Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Matt]

The "hate crime" idea is complete bullshit and only and idiot supports the idea of "hate crimes". All intentional crimes are "hate crimes", nothing special just because there might be some "bigoted motivation".

You are full of shit and you know it

 

[Einherjar86]

No, he's not. How come crimes committed against whites, perpetrated by blacks aren't labeled "hate crimes?"

 

[Matt]

Because the vast majority of crimes committed are not hate crimes. They are crimes of desperation or are profit driven.

A crime like what happened at Rutgers IS a hate crime, because the only motivation was sexual orientation. Explain to me how it wasn't.

 

[Dak]

Because this kind of prank never happens to non-gays amirite?

Because the vast majority of crimes committed are not hate crimes. They are crimes of desperation or are profit driven.

So what? A crime is a crime is a crime.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah I'd like to hear a solid argument for how the "hate crime" classification is a benefit to society, and how that benefit outweighs the problem of alienating a lot of people (well more so than usual) from our criminal justice system and making that system easier to abuse.

 

[damnromulans]

Hate crime punishment is supposed to discourage people from being bigots but it obviously doesn't matter/work. It's too flawed and just generates massive resentment in white people, rich people, men, straight people, blah blah blah - as showcased here.

As for the suicide, bullying is shitty and anyone who has been bullied ever can tell you that. However living well is the best revenge and killing yourself just nominates you for a Darwin Award. Plenty of soft hearts will make you a martyr, but you let the bullies win if you END YOUR DAMN LIFE over it. Sheesh.

Personally no matter how troubled, unless you truly have no one and nothing left to live for, killing yourself is incredibly selfish.

 

[WCannibal]

Speaking of bullying, anyone else hear about this Sweden United bullshit? Basically, a bunch of Swedish metal bands got together and wrote a shitty metalcore single about bullying with hilariously bad songwriting and self-pitying lyrics.

 

[Der Morgenstern]

Edit: NM, going at this from a diff angle.

Is the result different between a "hate crime" or doing the same thing at random to someone? Why does a particular motive make a crime worse?

If Joe my pals goes down to the local Vietnamese owned liquor store and robs Phung Guc Ho Chi Minh, is he doing it because the guy is Vietnamese or because he wants the fucking money?

That's the fucking difference. It's pretty easy to grasp.

 

[Dak]

The end result was the same, a robbery was committed. The guy isn't "more robbed" because it was racially motivated, or "less robbed" if it wasn't. That the motive was different doesn't matter one damn bit.

 

[Krow]

A black man kills a white man in an attempted robbery.
A white man kills a black man because he hates black people.

Identify the crime which should be more heavily punished.

Now that I think about it, the idea of a hate crime is pretty stupid. The
outcome of a hate crime and a "regular crime" are the same fucking thing.

 

[Valerie]

The end result was the same, a robbery was committed. The guy isn't "more robbed" because it was racially motivated, or "less robbed" if it wasn't.

"From a psychological standpoint, hate crimes may have extreme consequences:

• effects on people – psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.

• effect on the targeted group – generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.

• effect on other vulnerable groups – ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups."

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

That the motive was different doesn't matter one damn bit.

o rly



edit: inb4 ""

 

[Cythraul]

• effects on people – psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.

There are many things that have negative repercussions on a person's self-esteem which we do not, and would not wish to, prohibit. Why is it that this becomes relevant when considering violent crimes or destruction of property?

• effect on the targeted group – generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.

Presumably crimes motivated by greed or desperation tend to inspire feelings of vulnerability in anybody who has a wallet.

 

[Valerie]

There are many things that have negative repercussions on a person's self-esteem which we do not, and would not wish to, prohibit. Why is it that this becomes relevant when considering violent crimes or destruction of property?

Probably because violent crimes and destruction of property are illegal.

Presumably crimes motivated by greed or desperation tend to inspire feelings of vulnerability in anybody who has a wallet.

I doubt a Jew in 1943 cared much about a theft when there were haters going around snatchin' people up tryina kill 'em.

 

[Einherjar86]

Because the vast majority of crimes committed are not hate crimes. They are crimes of desperation or are profit driven.

A crime like what happened at Rutgers IS a hate crime, because the only motivation was sexual orientation. Explain to me how it wasn't.

This is stupid. How can you truly tell what the motivation for a crime is? People can claim all they want. A black man can rob a white man at gunpoint and say "I wanted his money," but that doesn't mean he doesn't harbor racist tensions against white people.

"From a psychological standpoint, hate crimes may have extreme consequences:

• effects on people – psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim's identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.

• effect on the targeted group – generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.

• effect on other vulnerable groups – ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups."

"Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

What the fuck Val, "non-hate" crimes have just as much of a psychological impact. A white woman gets raped by a black man (or robbed, threatened, etc.); do you not think it results in psychological trauma?

 

[Cythraul]

Probably because violent crimes and destruction of property are illegal.

I don't think you quite understood my point. We generally don't think that something ought to be prohibited on the basis of its effect on somebody's sense of identity or self-esteem. Lots of things I could say or non-violent things I could do would tend to have a similar effect. But we wouldn't want those things to be prohibited on that basis. Since we already prohibit violent acts and property destruction, then why is the consideration about identity and self-esteem a reason for creating some special category of violent acts and property destruction in the law? We already have a perfectly good basis for prohibiting those things. Why is it legitimate to use reasons for singling these acts out when those reasons usually aren't considered legitimate bases for making law?

I doubt a Jew in 1943 cared much about a theft when there were haters going around snatchin' people up tryina kill 'em.

So what?

 

[Valerie]

What the fuck Val, "non-hate" crimes have just as much of a psychological impact. A white woman gets raped by a black man (or robbed, threatened, etc.); do you not think it results in psychological trauma?

Of course on an individual level there is psychological trauma no matter what. The thing to look at is who and how many people in society are impacted by it. Do you think society would be concerned by a guy raping (for instance) black women because they are black, or more concerned by a guy raping a woman for a specific reason that only applies to that one woman?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The end result was the same, a robbery was committed. The guy isn't "more robbed" because it was racially motivated, or "less robbed" if it wasn't. That the motive was different doesn't matter one damn bit.

Yea but you said all crime is hateful, lol

I could easily rob a store with a smile on my face and hurt no one.

You're being too objective...

There is HUGE difference between me robbing a store because I need the money (Crime) and/or robbing the store because it's owned by a Muslim.(Hate Crime)

We are not talking about impact here, but intention. We are humans, not comets.

 

[skeptik]

We totally already had this discussion a month ago.

How "hate" killings get lambasted like they are somehow different from any other type of murder. Murder is murder.

So you think crimes of passions and crimes based purely upon the colour of your skin are equal in their severity?

Well 'severity' leaves it a bit open. If someone walks in on their hot wife and someone of an inferior race in bed, and blows them away with the old shotgun, is it worse than if the same thing happened but the guy with a shotgun was a member of antifa and their black girlfriend was having an affair with krig?

There's a fairly obvious difference between killing somebody to take his money and killing somebody because he's gay or black or transgender.

christ dakryn could you really not know that please tell me you knew that

Or killing a child. Child murder, racial murder, mentally challenged murder=heroin dealer killing another heroin dealer? I think not.

Yeah, but don't you think the punishment should basically be the same? I mean, regardless of one's motives, the result is the same; a most likely innocent person has been killed. It's not a crime to harbor personal beliefs against someone because they're gay, black, etc. (although I'm not saying it's right); therefore, I'm not sure that whether a person kills someone because they don't like their ethnicity or because they just wanted their money really matters.

So you think crimes of passions and crimes based purely upon the colour of your skin are equal in their severity?

Well 'severity' leaves it a bit open. If someone walks in on their hot wife and someone of an inferior race in bed, and blows them away with the old shotgun, is it worse than if the same thing happened but the guy with a shotgun was a member of antifa and their black girlfriend was having an affair with krig?

Or killing a child. Child murder, racial murder, mentally challenged murder=heroin dealer killing another heroin dealer? I think not.

Yeah, but don't you think the punishment should basically be the same? I mean, regardless of one's motives, the result is the same; a most likely innocent person has been killed. It's not a crime to harbor personal beliefs against someone because they're gay, black, etc. (although I'm not saying it's right); therefore, I'm not sure that whether a person kills someone because they don't like their ethnicity or because they just wanted their money really matters.

I don't believe in prison anyway but that turns into a huge debate that isn't for this thread.



Self defense and murder are two totally different things. No one is faulting the other guard who shot mr old guy.

But if you killed in self-defense you wouldn't get punished anyway.

EDIT: @ DEVA

But the result is still the same. A person is dead.

But that's not what you said.

If you're robbing somebody for money, then you've accomplished your goal once you get the money, unless you either need more money or have a money fetish. Committing a crime out of hatred, however, is another matter, since hatred is an unlimited resource. As long as there are black people, the person that I described is liable to continue to commit crimes of prejudice. Robberies are generally committed with the express purpose of acquiring 'needed' material goods and are not motivated by some intangible passion of ideology.

Oh, well I'm talking about how it can matter the reason one person killed another.

If I gun you down because I don't like your family lineage or because I want your wallet, the result is the same an innocent person was killed.

If I miss and you pull your own gun out and shoot and kill me, the result is different. An attempted murderer was killed.

In other words, the motivation for the action is important.

See, I believe that a thief is just as likely to repeat the offense as someone who did so out of personal beliefs. If a person has resorted to robbery as a means to survive, then it's likely that he or she will attempt it again. Either way, it's a respect for human life that's being ignored. I agree that motives can help in the investigation of a crime and the ensuing prosecution; but I don't think that the punishment for a person who killed someone and then robbed them should be any less than that of a person who dragged someone of a different ethnicity behind his/her car and then killed them.



Well, this is where investigations comes in handy.

Hyopthetically:
Someone pleads self defense; he's a wealthy, successful businessman with no previous record of criminal activity. What can we deduce? Most likely, he's telling the truth.

Now, you have another man who pleads self defense; he's from a poor neighborhood, has just been fired (or laid off, quit, whatever), and has a history of criminal activity. Chances are, he wasn't acting in self defense.

Furthermore, the chances that we're dealing with a situation in which there's a Patrick Bateman wandering around killing homeless people is slim, so I think it's justifiable to say that the investigation will arrive at the correct conclusion.

I'm uncomfortable with hate crime laws just because of its relation to free speech. I do agree though that motive should be considered when determining a sentence.

You're missing the point. If a mugger is attacking people for their wallets, he does so only as long as he needs money; he can be rehabilitated, because if he has a steady income he won't need to steal and therefor won't. There's no rehabilitating the Klansman short of somehow changing his mind, which I don't think is likely. So motivation matters because it affects whether future crimes can be prevented. In a murder case it's not particularly relevant because if convicted the killer will go to jail for life or be executed.


Or because liberals like free speech...

I'm not missing the point; I've already said, I disagree.

First of all, the mugger in this discussion is not simply "attacking" people for their wallets. We have specifically stated earlier in the thread that, in our hypothetical situation, the mugger "killed" the person he robbed. That automatically elevates the crime from robbery to intentional murder.

Second of all, a mugger who is "killing" people and taking their wallets is not more likely to be rehabilitated than a person who is killing people based on personal biases. I highly doubt that a mugger is going to rob a few people (and kill them, mind you) and then think "Gee, I have enough money to last me a while, I think I'll get a job now." Someone who actually thinks like that wouldn't kill someone in the first place. Furthermore, if we agree that this murderer/thief does deserve a chance at rehabilitation, I feel that a racist killer does as well.

Finally, we're arguing over those who murder someone should be punished differently, purely because of the reason they committed the crime. If a person kills someone due to racist beliefs, it is no worse than killing someone because he or she wanted their money; the motive is different, but the crime is still premeditated and intentional. In my opinion, it's stupid to differentiate when dealing out punishment.

I agree that motive is paramount in determining guilt, but not in assigning the degree of discipline.

Actually, I don't recall ever saying in my example that the mugger killed his victim.

You said that "a person [who] kills someone due to racist beliefs...is no worse than killing someone because he or she wanted their money." This is obviously where we disagree. A person who robs another person is in all likelihood resorting to an action, perhaps through necessity. This is not a person that has a desire to commit a crime, but rather has decided that this is his or her easiest solution outside of moral ramifications. A person who commits a crime out of prejudice is doing so out of a desire. Now, I think we can both agree that acting out of a desire to do something is more compelling than resorting to an action. I would imagine that those who rob others out of a mere desire to do so are in a considerable minority, whereas those who attack others due to intolerant biases against certain social identifying classes are most likely doing it because they genuinely want to do it and feel no compulsion that that 'have' to do it, like a father stealing medicine for his sick child or something.

As to your last sentence, I don't think that I disagree with you, and I don't think that I implied that I do. I do not think that a hate crime should necessarily receive a longer sentence, but I do find that it is far more likely to be deserved. I passionately object to the arbitrary nature of determining length of prison sentences to begin with, however, as I'd hinted earlier. I believe that every individual case should be handled entirely individually and should be constantly reevaluated. In fact I think that the definite prison term should be done away with entirely. I don't think that people should be released from prison unless they don't appear to be likely to commit further crimes.

I thought we were arguing about the same crime, but the motives behind the crime differed. Maybe I misread earlier...



Yeah, you've nailed our disagreement. I just feel that it doesn't matter whether or not a person wants to kill another human being; the fact that they're willing to take that final step proves that there's some kind of imbalance there. Furthermore, it's for a reason that, in my personal opinion, cannot be justified (in either case). Even if a person kills and robs someone for money to feed his or her family, that person is infringing upon the life of another human being, and I don't believe that you can decrease the sentence simply because he or she may not have wanted to kill that person.

.

 

[Pessimism]

Intent and motive are extremely important. You cannot only consider the end result of a crime, example: a robber has murdered his victim in three separate scenario's.

S1: Motive: "I wanted his money, he was loaded and at an atm - yeah I took that chance. If he didn't fight back I prob wouldn't have accidentally fired my weapon..."

S2: "Those Jews always have money, so it was no surprise he had a fat stack of cash leaving that atm; and let's face it, one less Jew in the world isn't a bad thing."

S3: "He just wanted a hug... so I gave him one! And he gave me flowers! He told me to have them... and then he left me... told me to run away..."

Yeah, in the end someone was robbed. On top of that they lost their life. The difference here between the scenario's though is the entire intent and motive. Why is this important? Because you do not charge every single case the same way, it is a case by case basis. The whole point of participating in a society that is bound by a social contract is that you stand by it and act in accordance with the rules and bylaws that have been set. You wouldn't say any of the crimes above are the same because they are not. S1 was only a robbery, the death was accidental. S2 was not only a motivated murder, it was hateful in its nature; the intent shows exactly where a person stands in regards to other humans and to society by and large. S3 is a fucking insane person who committed a tragic crime (but because said person is mentally unstable, and thought something else was occurring, cannot be tried as a normal sapient human being - accountability must be suspended for the time being until further evidence comes into play). Cases cannot be treated the same just because in the end the same outcome occurred.

 

[Der Morgenstern]

The end result was the same, a robbery was committed. The guy isn't "more robbed" because it was racially motivated, or "less robbed" if it wasn't. That the motive was different doesn't matter one damn bit.

No, but guy stood more of a chance of surviving the robbery than if the the guy committing the crime also hated him based on his race. Chances are if you're going to rob someone based on the desire for cash than the fact that the person you're robbing is of a race you dislike, you're going to be less prone to turn to violence in the first instance than in the second.