it works. The problem in the past was that people sometimes weren't considered equal in the eyes of the law. Continuing, and officially condoning, the same policy is not a logical solution.

[LagerHead]

I did not explain it well.

In the mind of the abuser it is in the name of love. They beat and or kill their loved one because they love them sooooooo much. Like I said, twisted.

Twisted indeed.

According to FBI statistics, there were 567 cases of racially motivated black on white crime in the year 1998 alone. In fact, per capita, racially motivated black on white crime is much more prevalent than racially motivated white on black crime. Just because it rarely makes the national news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And I still despise hate crime legislation, no matter which way it works. The problem in the past was that people sometimes weren't considered equal in the eyes of the law. Continuing, and officially condoning, the same policy is not a logical solution.

Oh yes it does. That's how we know that guns are never used for defensive....oh, wait.

[East_TN_Patriot]

You keep saying intent doesn't matter while also saying it does.

I get it, it is a tough thing to wrap a mind around. Intent should not matter when it comes to the brown people but it should matter when it comes to two year olds.

Whatever works for you.

No, it's not a tough thing to wrap my mind around. I fully understand the point you are trying to make and we don't agree. I say that the criminal's intent is what matters, not the color of the victim's skin. Why is that so tough for you to wrap your mind around? A crime motivated simply by hate for an arbitrary characteristic is a terrible crime, and that should factor into the case because such blatant disregard for human life is worthy of a harsher punishment, but I don't agree that one brand of hate is worse than another brand of hate. The idea of a "protected class" is nothing more than a political flavor of the month whereby a specific group gets preferential treatment by lawmakers. It's equally bad if a black man kills a white man over race-based hatred, or if a white man kills a black man over race-based hatred. There is no fundamental difference. The issue is hate, not who managed to convince the legislature to give them special victim status.

Are you really trying to suggest that a 2 year old can have criminal intent? Really? Are you REALLY trying to argue that point? If so, please don't ever vote, go into law enforcement, or serve on jury because that is ludicrous. It also goes against every ideological principle in our legal system.

Edited April 16, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest mosinon]

No, it's not a tough thing to wrap my mind around. I fully understand the point you are trying to make and we don't agree. I say that the criminal's intent is what matters, not the color of the victim's skin. Why is that so tough for you to wrap your mind around? A crime motivated simply by hate for an arbitrary characteristic is a terrible crime, and that should factor into the case because such blatant disregard for human life is worthy of a harsher punishment, but I don't agree that one brand of hate is worse than another brand of hate. The idea of a "protected class" is nothing more than a political flavor of the month whereby a specific group gets preferential treatment by lawmakers. It's equally bad if a black man kills a white man over race-based hatred, or if a white man kills a black man over race-based hatred. There is no fundamental difference. The issue is hate, not who managed to convince the legislature to give them special victim status.

Are you really trying to suggest that a 2 year old can have criminal intent? Really? Are you REALLY trying to argue that point? If so, please don't ever vote, go into law enforcement, or serve on jury because that is ludicrous. It also goes against every ideological principle in our legal system.

Great, we agree completely. We concur why you did the crime is an important as the crime. We also concur that beating/killing someone based on race or some other reason is particularly heinous and should be punished more harshly.

That was easy.

[eapking]

A husband that comes home and finds his his wife with another girl in bed and shoots her ...

Whoa. A guy who does that is just plain nuts. Me...I'm pulling up a chair.