BF2S Forums A "Hate Crime"

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

So if police are looking for suspects of a crime you reckon they should ignore evidence is that right? If a black man is killed in an area where there are groups of white supremasists you don't think that they are worth investigation.

Sure, I believe in profiling 100%. I simply do not think that the crime itself is somehow worse because of race.

I understand your point, but in certain cases, such as in race related crimes, it can be considered a factor to make clear to the public that such crimes are absolutely not acceptable. E.g. a murder out of passion is still a murder and a crime, but to society less severe then a murder related to race.

Another example: killing a child is murder, but when it's done by a parent or a person in charge of the child, it's considered worse because of the relationship between criminal and victim.

So much for equality. The result of a crime should not be punished differently because of the reason for the crime. I'm pretty sure people who commit crimes that is related to race get enough social stigma to balance your whole reasoning behind hate crimes.

Cybargs wrote:

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sure, I believe in profiling 100%. I simply do not think that the crime itself is somehow worse because of race.

I understand your point, but in certain cases, such as in race related crimes, it can be considered a factor to make clear to the public that such crimes are absolutely not acceptable. E.g. a murder out of passion is still a murder and a crime, but to society less severe then a murder related to race.

Another example: killing a child is murder, but when it's done by a parent or a person in charge of the child, it's considered worse because of the relationship between criminal and victim.

So much for equality. The result of a crime should not be punished differently because of the reason for the crime. I'm pretty sure people who commit crimes that is related to race get enough social stigma to balance your whole reasoning behind hate crimes.

Than would you say the rape of a 25 yo woman should be treated and punished the same way the rape of a 12 yo child is punished?

Nic wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Committing a crime specifically because of who they are? aka...a hate crime

It's one thing to just attack someone. It's another thing to do it because they're black, white, latino, jewish, muslim, old, young, female, male, overweight, underweight, etc.

Obviously they can't tell if an attack is motivated by hate by a person's race/religion/etc unless they have proof. There luckily isn't thought police, so they need proof that there was. They're not going to charge 2 black guys who beat up a white guy with a hate crime just because they happened to be black and the victim happened to be white, they need proof.

it is my opinion that if you investigate a murder, the race of the victim or the murderer should not be relevant.

What if race is the motive, then it has to be relevant for you to have a case.

Noy a problem, he dies just the same if found guilty, or do you suggest they kill him twice because race was the motive?

Pierre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

So if police are looking for suspects of a crime you reckon they should ignore evidence is that right? If a black man is killed in an area where there are groups of white supremasists you don't think that they are worth investigation.

Sure, I believe in profiling 100%. I simply do not think that the crime itself is somehow worse because of race.

I understand your point, but in certain cases, such as in race related crimes, it can be considered a factor to make clear to the public that such crimes are absolutely not acceptable. E.g. a murder out of passion is still a murder and a crime, but to society less severe then a murder related to race.

Another example: killing a child is murder, but when it's done by a parent or a person in charge of the child, it's considered worse because of the relationship between criminal and victim.

Ok and in every example you give, they all wind up in the same end result, someone is dead unjustly. I say the punishment should still be the same, execution. Again what do you want to do, execute the racist twice?

Pierre wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Pierre wrote:

I understand your point, but in certain cases, such as in race related crimes, it can be considered a factor to make clear to the public that such crimes are absolutely not acceptable. E.g. a murder out of passion is still a murder and a crime, but to society less severe then a murder related to race.

Another example: killing a child is murder, but when it's done by a parent or a person in charge of the child, it's considered worse because of the relationship between criminal and victim.

So much for equality. The result of a crime should not be punished differently because of the reason for the crime. I'm pretty sure people who commit crimes that is related to race get enough social stigma to balance your whole reasoning behind hate crimes.

Than would you say the rape of a 25 yo woman should be treated and punished the same way the rape of a 12 yo child is punished?

Yes, death. rape in my world would be a capital offense, so would child molestation.

Lowing , are you saying that there should be No crimes based on race? Reading the link, I dont think it stated how the punishment was doled out. Was it 'X' years for the violence, plus 'Y' years for the race crime aspect, or was it X years for the violence but made larger due to because it was racial violence. I am not sure I am being clear here ( sorry) . What I am getting at is that if there was only one factor taken into account for punishment ( violence) then that is different to there being 2 factors taken into account  ( ie violent crime plus race crime). I think option 1 here in this case would be unsatisfactory, while option 2 would be fine.

lowing wrote:

Narupug wrote:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/art-go … poster.jpg
Really lowing? A white supremacist killing planning for years and then killing a black guy isn't worse then a thug who tries to mug a guy but the guy puts up a fight so he kills him?  If you do not discourage racist behaviour it [will] grow and fester because the punishment is no more then just doing something without a racist agenda, or is that what you want ?

Nope, I want ALL murderers put to death, equally. to say someone should be punished harder for killing a black guy over a white guy is nothing short of racist unto itself.

Ok then. All murderers eh?

I guess that would include the prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, prison officials and politicians who HAVE MURDERED INNOCENT people convicted of a capital crime and executed?

Or are you going to squirm your way to a lowing-is-right-at-all-costs answer? There are a lot of people included in the above list including your former president.

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Motive and circumstance must be taken into consideration.

It is to establish guilt or innocence, NOT punishment. If circumstances warrants man-slaughter, and should punish differently since that is not murder. But if circumstances finds you a murderer, do you really want a bar gragh that leads to a certain punishment based on race?

So you agree that motive and circumstance change the crime?
And you also say that different crimes deserve different punishments.

So by simple logic if I change a motive to say, racial hate, then I change the crime and therefore change the punishment.

And as we don't live in your perfect world where all murders are punished with death. Then by changing the motive to a 'hate' crime we can theoretically change the punishment too (read: increase it).

Morpheus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I want ALL murderers put to death, equally...

...Including people who shoot to kill in self defense, of themselves, home and/or property?

is that murder?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I want ALL murderers put to death, equally...

...Including people who shoot to kill in self defense, of themselves, home and/or property?

is that murder?

They're still dead, aren't they?

I thought circumstances didn't matter... only outcome

Cybargs wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

is that murder?

They're still dead, aren't they?

I thought circumstances didn't matter... only outcome

American History X style yo.

If self defense in any circumstance, the man should go off free, I don't care if he's racist or what. If some armed men tried to rob your shit, you kill them, you're defending life, liberty and persuit of hapiness.

Personally, I think self defense is a good defense, because I know I would use it responsibly... However, there are many who would exploit/misinterpret/abuse/take it to the extreme.... google "texas"


I was just posing the question to lowing because sometimes it seems he make general blanket statements without actually thinking about what he wants to say.

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Motive and circumstance must be taken into consideration.

It is to establish guilt or innocence, NOT punishment. If circumstances warrants man-slaughter, and should punish differently since that is not murder. But if circumstances finds you a murderer, do you really want a bar gragh that leads to a certain punishment based on race?

So you agree that motive and circumstance change the crime?
And you also say that different crimes deserve different punishments.

So by simple logic if I change a motive to say, racial hate, then I change the crime and therefore change the punishment.

And as we don't live in your perfect world where all murders are punished with death. Then by changing the motive to a 'hate' crime we can theoretically change the punishment too (read: increase it).

Re-read, I didn't say motive or circumstance changes the crime, I said it should help in establishing guilt or innocence. If found guilty the punishment should be the same. So my logic makes sense. What does not make sense is your willingness to assign punishment based on race.