GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
Ken, I got my white ass jumped and mugged by four black dudes about a month ago and spent a week and a half in the hospital and am still not healed now. If they ever catch the guys who did should they be charged with a hate crime? We are different races you know? Or only if I was gay should these guys be charged with a hate crime if they are caught? Or should the gentlemen that beat my ass be quizzed on how they voted on Prop 8 to know if they hate gays?
I know all you can do is post cartoons but if you were ever so inclined Ken to actually write something feel free to do so now.
I know all you can do is post cartoons but if you were ever so inclined Ken to actually write something feel free to do so now.
Last edited:
Based Chad
Was it me?
signalmankenneth = huge fag
signalmankenneth
Verified User
AssHatZombie=Homophobia, possible latent homo
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=latent+homo
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Should violent crimes against one group be punished more heavily than violent crimes against another group?
Should we use the sexual orientation of the victim as a basis for the sentences handed down?
If I, as a heterosexual, get beaten up, why is that less of a crime than if a gay man gets beaten up?
Should we use the sexual orientation of the victim as a basis for the sentences handed down?
If I, as a heterosexual, get beaten up, why is that less of a crime than if a gay man gets beaten up?
cawacko
Well-known member
So you can respond Ken but can't post an actual thought?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
The problem I have with the hate crimes bill is that it comes awfully close to being a form of double jeapordy, which is constitutionally prohibitied.
If I physically attack a person I have committed a crime called assault.
If I physically attack a person with a premeditated motive, then that is a crime called aggravated assault.
Would not any so called hate crime be aggravated assault?
So essentially those convicted of a hate crime are being punished more harshly for attacking a minority then a non-minority.
The ethical problem here is that this sets a legal precedent that it is worse to assault a minority then a non-minority and is a double standard. The principle being here that it's not ok to assault anyone.
Therefore since citizens are all ready protected from crimes of violence by the law and since violent criminals are punished according to the degree of violence doesn't "Hate Crimes" legislation really equate to a "thought crime"? Isn't one actually being punished for what one thinks as opposed to what one actually does?
That's the slippery slope I see with hate crimes legislation. Laws all ready exist to protect citizens from acts of violence and to punish violent criminals. So with hate crimes legislation isn't it the thoughts that are being punished and not the action?
Isn't punishing thoughts unconstitutional? Do I not have the right to think what ever I want as long as I obey the law?
If I physically attack a person I have committed a crime called assault.
If I physically attack a person with a premeditated motive, then that is a crime called aggravated assault.
Would not any so called hate crime be aggravated assault?
So essentially those convicted of a hate crime are being punished more harshly for attacking a minority then a non-minority.
The ethical problem here is that this sets a legal precedent that it is worse to assault a minority then a non-minority and is a double standard. The principle being here that it's not ok to assault anyone.
Therefore since citizens are all ready protected from crimes of violence by the law and since violent criminals are punished according to the degree of violence doesn't "Hate Crimes" legislation really equate to a "thought crime"? Isn't one actually being punished for what one thinks as opposed to what one actually does?
That's the slippery slope I see with hate crimes legislation. Laws all ready exist to protect citizens from acts of violence and to punish violent criminals. So with hate crimes legislation isn't it the thoughts that are being punished and not the action?
Isn't punishing thoughts unconstitutional? Do I not have the right to think what ever I want as long as I obey the law?
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
In no way is this a defense of what happened but more info is needed. When you got mugged were the "four black dudes" shouting racial epithets at you, were they trying to steal your wallet or hijack your car, did they think you were messing with one of their girlfriends, what?
IMO a racial crime is when somebody attacks you because of your race, not in spite of it. From what you've posted, it seems you were a victim of a vicious crime, not a vicious racial crime.
cawacko
Well-known member
It happened so quick and I didn't see it coming so I was knocked out right away. My guess is I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it just happened. But it was in downtown LA and LA is not exactly known for its racial harmony. To me, whether I got my *ss beat because I was white or just unlucky it doesn't matter. They won't catch these guys but if they did i think they should be punished the same regardless.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So of they take his wallet they will get a lesser sentence?
This smells like punishing people for what they are thinking while they commit a crime. Its hard to prove and unfair.
christiefan915
Catalyst
If you, a heterosexual, gets beaten up by gay men because of your sexual orientation, or vice versa, IMO that's adding insult to injury.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Only if you believe that all gay men are the feminie swishy kind.
The retired NFL defensive lineman who came out of the closet is hardly swishy.
Stereotypes are hard to get rid of, aren't they?
christiefan915
Catalyst
I said no such thing about lesser sentence, actually, if the crime was race-based I think they should get a harsher sentence.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
If one gets a harsher sentence then the other is getting a lesser sentence because they took his wallet.
If the current punishment would be 5 years in prison, and you added 5 years for a hate crime, the "non-hate" crime would get the lesser sentence.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I really don't understand your point about "feminine swishy kind". Perhaps you can clarify. My point is that bigotry/racism that's tied to garden-variety aggression and violence should merit a harsher punishment.
No, if they also take the wallet they are culpable for two crimes, theft of the wallet plus a civil rights crime if it can be proven. "Hard to prove" only raises the bar, it does not negate the crime.
christiefan915
Catalyst
By definition, a "hate crime" is separate from a robbery, so the perps would be punished for two crimes instead of one. If an aggressor was charged with attacking a person strictly because of race, that's one crime. If the aggressor steals the wallet in addition to the attack, that's two crimes. Two crimes=more punishment.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I thought you were saying that a straight man being beaten up by gay men would be adding insult to injury. I misread what you intended to say.
The main reason I disagree with you is based on the same idea that Mottleydude posted. The idea that we add punishment for what people are thinking goes against what I believe law enforcement and justice should be doing.
Besides, if I murder people for fun or rob them violently for money, aren't I a greater danger to society as a whole?
cawacko
Well-known member
I can promise you the dudes who kicked my *ss didn't do it out love.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'm really sorry that this happened to you. Even though you think it's not likely, I hope they catch the goons and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.