I dont think you've proven that every "hate crime" strikes fear into the hearts of other people...
Not "every", but the vast majority. And in those rare cases where one does not, the jury or judge is empowered to depart (despite Blinking Spirit's claims to the contrary)
I dont think you've proven that every "hate crime" strikes fear into the hearts of other people...
Not "every", but the vast majority. And in those rare cases where one does not, the jury or judge is empowered to depart (despite Blinking Spirit's claims to the contrary)
So... if Jon punchs the only gay kid in school for being gay... Jon made the gay people somewhere else afraid and therefore needs to be extra punished or would that not be "hate crime" material in your eyes?
I dont think you've proven that every "hate crime" strikes fear into the hearts of other people...
Not "every", but the vast majority. And in those rare cases where one does not, the jury or judge is empowered to depart (despite Blinking Spirit's claims to the contrary)
So... if Jon punchs the only gay kid in school for being gay... Jon made the gay people somewhere else afraid and therefore needs to be extra punished or would that not be "hate crime" material in your eyes?
Hell yes extra punished sounds pretty good to me.
Bearing in mind, of course, that 'punished' in this case probably means a suspension, extra punished should probably mean suspension plus some mandatory after school counseling, something along those lines. Throwing bullies in front of a court facing serious charges for a first offense isn't something I'd endorse, hate crime or no*.
*I'm assuming Jon in your example isn't a guy who has a long history of terrorizing the gays in his school - if we start talking about someone who routinely beats the crap out of members of a group for being in that group, then yeah, that is a problem that needs to be stopped before someone gets killed, and yeah I'd accept juvenile detention if he's under 18, prison if he's over as the solution.
I dont think you've proven that every "hate crime" strikes fear into the hearts of other people...
Not "every", but the vast majority. And in those rare cases where one does not, the jury or judge is empowered to depart (despite Blinking Spirit's claims to the contrary)
So... if Jon punchs the only gay kid in school for being gay... Jon made the gay people somewhere else afraid and therefore needs to be extra punished or would that not be "hate crime" material in your eyes?
Hell yes extra punished sounds pretty good to me.
Bearing in mind, of course, that 'punished' in this case probably means a suspension, extra punished should probably mean suspension plus some mandatory after school counseling, something along those lines. Throwing bullies in front of a court facing serious charges for a first offense isn't something I'd endorse, hate crime or no*.
*I'm assuming Jon in your example isn't a guy who has a long history of terrorizing the gays in his school - if we start talking about someone who routinely beats the crap out of members of a group for being in that group, then yeah, that is a problem that needs to be stopped before someone gets killed, and yeah I'd accept juvenile detention if he's under 18, prison if he's over as the solution.
Okay, how about the guy who punches the racist guy? It could easily be classified as a hate crime, but it won't be, because overtly racist people are an unprotected minority. Are people born racist? Is it a product of mental issues that can be solved through treatment? It doesn't matter, because no one is out to help them.
Hate crime laws allow courts to have opinions. Everyone should have the right to impartiality, even scumbags.
Wait, did someone seriously ask the question of "who protects the racists?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Okay, how about the guy who punches the racist guy? It could easily be classified as a hate crime, but it won't be, because overtly racist people are an unprotected minority. Are people born racist? Is it a product of mental issues that can be solved through treatment? It doesn't matter, because no one is out to help them.
Hate crime laws allow courts to have opinions. Everyone should have the right to impartiality, even scumbags.
Racism, non-racism, anti-racism, and all possible stances on the racism question receive exactly the same protection (which in this case is "no special protection"). I don't see the complaint.
So write a law for "intimidation crime" or something. You're wandering away from the point. The point is that the hate crime law does not identify the harm it is supposed to be punishing. If you want to punish harm, write a law that says it's punishing harm.
I don't see the difference beyond semantics.
Semantics is the meaning of words and symbols. If there is a semantic difference, the words mean different things. Do you not think the meanings of the words in a law might be important?
But you would also prosecute for involuntary manslaughter. Intent matters, and so do results. It doesn't matter whether the criminal thinks to himself "I'm gonna go kill someone to strike fear into the hearts of other people". If his killing is of the sort that strikes fear, that's good enough for me.
Never claimed otherwise. My problem is that looking for a bigoted motive is not looking for intent or results. It's looking for something that may be indirectly associated with the desired intent/results. It's as if the government banned crack pipes but forgot to actually ban crack.
You just cited the federal government's definition of terrorism. You know this isn't true.
is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;
Sounds a lot like violence for political protest to me. Factor out the "international" part (which is irrelevant to the question of whether the law would be constitutionally acceptable), and it seems like it applies perfectly.
If you assault your plant manager because he made you work late, that's a normal assault. If you assault your plant manager as a means of influencing or retaliating against government policy (for a communist agenda or any other political agenda), now you're potentially in terrorism territory.
Semantics is the meaning of words and symbols. If there is a semantic difference, the words mean different things. Do you not think the meanings of the words in a law might be important?
I would consider the difference between your proposed "intimidation crime" and the current hate crime laws to be rather minor. They target the same crimes, they have the same effect. I don't think it's particularly important which way the law is worded in this regard.
Never claimed otherwise. My problem is that looking for a bigoted motive is not looking for intent or results. It's looking for something that may be indirectly associated with the desired intent/results. It's as if the government banned crack pipes but forgot to actually ban crack.
I would say it's generally pretty directly associated with results.
Wait, did someone seriously ask the question of "who protects the racists?"
Just because someone's a racist doesn't mean they can be assaulted with impunity.
Yes, and that's covered under normal laws of assault. But asking the question of "why isn't there a hate crime statute that gives extra protection to racists" is uh....... stupid. And socially vile/toxic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Wait, did someone seriously ask the question of "who protects the racists?"
Just because someone's a racist doesn't mean they can be assaulted with impunity.
Yes, and that's covered under normal laws of assault. But asking the question of "why isn't there a hate crime statute that gives extra protection to racists" is uh....... stupid. And socially vile/toxic.
No one is asking for new statutes. A courtroom that operates strictly by-the-book becomes emotional when hate crimes are introduced. Suddenly the media is interested. 'Innocent until proven guilty' goes out the window once the courtroom brings up the idea that the defendant could be a bigot, which can be a really good way to put an innocent person in jail.
Personally I think hate crime laws do nothing to deter or prevent actual hate crimes.
I dont think you've proven that every "hate crime" strikes fear into the hearts of other people...
Not "every", but the vast majority. And in those rare cases where one does not, the jury or judge is empowered to depart (despite Blinking Spirit's claims to the contrary)
So... if Jon punchs the only gay kid in school for being gay... Jon made the gay people somewhere else afraid and therefore needs to be extra punished or would that not be "hate crime" material in your eyes?
Hell yes extra punished sounds pretty good to me.
Bearing in mind, of course, that 'punished' in this case probably means a suspension, extra punished should probably mean suspension plus some mandatory after school counseling, something along those lines. Throwing bullies in front of a court facing serious charges for a first offense isn't something I'd endorse, hate crime or no*.
*I'm assuming Jon in your example isn't a guy who has a long history of terrorizing the gays in his school - if we start talking about someone who routinely beats the crap out of members of a group for being in that group, then yeah, that is a problem that needs to be stopped before someone gets killed, and yeah I'd accept juvenile detention if he's under 18, prison if he's over as the solution.
You dont need a long history of bullying to be charged with Assault. If Jon punches someone he can be charged with assault. The idea that he would just get suspended is laughable. Sure that's how it would happen in most cases but it only takes 1 helicopter mom to throw the book at someone for hurting her poor baby. Also you can apply the same instance outside of school and suspension is not an option. If Dave walks up to a gay guy at a bar and punches him out cold for being gay that's assault... and my question for Tiax is, did that Assault somehow cause more damage to society than if Dave punched the guy out for no reason at all?
You dont need a long history of bullying to be charged with Assault. If Jon punches someone he can be charged with assault. The idea that he would just get suspended is laughable. Sure that's how it would happen in most cases but it only takes 1 helicopter mom to throw the book at someone for hurting her poor baby. Also you can apply the same instance outside of school and suspension is not an option. If Dave walks up to a gay guy at a bar and punches him out cold for being gay that's assault... and my question for Tiax is, did that Assault somehow cause more damage to society than if Dave punched the guy out for no reason at all?
You've found a problem in the system, but it isn't a problem with hate crime laws.
Though, look, if a guy is going around finding gay bars to pick fights at, how can you seriously defend that? That's exactly the situation hate crime laws are intended to prevent. That guy is taking action specifically to terrorize a community through violence. If he's 16, he should be punished as a 16 year old, if he's 18 he should be punished as an adult, but either way, that guy's well on his way to being a monster and the assumption that a very severe punishment for that action is wrong is frankly crazy.
You dont need a long history of bullying to be charged with Assault. If Jon punches someone he can be charged with assault. The idea that he would just get suspended is laughable. Sure that's how it would happen in most cases but it only takes 1 helicopter mom to throw the book at someone for hurting her poor baby. Also you can apply the same instance outside of school and suspension is not an option. If Dave walks up to a gay guy at a bar and punches him out cold for being gay that's assault... and my question for Tiax is, did that Assault somehow cause more damage to society than if Dave punched the guy out for no reason at all?
You've found a problem in the system, but it isn't a problem with hate crime laws.
Though, look, if a guy is going around finding gay bars to pick fights at, how can you seriously defend that? That's exactly the situation hate crime laws are intended to prevent. That guy is taking action specifically to terrorize a community through violence. If he's 16, he should be punished as a 16 year old, if he's 18 he should be punished as an adult, but either way, that guy's well on his way to being a monster and the assumption that a very severe punishment for that action is wrong is frankly crazy.
I love how your jumping to assumptions is practically proving my point. I never said anything about a gay bar. I said a guy at a bar. This is why I disagree with hate crime law. There are endless reasons why a drunk guy at a bar might punch someone. I dont think certain unprovoked reasons deserve to be treated differently than others. It shouldnt matter if it was "he looked at me funny", "he is a ***", "he is a n-word" or "he was wearing the same shirt as me!". All of those reasons are equally ridiculous and should be treated the same way.
You dont need a long history of bullying to be charged with Assault. If Jon punches someone he can be charged with assault. The idea that he would just get suspended is laughable. Sure that's how it would happen in most cases but it only takes 1 helicopter mom to throw the book at someone for hurting her poor baby. Also you can apply the same instance outside of school and suspension is not an option. If Dave walks up to a gay guy at a bar and punches him out cold for being gay that's assault... and my question for Tiax is, did that Assault somehow cause more damage to society than if Dave punched the guy out for no reason at all?
You've found a problem in the system, but it isn't a problem with hate crime laws.
Though, look, if a guy is going around finding gay bars to pick fights at, how can you seriously defend that? That's exactly the situation hate crime laws are intended to prevent. That guy is taking action specifically to terrorize a community through violence. If he's 16, he should be punished as a 16 year old, if he's 18 he should be punished as an adult, but either way, that guy's well on his way to being a monster and the assumption that a very severe punishment for that action is wrong is frankly crazy.
I love how your jumping to assumptions is practically proving my point. I never said anything about a gay bar. I said a guy at a bar. This is why I disagree with hate crime law. There are endless reasons why a drunk guy at a bar might punch someone. I dont think certain unprovoked reasons deserve to be treated differently than others. It shouldnt matter if it was "he looked at me funny", "he is a ***", "he is a n-word" or "he was wearing the same shirt as me!". All of those reasons are equally ridiculous and should be treated the same way.
I didn't jump to assumptions (jump to conclusions) - but I did misread what you wrote. I thought you wrote, "guy at a gay bar" where you actually wrote "gay guy at a bar" which does change the meaning a bit. Sorry bout that much of it.
HOWEVER, the point stands even in this situation. It's less powerful - he may not be specifically looking for fights with gays at that point, but he's still terrorizing people just for being gay. Yes, it's worse than just picking a fight for no reason (I'm from just outside of Boston, picking fights for no reason is pretty much what we do at bars...). It's much worse.
Sounds a lot like violence for political protest to me. Factor out the "international" part (which is irrelevant to the question of whether the law would be constitutionally acceptable), and it seems like it applies perfectly.
Nah, it's like how a mobster gets an enhanced sentence if he attacks a police officer or a DA. It's not necessarily a political act, unless "I don't want myself or my associates to be prosecuted for their crimes" counts as a political position.
I would consider the difference between your proposed "intimidation crime" and the current hate crime laws to be rather minor. They target the same crimes, they have the same effect. I don't think it's particularly important which way the law is worded in this regard.
Ah, the "meh" approach. But they don't target the same crimes. Hate crime laws target crimes committed for bigoted reasons regardless of whether or not they are intended to cause or actually cause the additional harm you're concerned about - and they only do so for specifically defined sorts of crimes, leaving holes in coverage like the Matthew Shepard murder. An intimidation law would just let the judge/jury ask, "Was this crime intended to cause, or did it actually cause, additional harm?" and act accordingly, regardless of whether the victim was attacked because he was black, or gay, or didn't pay his protection money, or anything else whatsoever. It actually gets at what you want to prevent: crime as a method of scaring the greater community. So why settle for the indirect approach? Why not do it the right way?
Nah, it's like how a mobster gets an enhanced sentence if he attacks a police officer or a DA. It's not necessarily a political act, unless "I don't want myself or my associates to be prosecuted for their crimes" counts as a political position.
I think that's different. Targeting someone who's involved with prosecuting you or your associates is not the same as terrorism, which has an inherently political motive. It's not targeted at those with whom the terrorist has some personal interaction or grievance.
Ah, the "meh" approach. But they don't target the same crimes. Hate crime laws target crimes committed for bigoted reasons regardless of whether or not they are intended to cause or actually cause the additional harm you're concerned about - and they only do so for specifically defined sorts of crimes, leaving holes in coverage like the Matthew Shepard murder. An intimidation law would just let the judge/jury ask, "Was this crime intended to cause, or did it actually cause, additional harm?" and act accordingly, regardless of whether the victim was attacked because he was black, or gay, or didn't pay his protection money, or anything else whatsoever. It actually gets at what you want to prevent: crime as a method of scaring the greater community. So why settle for the indirect approach? Why not do it the right way?
As I said, I don't object to that approach. But I think you're overstating the difference. The cases in which a hate crime would not cause any additional harm are pretty limited. And I still contend, contrary to your claims, that judges and juries are empowered to deviate in those cases.
Says that they are perfectly entitled to depart from the standard sentences if they find that the guidelines to do adequately account for any mitigating factors which would serve the interests defined here:
Certainly a finding that a crime, while technically meeting the definition of a hate crime, did not for whatever reason cause the additional harm hate crimes generally cause would qualify as a sufficient reason to depart, as it would pursue the goals of:
"to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;"
"Generally"? Again you're going with the "meh" approach.
I'm just acknowledging that there will be rare exceptions.
I never said that I believed that. I asked you to try to understand where other people are coming from.
As demonstrated by my citing of Loving v. Virginia, I understand perfectly well where he's coming from.
As demonstrated by my citing of Loving v. Virginia, he's completely wrong.
Too often I see people on different sides of a debate respond like children A:"I think this!" B: "no you are stupid because stupid which is stupid!".
This is the second time you've resorted to namecalling, first calling me a "douche" and now you're calling me a child. Such namecalling has no place in a forum of respectable discussion, although given the fact that you haven't even bothered to try to understand either Tiax's or my replies to your posts, it is clear that you have no interest in actual discussion.
Simply responding to someone's thoughts with "no that's discrimination you bigot!" is not going to get society anywhere in convincing people to change their minds.
He IS being discriminatory. The entire point of Loving v. Virginia is that what he's talking about is discrimination. If you can't grasp that, then you have no idea what you're talking about and certainly aren't in any place to criticize anyone else's comprehension of the topics of discussion.
I especially dont get it when it really doesnt matter that much...
You don't think it matters that much whether or not people are being legally discriminated against?
The law once said people could only marry people of their race. That was struck down. I not only referenced the ruling in my post, I also posted a link.
So are you in favor of segregated marriage? That law applied equally to everyone to. If not, give a reason why the two are different that isn't special pleading.
To help you out... A useful quote and example is this:
"A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."
Coincidentally, that statement is cited by both Justice Scalia AND Justice Ginsberg in different Supreme Court cases.
Now, a Christian might argue "Why, I have to pay the tax on yarmulkes just as a Jew would have to! We have equal rights - to buy a yarmulke and pay the tax, or buy something else and not pay the tax."
And that Christian is correct. They both have to pay the tax, so in one sense the law applies to them equally. So it's "equal rights".
But only someone who is a fool or intentionally trying to prop up anti-Semitic laws would argue that a tax on yarmulkes is not actually discriminatory against Jews. It may be equal, but only in a shallow and fatuous manner. In the deeper and more important sense, it is unequal. The tax applies to Jewish religious garb, and not to other religious garb, hence it is discriminatory against Jews.
By the logic of this argument, practically any form of horrible legal oppression heaped on gay people could actually be equal rights, as long as it was worded the right way. Ban on gay sex? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on same-sex holding hands or kissing? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on promotion of gay rights? Equally banned for straight people. The laws in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where gay people are put to death are actually equal rights, because straight people are also banned from having gay sex!
Not only are such formulations just sophistry meant to substitute shallow equality for true equality, but they are recognized for the foolishness that they are by American courts.
Can anyone (Bakgat, ljossberir, Fluffy Bunny?) find this non-argument mentioned anywhere in the Supreme Court decisions or dissents in the Prop 8 or DOMA cases? I'd be quite surprised to see it mentioned, even just to knock it down as the silliness it is. I'd even be surprised to find it anywhere in the legal briefs filed by the primary appellants or any amicus briefs.
By the logic of this argument, practically any form of horrible legal oppression heaped on gay people could actually be equal rights, as long as it was worded the right way. Ban on gay sex? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on same-sex holding hands or kissing? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on promotion of gay rights? Equally banned for straight people. The laws in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where gay people are put to death are actually equal rights, because straight people are also banned from having gay sex!
Word of rhetorical device. When performing this particular reductio, it is probably best to expand the circle of examples beyond other forms of anti-gay oppression, as the people you're arguing with are not in a position where we can expect them to strongly sympathize with gay people. (I would hope anyone would draw the line somewhere before executions, but you never know.) Turn it around so the thing being oppressed is something they care about. Like freedom of speech.
The law once said people could only marry people of their race. That was struck down. I not only referenced the ruling in my post, I also posted a link.
So are you in favor of segregated marriage? That law applied equally to everyone to. If not, give a reason why the two are different that isn't special pleading.
To help you out... A useful quote and example is this:
"A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."
Coincidentally, that statement is cited by both Justice Scalia AND Justice Ginsberg in different Supreme Court cases.
Now, a Christian might argue "Why, I have to pay the tax on yarmulkes just as a Jew would have to! We have equal rights - to buy a yarmulke and pay the tax, or buy something else and not pay the tax."
And that Christian is correct. They both have to pay the tax, so in one sense the law applies to them equally. So it's "equal rights".
But only someone who is a fool or intentionally trying to prop up anti-Semitic laws would argue that a tax on yarmulkes is not actually discriminatory against Jews. It may be equal, but only in a shallow and fatuous manner. In the deeper and more important sense, it is unequal. The tax applies to Jewish religious garb, and not to other religious garb, hence it is discriminatory against Jews.
By the logic of this argument, practically any form of horrible legal oppression heaped on gay people could actually be equal rights, as long as it was worded the right way. Ban on gay sex? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on same-sex holding hands or kissing? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on promotion of gay rights? Equally banned for straight people. The laws in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where gay people are put to death are actually equal rights, because straight people are also banned from having gay sex!
Not only are such formulations just sophistry meant to substitute shallow equality for true equality, but they are recognized for the foolishness that they are by American courts.
Can anyone (Bakgat, ljossberir, Fluffy Bunny?) find this non-argument mentioned anywhere in the Supreme Court decisions or dissents in the Prop 8 or DOMA cases? I'd be quite surprised to see it mentioned, even just to knock it down as the silliness it is. I'd even be surprised to find it anywhere in the legal briefs filed by the primary appellants or any amicus briefs.
Again... not my beliefs. Just trying to get people to understand what other people are saying.
I will bite though. What would you say about a special tax on hats in a society where only Jews had hats with religious meaning? If all hats are taxed at 30%(sales tax on everything else is standard 7%) and only Jews have religious hats is that an unfair tax on Jews?
I especially dont get it when it really doesnt matter that much...
You don't think it matters that much whether or not people are being legally discriminated against?
In the context of an internet debate which I believe should serve as a method to educate and sway readers/participants views? NO. I am sure Bagat and Joss and whoever else has the same opinion as them has heard the "that's discrimination! I dont care if you say otherwise" argument plenty of times. I find it irrelevant. Similarly, I find any discussion on whether or not it's a sin to be irrelevant. Why? Because it should not matter. Who gives a **** if it's sinful, who cares if technically there is nothing wrong with the laws as they are written? It should not matter. If someone somehow proved that it was not discriminatory would that change your mind on whether or not the law should change? There does not have to be a glaring issue with current law to change it. I think the majority of people would still say that the law should change to allow gay marriage. When it comes down to it... Marriage is nothing more than a legal fast track to getting a ton of paperwork done quickly(and some tax breaks). If that simple truth can be accepted then it should be trivial to raise support that marriage should be legally allowed between any consenting persons that are able to sign a legally binding contract.
Better examples. Incestous and polygamist marriages. Banning those seems 'arbitrary.'
How is that possibly arbitrary? Both of those cause very serious societal ills. Banning them is the exact opposite of arbitrary.
Proof? I'll give you incestuous because of the issues with having children there... but how is polygamy any worse for society than other forms of marriage? Admittedly it makes the paperwork more difficult... but that doesnt seem like a good reason to deny other people rights. In fact, Christians have the exact same argument against gay marriage as you just used for polygamous marriage.
Proof? I'll give you incestuous because of the issues with having children there... but how is polygamy any worse for society than other forms of marriage? Admittedly it makes the paperwork more difficult... but that doesnt seem like a good reason to deny other people rights. In fact, Christians have the exact same argument against gay marriage as you just used for polygamous marriage.
Right, the difference is that I can in fact demonstrate that polygamy causes societal ills, whereas one cannot demonstrate that for gay marriage.
Think of it this way: If one man married five women, then we now have four men who can't find partners. It causes the same impacts we see in countries where forces like selective abortion cause a big disparity in gender ratios. These excess young men turn to violence and crime. This isn't just theoretical: it's the result of sociological studies.
It causes the same impacts we see in countries where forces like selective abortion cause a big disparity in gender ratios. These excess young men turn to violence and crime. This isn't just theoretical: it's the result of sociological studies.
No, it hypothetically causes the same impacts. Because we haven't studied it. I would think that the same number of woman/man/man/etc pairings would exist as man/woman/woman/etc pairings (assuming any do). Note, I'm not talking about non-consensual pairings here -- purely consensual ones.
By the same logic: For every pair of gay men, there is a pair of women who can't find partners. (I'm not supporting that logic, just extending it).
That fails to account for gay women...
No, it hypothetically causes the same impacts. Because we haven't studied it.
But we have studied it...I linked to a study. That study is about polygamy, not about the impacts of other sources of gender ratio imbalance.
I would think that the same number of woman/man/man/etc pairings would exist as man/woman/woman/etc pairings (assuming any do). Note, I'm not talking about non-consensual pairings here -- purely consensual ones.
Unlike the case for gay women, polyandry (one woman, multiple men) is quite rare. Look at all the groups in the US that would practice polygamy more openly were it legal. They are without exception polygynous.
In the gay marriage case, the evidence points to rough parity (although it is true that homosexuality in men seems to be a bit more common), whereas for polygamy the evidence points to wide disparity.
Not "every", but the vast majority. And in those rare cases where one does not, the jury or judge is empowered to depart (despite Blinking Spirit's claims to the contrary)
http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/5k2_0.htm
So... if Jon punchs the only gay kid in school for being gay... Jon made the gay people somewhere else afraid and therefore needs to be extra punished or would that not be "hate crime" material in your eyes?
Hell yes extra punished sounds pretty good to me.
Bearing in mind, of course, that 'punished' in this case probably means a suspension, extra punished should probably mean suspension plus some mandatory after school counseling, something along those lines. Throwing bullies in front of a court facing serious charges for a first offense isn't something I'd endorse, hate crime or no*.
*I'm assuming Jon in your example isn't a guy who has a long history of terrorizing the gays in his school - if we start talking about someone who routinely beats the crap out of members of a group for being in that group, then yeah, that is a problem that needs to be stopped before someone gets killed, and yeah I'd accept juvenile detention if he's under 18, prison if he's over as the solution.
Okay, how about the guy who punches the racist guy? It could easily be classified as a hate crime, but it won't be, because overtly racist people are an unprotected minority. Are people born racist? Is it a product of mental issues that can be solved through treatment? It doesn't matter, because no one is out to help them.
Hate crime laws allow courts to have opinions. Everyone should have the right to impartiality, even scumbags.
Racism, non-racism, anti-racism, and all possible stances on the racism question receive exactly the same protection (which in this case is "no special protection"). I don't see the complaint.
Semantics is the meaning of words and symbols. If there is a semantic difference, the words mean different things. Do you not think the meanings of the words in a law might be important?
Never claimed otherwise. My problem is that looking for a bigoted motive is not looking for intent or results. It's looking for something that may be indirectly associated with the desired intent/results. It's as if the government banned crack pipes but forgot to actually ban crack.
Just because someone's a racist doesn't mean they can be assaulted with impunity.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sounds a lot like violence for political protest to me. Factor out the "international" part (which is irrelevant to the question of whether the law would be constitutionally acceptable), and it seems like it applies perfectly.
If you assault your plant manager because he made you work late, that's a normal assault. If you assault your plant manager as a means of influencing or retaliating against government policy (for a communist agenda or any other political agenda), now you're potentially in terrorism territory.
I would consider the difference between your proposed "intimidation crime" and the current hate crime laws to be rather minor. They target the same crimes, they have the same effect. I don't think it's particularly important which way the law is worded in this regard.
I would say it's generally pretty directly associated with results.
Yes, and that's covered under normal laws of assault. But asking the question of "why isn't there a hate crime statute that gives extra protection to racists" is uh....... stupid. And socially vile/toxic.
No one is asking for new statutes. A courtroom that operates strictly by-the-book becomes emotional when hate crimes are introduced. Suddenly the media is interested. 'Innocent until proven guilty' goes out the window once the courtroom brings up the idea that the defendant could be a bigot, which can be a really good way to put an innocent person in jail.
Personally I think hate crime laws do nothing to deter or prevent actual hate crimes.
You dont need a long history of bullying to be charged with Assault. If Jon punches someone he can be charged with assault. The idea that he would just get suspended is laughable. Sure that's how it would happen in most cases but it only takes 1 helicopter mom to throw the book at someone for hurting her poor baby. Also you can apply the same instance outside of school and suspension is not an option. If Dave walks up to a gay guy at a bar and punches him out cold for being gay that's assault... and my question for Tiax is, did that Assault somehow cause more damage to society than if Dave punched the guy out for no reason at all?
You've found a problem in the system, but it isn't a problem with hate crime laws.
Though, look, if a guy is going around finding gay bars to pick fights at, how can you seriously defend that? That's exactly the situation hate crime laws are intended to prevent. That guy is taking action specifically to terrorize a community through violence. If he's 16, he should be punished as a 16 year old, if he's 18 he should be punished as an adult, but either way, that guy's well on his way to being a monster and the assumption that a very severe punishment for that action is wrong is frankly crazy.
I love how your jumping to assumptions is practically proving my point. I never said anything about a gay bar. I said a guy at a bar. This is why I disagree with hate crime law. There are endless reasons why a drunk guy at a bar might punch someone. I dont think certain unprovoked reasons deserve to be treated differently than others. It shouldnt matter if it was "he looked at me funny", "he is a ***", "he is a n-word" or "he was wearing the same shirt as me!". All of those reasons are equally ridiculous and should be treated the same way.
I didn't jump to assumptions (jump to conclusions) - but I did misread what you wrote. I thought you wrote, "guy at a gay bar" where you actually wrote "gay guy at a bar" which does change the meaning a bit. Sorry bout that much of it.
HOWEVER, the point stands even in this situation. It's less powerful - he may not be specifically looking for fights with gays at that point, but he's still terrorizing people just for being gay. Yes, it's worse than just picking a fight for no reason (I'm from just outside of Boston, picking fights for no reason is pretty much what we do at bars...). It's much worse.
Ah, the "meh" approach. But they don't target the same crimes. Hate crime laws target crimes committed for bigoted reasons regardless of whether or not they are intended to cause or actually cause the additional harm you're concerned about - and they only do so for specifically defined sorts of crimes, leaving holes in coverage like the Matthew Shepard murder. An intimidation law would just let the judge/jury ask, "Was this crime intended to cause, or did it actually cause, additional harm?" and act accordingly, regardless of whether the victim was attacked because he was black, or gay, or didn't pay his protection money, or anything else whatsoever. It actually gets at what you want to prevent: crime as a method of scaring the greater community. So why settle for the indirect approach? Why not do it the right way?
"Generally"? Again you're going with the "meh" approach.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think that's different. Targeting someone who's involved with prosecuting you or your associates is not the same as terrorism, which has an inherently political motive. It's not targeted at those with whom the terrorist has some personal interaction or grievance.
As I said, I don't object to that approach. But I think you're overstating the difference. The cases in which a hate crime would not cause any additional harm are pretty limited. And I still contend, contrary to your claims, that judges and juries are empowered to deviate in those cases.
http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/5k2_0.htm
Says that they are perfectly entitled to depart from the standard sentences if they find that the guidelines to do adequately account for any mitigating factors which would serve the interests defined here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553
Certainly a finding that a crime, while technically meeting the definition of a hate crime, did not for whatever reason cause the additional harm hate crimes generally cause would qualify as a sufficient reason to depart, as it would pursue the goals of:
"to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;"
I'm just acknowledging that there will be rare exceptions.
As demonstrated by my citing of Loving v. Virginia, I understand perfectly well where he's coming from.
As demonstrated by my citing of Loving v. Virginia, he's completely wrong.
This is the second time you've resorted to namecalling, first calling me a "douche" and now you're calling me a child. Such namecalling has no place in a forum of respectable discussion, although given the fact that you haven't even bothered to try to understand either Tiax's or my replies to your posts, it is clear that you have no interest in actual discussion.
He IS being discriminatory. The entire point of Loving v. Virginia is that what he's talking about is discrimination. If you can't grasp that, then you have no idea what you're talking about and certainly aren't in any place to criticize anyone else's comprehension of the topics of discussion.
You don't think it matters that much whether or not people are being legally discriminated against?
"A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."
Coincidentally, that statement is cited by both Justice Scalia AND Justice Ginsberg in different Supreme Court cases.
Now, a Christian might argue "Why, I have to pay the tax on yarmulkes just as a Jew would have to! We have equal rights - to buy a yarmulke and pay the tax, or buy something else and not pay the tax."
And that Christian is correct. They both have to pay the tax, so in one sense the law applies to them equally. So it's "equal rights".
But only someone who is a fool or intentionally trying to prop up anti-Semitic laws would argue that a tax on yarmulkes is not actually discriminatory against Jews. It may be equal, but only in a shallow and fatuous manner. In the deeper and more important sense, it is unequal. The tax applies to Jewish religious garb, and not to other religious garb, hence it is discriminatory against Jews.
By the logic of this argument, practically any form of horrible legal oppression heaped on gay people could actually be equal rights, as long as it was worded the right way. Ban on gay sex? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on same-sex holding hands or kissing? Equally banned for straight people. Ban on promotion of gay rights? Equally banned for straight people. The laws in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where gay people are put to death are actually equal rights, because straight people are also banned from having gay sex!
Not only are such formulations just sophistry meant to substitute shallow equality for true equality, but they are recognized for the foolishness that they are by American courts.
Can anyone (Bakgat, ljossberir, Fluffy Bunny?) find this non-argument mentioned anywhere in the Supreme Court decisions or dissents in the Prop 8 or DOMA cases? I'd be quite surprised to see it mentioned, even just to knock it down as the silliness it is. I'd even be surprised to find it anywhere in the legal briefs filed by the primary appellants or any amicus briefs.
Word of rhetorical device. When performing this particular reductio, it is probably best to expand the circle of examples beyond other forms of anti-gay oppression, as the people you're arguing with are not in a position where we can expect them to strongly sympathize with gay people. (I would hope anyone would draw the line somewhere before executions, but you never know.) Turn it around so the thing being oppressed is something they care about. Like freedom of speech.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Again... not my beliefs. Just trying to get people to understand what other people are saying.
I will bite though. What would you say about a special tax on hats in a society where only Jews had hats with religious meaning? If all hats are taxed at 30%(sales tax on everything else is standard 7%) and only Jews have religious hats is that an unfair tax on Jews?
In the context of an internet debate which I believe should serve as a method to educate and sway readers/participants views? NO. I am sure Bagat and Joss and whoever else has the same opinion as them has heard the "that's discrimination! I dont care if you say otherwise" argument plenty of times. I find it irrelevant. Similarly, I find any discussion on whether or not it's a sin to be irrelevant. Why? Because it should not matter. Who gives a **** if it's sinful, who cares if technically there is nothing wrong with the laws as they are written? It should not matter. If someone somehow proved that it was not discriminatory would that change your mind on whether or not the law should change? There does not have to be a glaring issue with current law to change it. I think the majority of people would still say that the law should change to allow gay marriage. When it comes down to it... Marriage is nothing more than a legal fast track to getting a ton of paperwork done quickly(and some tax breaks). If that simple truth can be accepted then it should be trivial to raise support that marriage should be legally allowed between any consenting persons that are able to sign a legally binding contract.
Proof? I'll give you incestuous because of the issues with having children there... but how is polygamy any worse for society than other forms of marriage? Admittedly it makes the paperwork more difficult... but that doesnt seem like a good reason to deny other people rights. In fact, Christians have the exact same argument against gay marriage as you just used for polygamous marriage.
Right, the difference is that I can in fact demonstrate that polygamy causes societal ills, whereas one cannot demonstrate that for gay marriage.
Think of it this way: If one man married five women, then we now have four men who can't find partners. It causes the same impacts we see in countries where forces like selective abortion cause a big disparity in gender ratios. These excess young men turn to violence and crime. This isn't just theoretical: it's the result of sociological studies.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.full
(this is one example among others)
By the same logic: For every pair of gay men, there is a pair of women who can't find partners. (I'm not supporting that logic, just extending it).
No, it hypothetically causes the same impacts. Because we haven't studied it. I would think that the same number of woman/man/man/etc pairings would exist as man/woman/woman/etc pairings (assuming any do). Note, I'm not talking about non-consensual pairings here -- purely consensual ones.
That fails to account for gay women...
But we have studied it...I linked to a study. That study is about polygamy, not about the impacts of other sources of gender ratio imbalance.
Unlike the case for gay women, polyandry (one woman, multiple men) is quite rare. Look at all the groups in the US that would practice polygamy more openly were it legal. They are without exception polygynous.
In the gay marriage case, the evidence points to rough parity (although it is true that homosexuality in men seems to be a bit more common), whereas for polygamy the evidence points to wide disparity.
She actually quotes it from Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic which was a decision written by Scalia.
You were defending them as being arguments that shouldn't be just dismissed out of hand.
I was pointing out how hard they fail. It's not an argument worth defending.
But you need only point out that lesbians balance that out...