• UK police begin recording attacks on punks, emos and goths as hate crimes
    69 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;40160879]And a longer prison term definitely helps with rehabilitation right?[/QUOTE] Theoretically, yes. However, prison systems are on the whole as fucked as the skull of any character in [I]A Serbian Film[/I].
I thought all attacks on people were hate crimes? Unless it's for financial gain.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40160709]Beating somebody up because of their culture is the basically the same thing.[/QUOTE] The victim doesn't feel as bad if they got beat up because they were doing something stupid vs if they were just beat up for no reason. Because they know it could happen again at any moment with no warning.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40158816]I'm sorry, but what the fuck? Goths, emos et. al. all come from pretty privileged backgrounds, and cannot even begin to compare to those who are actually oppressed with violence and hate. This whole thing will destroy the very meaning of a "hate crime" and dilute it into, well, nothing more than a crime.[/QUOTE] Well, most of those in disadvantaged groups probably accept some form of liberation ideology. Almost all liberation ideologies say that: there are oppressed, and oppressors. There are advantaged, and disadvantaged. There are privileged, and under-privileged. But ultimately, the distinctions are due to the system which oppresses, under-privileges, and disadvantages us all to some degree. The privileged must also liberate themselves from the oppression that affects them. The point of a hate crime classification is to punish the intent to disadvantage or oppress a certain classification of people. The fact that there are attacks on these people because of their cultural class obviously shows that there is oppression, under-privileging, disadvantaging occurring. That is always the intent on attacking a class of people. Simply because they are less disadvantaged than, say, homosexuals or racial minorities, does not mean they should not receive protection from cultural/social/economic so-on-and-so-forth discrimination, and I think that many liberation ideologues of traditionally disadvantaged classes would agree.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;40160432]Woah what? Self-defense is a motivation and I don't agree that people that kill someone in self-defense should get the same sentencing as a murderer. This is why motivation must be taken into account, less we punish people who didn't have a choice in what they did. [/QUOTE] I meant that self defense should be taken into account, all the other stuff should be ignored. Just because the judge feels sympathetic towards the guy somehow doesn't mean they should get a reduced sentence.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;40160487]Hate crime charges are stupid Someone should be punished for what they did, not their reasoning behind it[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what? That goes against the fundamentals of Western law. The [I]very first thing[/I] you learn about in American law education is that [I]intent[/I]- the "evil mind"- is the entire reason why we have judicial punishment. We don't punish someone who accidentally harms someone in a criminal court, nor do we punish someone who accidentally causes property damage in criminal court, etc. We punish crimes with [I]intent[/I]. "Oh shit I ran over your cat" is not punished as a crime, but "I killed your cat, and enjoyed it" is. "I'm sorry sir, I broke your window" would be met with "I'm going to sue you for damages", but "I broke your window to try and steal your stuff" would be met with "You're going down town." Which is exactly why there are hate crime classifications: because the intent of attacking a certain class of people is what is being punished. We could say that "Well, he killed a man, we'll charge him with murder" which would be fine, but since he did it with intent to harm the man because he was, say, black or brown or jewish, then we punish him based on his intent to harm the class of people, as well as the person. Consider, for instance, in New York City, if a man comes walking down the jewelers' district, and he breaks a window, this is not a crime unless he intended to break the window- it's a civil suit. Well, the man intended to break the window, so it's now criminal. We could charge him based on that alone. But as it ends up, he broke the window because the jewelers' district is majority Jewish owned: he did it to harm the financial or safety interests of jews. So now his intent is based on hate of a social class, and it is charged as such. This was a hate crime. On the other hand, what if he broke the window because he felt that the jeweler ripped him off and he was pissed? Well, that's not a hate crime because there is no intent based around hate of a certain type of person, but only out of hate towards one person. Then it is no longer a hate crime, it is a regular crime. to give a real example, in the Supreme Court case RAV v City of St. Paul, St. Paul, MN, had a law against the display of swastikas, KKK uniforms, and burning crosses as hate crimes. There were some kids who lived in a predominately white neighborhood, and when a black family moved in, in the middle of the night, they set up a cross in their lawn and burned it. Normally, this would not be illegal, but in St. Paul it was. The case made it to the Supreme Court based mostly on the argument you're making: Burning a cross isn't a crime, so why is it persecutable as a hate crime? The Court said because of the intent. They also threw out most of the St. Paul law for being overbroad: for instance, the law didn't define when it was okay or not okay to burn a cross or display a swastika (the law banned historical, scientific, and rational usage equally with hateful usage). But the reasoning was that they could see this specific act as a crime, purely because of the [I]hateful intent[/I]. Burning a cross is okay, unless it's done in hate without reasonable time-place-manner restrictions.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40161598']I'm sorry, what? That goes against the fundamentals of Western law. The [I]very first thing[/I] you learn about in American law education is that [I]intent[/I]- the "evil mind"- is the entire reason why we have judicial punishment. We don't punish someone who accidentally harms someone in a criminal court, nor do we punish someone who accidentally causes property damage in criminal court, etc. We punish crimes with [I]intent[/I]. "Oh shit I ran over your cat" is not punished as a crime, but "I killed your cat, and enjoyed it" is. "I'm sorry sir, I broke your window" would be met with "I'm going to sue you for damages", but "I broke your window to try and steal your stuff" would be met with "You're going down town." Which is exactly why there are hate crime classifications: because the intent of attacking a certain class of people is what is being punished. We could say that "Well, he killed a man, we'll charge him with murder" which would be fine, but since he did it with intent to harm the man because he was, say, black or brown or jewish, then we punish him based on his intent to harm the class of people, as well as the person. Consider, for instance, in New York City, if a man comes walking down the jewelers' district, and he breaks a window, this is not a crime unless he intended to break the window- it's a civil suit. Well, the man intended to break the window, so it's now criminal. We could charge him based on that alone. But as it ends up, he broke the window because the jewelers' district is majority Jewish owned: he did it to harm the financial or safety interests of jews. So now his intent is based on hate of a social class, and it is charged as such. This was a hate crime. On the other hand, what if he broke the window because he felt that the jeweler ripped him off and he was pissed? Well, that's not a hate crime because there is no intent based around hate of a certain type of person, but only out of hate towards one person. Then it is no longer a hate crime, it is a regular crime. to give a real example, in the Supreme Court case RAV v City of St. Paul, St. Paul, MN, had a law against the display of swastikas, KKK uniforms, and burning crosses as hate crimes. There were some kids who lived in a predominately white neighborhood, and when a black family moved in, in the middle of the night, they set up a cross in their lawn and burned it. Normally, this would not be illegal, but in St. Paul it was. The case made it to the Supreme Court based mostly on the argument you're making: Burning a cross isn't a crime, so why is it persecutable as a hate crime? The Court said because of the intent. They also threw out most of the St. Paul law for being overbroad: for instance, the law didn't define when it was okay or not okay to burn a cross or display a swastika (the law banned historical, scientific, and rational usage equally with hateful usage). But the reasoning was that they could see this specific act as a crime, purely because of the [I]hateful intent[/I]. Burning a cross is okay, unless it's done in hate without reasonable time-place-manner restrictions.[/QUOTE] I didn't read your post because intent and reasoning are two different things... Intent: I wanted to kill him Reasoning: I wanted to kill him because I hate black people
Does this mean I am not allowed to beat up furries and bronies now? [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;40160987]Theoretically, yes. However, prison systems are on the whole as fucked as the skull of any character in [I]A Serbian Film[/I].[/QUOTE] What about the baby?
[QUOTE=RobbL;40161928]I didn't read your post because intent and reasoning are two different things... Intent: I wanted to kill him Reasoning: I wanted to kill him because I hate black people[/QUOTE] Not in law. It's negligent, both are malicious intent. The point of law is to punish the evil mind, to punish malice. Reasoning is part of intent. You fail to realize that the intent [I]is[/I] "I want to kill a [I]black[/I] person." Reasoning is not different from intent, because intent is based on reasoning. "I want to break into that house because I want to rob it" is no different from "I want to rob a house." "I want to kill a cat because I want to hurt my neighbor" is no different from "I want to kill a cat". Did you intend to kill the cat for malicious reasons? Yes- then off to jail. Did you intend to kill a black person? Then it's a hate crime, off to jail. Which is why we don't punish every killing every person who is black: Did you intend to kill a black person? No, I intended to kill him, not because he was black. Therefore, there was not intent to kill a "black person", there was intent to kill "him", and he was black and had no bearing on the intent. The intent is changed based on the reasoning of the person, but it's still intent. If the reasoning was to do something to harm a person based on their class, then it is intent to harm the class also.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.