Conquer Club

I know, another political thread. But I think that the Brits and Aussies and others on here would be able to relate to this as well.

Anyways, I don't see that it is an absolute must have for all states, counties, whatever you have where you live, because not all places are racist to such a degree to need it (and going by that, I'm also talking both sides of the fence here). What do you think?

Laws should be preventative, not reactionary. So I would vote yes.

I'm not much for policing the world. The countries that should have it pretty much already have it.

I think it's overused as it is, so I don't see it necessary everywhere.

muy_thaiguy wrote:I know, another political thread. But I think that the Brits and Aussies and others on here would be able to relate to this as well.

Anyways, I don't see that it is an absolute must have for all states, counties, whatever you have where you live, because not all places are racist to such a degree to need it (and going by that, I'm also talking both sides of the fence here). What do you think?

Ah, but no matter how low the percentage of racists are, there will almost always be at least one. Let's say that we had a town that was comprised entirely of responsible drivers. Should they remove the speed limits and assume that they can limit themselves?

Hypotheticals aside, why would you not have hate crime laws in place? It isn't hurting anyone.

Frigidus wrote: Should they remove the speed limits and assume that they can limit themselves?

.

yes, everywhere.

Norse wrote:

Frigidus wrote: Should they remove the speed limits and assume that they can limit themselves?

.

yes, everywhere.

That would be fine if that only applied to me. Unfortunately, there are way to many people that I know that...well, I'd never drive again.

Frigidus wrote:

Norse wrote:

Frigidus wrote: Should they remove the speed limits and assume that they can limit themselves?

.

yes, everywhere.

That would be fine if that only applied to me. Unfortunately, there are way to many people that I know that...well, I'd never drive again.

Good, less queuing for me.

If it is a just law then why not put it in place,it wont be used if everybody behaves in an equitable fashion.

comic boy wrote:If it is a just law then why not put it in place,it wont be used if everybody behaves in an equitable fashion.

Further to this, let's use an analogy:

State A has no laws against murder.
The constituents of State A believe murder to be a crime.
State A currently has no murderers thus no law against murder is required.

The logic above is faulty. It does not consider the fact that murders may (and likely will) take place in the future. This possibility becomes even higher if there is no law (read: deterrent) against murders.

darvlay wrote:

comic boy wrote:If it is a just law then why not put it in place,it wont be used if everybody behaves in an equitable fashion.

Further to this, let's use an analogy:

State A has no laws against murder.
The constituents of State A believe murder to be a crime.
State A currently has no murderers thus no law against murder is required.

The logic above is faulty. It does not consider the fact that murders may (and likely will) take place in the future. This possibility becomes even higher if there is no law (read: deterrent) against murders.

Problem with that is, murder is a crime in every state, so it is kind of a bad example to use.

Anyways, if a man kills another, no matter the minority to which they might be that was killed, the murderer, regardless of their background, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Even getting Life in prison even though many would push for the death penalty.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

darvlay wrote:

comic boy wrote:If it is a just law then why not put it in place,it wont be used if everybody behaves in an equitable fashion.

Further to this, let's use an analogy:

State A has no laws against murder.
The constituents of State A believe murder to be a crime.
State A currently has no murderers thus no law against murder is required.

The logic above is faulty. It does not consider the fact that murders may (and likely will) take place in the future. This possibility becomes even higher if there is no law (read: deterrent) against murders.

Problem with that is, murder is a crime in every state, so it is kind of a bad example to use.

Anyways, if a man kills another, no matter the minority to which they might be that was killed, the murderer, regardless of their background, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Even getting Life in prison even though many would push for the death penalty.

It's an analogy. It's not about murder, I'm just showing the faulty logic in saying there is no law needed for a crime where the crime is not likely to be committed. There is no way of confirming that the crime will never occur and furthermore the absence of law against that crime will raise the probability of that crime being committed in the future.

You state that if a man kills another man (ie. commits a crime that is widely accepted as a crime) he will be punished to the full extent of the law. What if there was no law against murder? What then would be the punishment?

This is why I state in my first post laws are preventative not reactionary.

Another analogy would be drunk driving. There are no drunk drivers in my city, so it's not against the law. Do you see how that could create trouble in the future if an alcoholic moves into town?

The problem with a preventative hate law is it's ability to be abused. I'm from the south and any time a white-on-black crime took place race was automatically assumed to be a motive and it was investigated as a hate crime. Sometimes this was the case but often times it wasn't and there was a completely seperate motive having nothing to do with race, but nevertheless it was pursued as a hate crime, which carries heavier punishment. That's why I would say they should not be in place everywhere and at times they are overused.

hate crime laws are racist laws

how can you give a larger punishment to someone based on the race of the victim ?
how can you give a softer punishment to someone because of the victim's race ?

Ah, hate crimes. A legal term that is based on the asumption that, while it might not be so bad to be beat-up, rape and/or kill someone, hating them is a bad, bad thing. Hating them because of their belonging to certain religius, ethnic or racial group that is; since hating people for other, valid, reasons is not so bad.

Here is my effort to help reduce the hate crimes:


LOVE YOUR VICTIMS!

darvlay wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

darvlay wrote:

comic boy wrote:If it is a just law then why not put it in place,it wont be used if everybody behaves in an equitable fashion.

Further to this, let's use an analogy:

State A has no laws against murder.
The constituents of State A believe murder to be a crime.
State A currently has no murderers thus no law against murder is required.

The logic above is faulty. It does not consider the fact that murders may (and likely will) take place in the future. This possibility becomes even higher if there is no law (read: deterrent) against murders.

Problem with that is, murder is a crime in every state, so it is kind of a bad example to use.

Anyways, if a man kills another, no matter the minority to which they might be that was killed, the murderer, regardless of their background, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Even getting Life in prison even though many would push for the death penalty.

It's an analogy. It's not about murder, I'm just showing the faulty logic in saying there is no law needed for a crime where the crime is not likely to be committed. There is no way of confirming that the crime will never occur and furthermore the absence of law against that crime will raise the probability of that crime being committed in the future.

You state that if a man kills another man (ie. commits a crime that is widely accepted as a crime) he will be punished to the full extent of the law. What if there was no law against murder? What then would be the punishment?

This is why I state in my first post laws are preventative not reactionary.

Another analogy would be drunk driving. There are no drunk drivers in my city, so it's not against the law. Do you see how that could create trouble in the future if an alcoholic moves into town?

Like I said, murder is a poor example to use for this. A good example, would be back in 1998. A college student was found beaten badly on a fence post a little ways out of town. And since he was gay, it was automatically assumed he was killed for that. As the investigation went in, it was found that he attended the college in the town but that a couple of other guys had met up with him at a local bar. The only thing is, there wasn't any gay bars in the town, it was just a normal bar. When the news of the murder went national, many gay rights groups started to pressure the state government to bring about hate crime laws, even though the student's parent's didn't want that kind of thing to happen. Many people in the town were outraged for many reasons, that a good student had been killed, the media making the locals out to be intolerant hicks, and people that had never lived there before trying to impose laws that had not been needed before. The Hate Crime Law was defeated, so it was not passed. The locals wanted the murderers to get the execution. However, due to the parents requests, the murderers recieved life in prison with no parole.

The story above is about Matthew Shephard from right here in my own hometown. And as you can see, the criminals were punished to the full extent of the law. However, it does not mean that everyone needs a hate crime law passed. It may for some, but not everyone.

duck wrote:The problem with a preventative hate law is it's ability to be abused. I'm from the south and any time a white-on-black crime took place race was automatically assumed to be a motive and it was investigated as a hate crime. Sometimes this was the case but often times it wasn't and there was a completely seperate motive having nothing to do with race, but nevertheless it was pursued as a hate crime, which carries heavier punishment. That's why I would say they should not be in place everywhere and at times they are overused.

How it that abuse of the law? It's the burden of the prosecutor to prove that a hate crime has taken place. If he feels there is necessary evidence for a conviction, why should he not pursue it? That's how the courts work.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Like I said, murder is a poor example to use for this. A good example, would be back in 1998. A college student was found beaten badly on a fence post a little ways out of town. And since he was gay, it was automatically assumed he was killed for that. As the investigation went in, it was found that he attended the college in the town but that a couple of other guys had met up with him at a local bar. The only thing is, there wasn't any gay bars in the town, it was just a normal bar. When the news of the murder went national, many gay rights groups started to pressure the state government to bring about hate crime laws, even though the student's parent's didn't want that kind of thing to happen. Many people in the town were outraged for many reasons, that a good student had been killed, the media making the locals out to be intolerant hicks, and people that had never lived there before trying to impose laws that had not been needed before. The Hate Crime Law was defeated, so it was not passed. The locals wanted the murderers to get the execution. However, due to the parents requests, the murderers recieved life in prison with no parole.

The story above is about Matthew Shephard from right here in my own hometown. And as you can see, the criminals were punished to the full extent of the law. However, it does not mean that everyone needs a hate crime law passed. It may for some, but not everyone.

What a lovely tale.

Sorry but I feel that hate crimes and discrimination should be punishable under law as do most judicial systems in North America. If you have a problem with activists, the media and the court of public opinion, that's another thing altogether.

I'm also sorry you didn't get my point.

darvlay wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Like I said, murder is a poor example to use for this. A good example, would be back in 1998. A college student was found beaten badly on a fence post a little ways out of town. And since he was gay, it was automatically assumed he was killed for that. As the investigation went in, it was found that he attended the college in the town but that a couple of other guys had met up with him at a local bar. The only thing is, there wasn't any gay bars in the town, it was just a normal bar. When the news of the murder went national, many gay rights groups started to pressure the state government to bring about hate crime laws, even though the student's parent's didn't want that kind of thing to happen. Many people in the town were outraged for many reasons, that a good student had been killed, the media making the locals out to be intolerant hicks, and people that had never lived there before trying to impose laws that had not been needed before. The Hate Crime Law was defeated, so it was not passed. The locals wanted the murderers to get the execution. However, due to the parents requests, the murderers recieved life in prison with no parole.

The story above is about Matthew Shephard from right here in my own hometown. And as you can see, the criminals were punished to the full extent of the law. However, it does not mean that everyone needs a hate crime law passed. It may for some, but not everyone.

What a lovely tale.

Sorry but I feel that hate crimes and discrimination should be punishable under law as do most judicial systems in North America. If you have a problem with activists, the media and the court of public opinion, that's another thing altogether.

I'm also sorry you didn't get my point.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel the need to make laws so some people are more protected then others, it kind of takes away the whole equality thing, you know?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

darvlay wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Like I said, murder is a poor example to use for this. A good example, would be back in 1998. A college student was found beaten badly on a fence post a little ways out of town. And since he was gay, it was automatically assumed he was killed for that. As the investigation went in, it was found that he attended the college in the town but that a couple of other guys had met up with him at a local bar. The only thing is, there wasn't any gay bars in the town, it was just a normal bar. When the news of the murder went national, many gay rights groups started to pressure the state government to bring about hate crime laws, even though the student's parent's didn't want that kind of thing to happen. Many people in the town were outraged for many reasons, that a good student had been killed, the media making the locals out to be intolerant hicks, and people that had never lived there before trying to impose laws that had not been needed before. The Hate Crime Law was defeated, so it was not passed. The locals wanted the murderers to get the execution. However, due to the parents requests, the murderers recieved life in prison with no parole.

The story above is about Matthew Shephard from right here in my own hometown. And as you can see, the criminals were punished to the full extent of the law. However, it does not mean that everyone needs a hate crime law passed. It may for some, but not everyone.

What a lovely tale.

Sorry but I feel that hate crimes and discrimination should be punishable under law as do most judicial systems in North America. If you have a problem with activists, the media and the court of public opinion, that's another thing altogether.

I'm also sorry you didn't get my point.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel the need to make laws so some people are more protected then others, it kind of takes away the whole equality thing, you know?

Who would be more protected in this instance and who is being discriminated against?

mandalorian2298 wrote:Ah, hate crimes. A legal term that is based on the asumption that, while it might not be so bad to be beat-up, rape and/or kill someone, hating them is a bad, bad thing. Hating them because of their belonging to certain religius, ethnic or racial group that is; since hating people for other, valid, reasons is not so bad.

Here is my effort to help reduce the hate crimes:


LOVE YOUR VICTIMS!

You have helped save the world good mandalorian.

darvlay wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

darvlay wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Like I said, murder is a poor example to use for this. A good example, would be back in 1998. A college student was found beaten badly on a fence post a little ways out of town. And since he was gay, it was automatically assumed he was killed for that. As the investigation went in, it was found that he attended the college in the town but that a couple of other guys had met up with him at a local bar. The only thing is, there wasn't any gay bars in the town, it was just a normal bar. When the news of the murder went national, many gay rights groups started to pressure the state government to bring about hate crime laws, even though the student's parent's didn't want that kind of thing to happen. Many people in the town were outraged for many reasons, that a good student had been killed, the media making the locals out to be intolerant hicks, and people that had never lived there before trying to impose laws that had not been needed before. The Hate Crime Law was defeated, so it was not passed. The locals wanted the murderers to get the execution. However, due to the parents requests, the murderers recieved life in prison with no parole.

The story above is about Matthew Shephard from right here in my own hometown. And as you can see, the criminals were punished to the full extent of the law. However, it does not mean that everyone needs a hate crime law passed. It may for some, but not everyone.

What a lovely tale.

Sorry but I feel that hate crimes and discrimination should be punishable under law as do most judicial systems in North America. If you have a problem with activists, the media and the court of public opinion, that's another thing altogether.

I'm also sorry you didn't get my point.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel the need to make laws so some people are more protected then others, it kind of takes away the whole equality thing, you know?

Who would be more protected in this instance and who is being discriminated against?

Do you not get the point of it? A murderer is a murderer, and a victim is a victim, no more so then anyone else is, regardless of their minority or whatever it is. It is as simple as that.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Do you not get the point of it? A murderer is a murderer, and a victim is a victim, no more so then anyone else is, regardless of their minority or whatever it is. It is as simple as that.

I don't agree. There are different degrees of murder and there are different degrees of victimhood.

Motive plays an important role in the conviction though. If I kill a man for "looking at me in a funny way" or because he murdered my wife makes quite a difference. I imagine that with hate-crimes the possibility of the criminals repeating the crime is bigger.

darvlay wrote:

duck wrote:The problem with a preventative hate law is it's ability to be abused. I'm from the south and any time a white-on-black crime took place race was automatically assumed to be a motive and it was investigated as a hate crime. Sometimes this was the case but often times it wasn't and there was a completely seperate motive having nothing to do with race, but nevertheless it was pursued as a hate crime, which carries heavier punishment. That's why I would say they should not be in place everywhere and at times they are overused.

How it that abuse of the law? It's the burden of the prosecutor to prove that a hate crime has taken place. If he feels there is necessary evidence for a conviction, why should he not pursue it? That's how the courts work.

Like I said, I'm in the South. It's really easy to prove. Basically if at any point you have said the n word or called someone black, even as a description, you are racist.. I suppose it's not the systems fault it is this way, but the general perception is that some amount of racism/hate is involved in inter-racial crimes. And like others have said, is there some reason the punishment should be greater if it is a hate crime? The heavier punishment makes no sense to me except that it is there to appease activists.