things you hate with a passion

[False Joe]

strip them nekkids.

ITS THE ONLY WAY.

 

[Einherjar86]

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

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

Bingo.

Hundreds of murders happen in the US, or around the world every 24 hours, but we have to hear/ read about Mr old guy shooting some security guard at a museum. Why is that any more important than any other murder that happened in the same 24 hour span? He probably didn't even know who he would shoot. He was just an angry old man who decided to go out with a bang. TThe whole concept of a "hate crime" somehow being worse than the same act with no racial/ethnic/etc reasons is bullshit.

 

[skeptik]

I think one's motive for committing a crime is just as, perhaps even more significant, than the crime itself, as it more accurately judges as to whether or not the person is likely to commit more crimes if it's a habitual action. A white supremacist who drags a black person behind his pick up truck because the person is black and he hates black people, for example, is more likely to do something similar again than a person who robs a random wealthy looking person at gunpoint for the sole purpose of acquiring money. Frankly, I don't think that motive is taken into account enough with respect to prison sentences. The "not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal" expression comes to mind. I've elaborated on my feelings on similar issues several times, but to boil it down into a simple point, I feel like our prison system's primary motive should be to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes, so obviously people who are more likely to commit a crime will naturally be addressed in a more severe manner than those who are less likely to do so. The "the result is the same" mentality to me is dangerous because it turns jail sentences into a mathematical formula even moreso than it already is, and I have always taken great issue with that.

 

[Vimana]

The "result is the same" mentality is stupid because that would mean you would have to punish someone who killed in self defense the same as you would punish someone who killed out of hate.

 

[SentinelSlain]

A white supremacist who drags a black person behind his pick up truck because the person is black and he hates black people, for example, is more likely to do something similar again than a person who robs a random wealthy looking person at gunpoint for the sole purpose of acquiring money.

really? if someone is willing to kill random people for money, then I say they are equally unfit to out free.

There's hate, and then there's being unfit for society through limited intelligence and tendency to violence.

 

[Dak]

I think one's motive for committing a crime is just as, perhaps even more significant, than the crime itself, as it more accurately judges as to whether or not the person is likely to commit more crimes if it's a habitual action. A white supremacist who drags a black person behind his pick up truck because the person is black and he hates black people, for example, is more likely to do something similar again than a person who robs a random wealthy looking person at gunpoint for the sole purpose of acquiring money. Frankly, I don't think that motive is taken into account enough with respect to prison sentences. The "not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal" expression comes to mind. I've elaborated on my feelings on similar issues several times, but to boil it down into a simple point, I feel like our prison system's primary motive should be to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes, so obviously people who are more likely to commit a crime will naturally be addressed in a more severe manner than those who are less likely to do so. The "the result is the same" mentality to me is dangerous because it turns jail sentences into a mathematical formula even moreso than it already is, and I have always taken great issue with that.

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

The "result is the same" mentality is stupid because that would mean you would have to punish someone who killed in self defense the same as you would punish someone who killed out of hate.

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

 

[Ross]

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

EDIT: @ DEVA

 

[Vimana]

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

 

[Ross]

But that's not what you said.

 

[skeptik]

really? if someone is willing to kill random people for money, then I say they are equally unfit to out free.

There's hate, and then there's being unfit for society through limited intelligence and tendency to violence.

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.

 

[Vimana]

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

 

[Dak]

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

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.

 

[skeptik]

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

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

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Wow, what a stupid debate.

 

[Vimana]

I just farted.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think one's motive for committing a crime is just as, perhaps even more significant, than the crime itself, as it more accurately judges as to whether or not the person is likely to commit more crimes if it's a habitual action. A white supremacist who drags a black person behind his pick up truck because the person is black and he hates black people, for example, is more likely to do something similar again than a person who robs a random wealthy looking person at gunpoint for the sole purpose of acquiring money. Frankly, I don't think that motive is taken into account enough with respect to prison sentences. The "not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal" expression comes to mind. I've elaborated on my feelings on similar issues several times, but to boil it down into a simple point, I feel like our prison system's primary motive should be to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes, so obviously people who are more likely to commit a crime will naturally be addressed in a more severe manner than those who are less likely to do so. The "the result is the same" mentality to me is dangerous because it turns jail sentences into a mathematical formula even moreso than it already is, and I have always taken great issue with that.

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.

The "result is the same" mentality is stupid because that would mean you would have to punish someone who killed in self defense the same as you would punish someone who killed out of hate.

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.

 

[cookiecutter]

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

Omg a high five moment with cookie on a political issue. Must be because it's my birthday.

 

[waif]

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.

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.

Omg a high five moment with cookie on a political issue. Must be because it's my birthday.

Or because liberals like free speech...