103 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

Bank robbery gone wrong could be an example of a murder without hatred. You all need to read the huge post I made on the previous page and then see what you think.

Your example isn't murder, murder has to be premeditated, your example would be classed as manslaughter.

The law already bases punishment on motive, like if an elderly man smothers his dying wife with a pillow to ease her pain, or a person kills somebody by stabbing them 20 times out of sheer hatred...both murder, but they'd have very different punishments.

There is no need for any extra laws to cover gays or anybody else and I've yet to see you justify your argument at all. You seem to be too close to the subject to be able to create a proper argument, maybe a conflict of interests going on here?

Edited by Laser Wave, 23 March 2007 - 08:39 AM.

[Tetiel]

In law terms there is a reason why hate crimes get a harsher punishment than others. Sociologically hate murders tend to involve torture as well as be all in general a lot more violent. In a study on Racist Skinheads it was discovered that instead of using long range deadly weapons which are more effective, they used blunt, more painful and drawn out objects such as bats or lead pipes to beat their victims with. They also like to be close to the victim, to feel their own violence against the victim and it's a very personal experience. These crimes of course therefore involve a great deal of pain to the victim and they are literally beaten to a bloody pulp. Studies by the FBI show evidence again and again that this rings true. This typically separates hate crimes from other murders because of the increase of violence done to the victim. While this can happen in normal murders, in almost every hate murder this rings true. Mostly murder deals with people just wanting to get rid of the person and tends to end quickly. Hate crimes are done by sadists and can be on the level of serial killers in their violence. And THAT is why the law defines hate crimes as being different. The crime must have more punishment. The problem is a lot of the time the murder is a first time and there doesn't end up being a second and therefore the sentencing normally would be much less. With the hate crime laws it allows for that amount of brutality to be punished seperate from the less painful murders. Understand everyone?

[Waser Lave]

In law terms there is a reason why hate crimes get a harsher punishment than others. Sociologically hate murders tend to involve torture as well as be all in general a lot more violent. In a study on Racist Skinheads it was discovered that instead of using long range deadly weapons which are more effective, they used blunt, more painful and drawn out objects such as bats or lead pipes to beat their victims with. They also like to be close to the victim, to feel their own violence against the victim and it's a very personal experience. These crimes of course therefore involve a great deal of pain to the victim and they are literally beaten to a bloody pulp. Studies by the FBI show evidence again and again that this rings true. This typically separates hate crimes from other murders because of the increase of violence done to the victim. While this can happen in normal murders, in almost every hate murder this rings true. Mostly murder deals with people just wanting to get rid of the person and tends to end quickly. Hate crimes are done by sadists and can be on the level of serial killers in their violence. And THAT is why the law defines hate crimes as being different. The crime must have more punishment. The problem is a lot of the time the murder is a first time and there doesn't end up being a second and therefore the sentencing normally would be much less. With the hate crime laws it allows for that amount of brutality to be punished seperate from the less painful murders. Understand everyone?

But in that case it isn't being sentenced harsher because it is a 'hate crime' but rather because of the incredibly violent nature of the crime. If somebody did the same to another in a case which wasn't a 'hate crime' then surely they should get the same punishment?

And as i've already said, the law already punishes according to the specific nature of the crime, so there's no need for extra laws to cover it.

Edited by Laser Wave, 23 March 2007 - 09:45 AM.

[Nick]

Trust me, i read enough to know that you can't keep your whole story straight. quit crying about everything and live your life. If i got fag spraypainted on my bookbag i would go kick the guys arse instead of whining about it. People will stop making fun of you when they dont have anythin to make fun of or they are scared of you. by the way you should have read my post. i feel bad for the people who are innocently killed, but i dont feel bad for you becuase you whine too much

This thread is not about gay hate crimes, it's about hate crimes in general. If you're going to be childish about it then please just don't post at all.

Your example isn't murder, murder has to be premeditated, your example would be classed as manslaughter.

The law already bases punishment on motive, like if an elderly man smothers his dying wife with a pillow to ease her pain, or a person kills somebody by stabbing them 20 times out of sheer hatred...both murder, but they'd have very different punishments.

There is no need for any extra laws to cover gays or anybody else and I've yet to see you justify your argument at all. You seem to be too close to the subject to be able to create a proper argument, maybe a conflict of interests going on here?

You're right, it would be classified as manslaughter. I also agree with the law being based on motives and there are already laws in existence against hate crimes, but the discussion has moved from whether or not they should be created (because they already are) but in the direction of do they deserve a worse punishment. There's no conflict of interests here at all, so don't worry. As I said above if someone were targeted for being white or heterosexual that would be just as bad as targeting someone for being black or homosexual, but it still deserves a worse punishment then someone who killed another without motive.

Murder is not classified solely by it's premeditation. In fact there is a classification of murder (not manslaughter) that is not premeditated.

[Waser Lave]

As I said above if someone were targeted for being white or heterosexual that would be just as bad as targeting someone for being black or homosexual, but it still deserves a worse punishment then someone who killed another without motive.

It already does get punished more harshly, it's called the principle of proportionality...so the punishment of a crime should be in proportion to how severe the crime was.

Therefore there can be no justification for extra laws to be created to add extra punishments for these crimes.

And yeah you're right about the murder thing, i shouldn't have said it 'has to', but in the vast majority of cases it would usually boil down to premeditation or not. And over here we don't actually have first-degree, second-degree murder etc, we just have murder and manslaughter so I was kind of just explaining using our system since i don't know much about the American one.

Edited by Laser Wave, 23 March 2007 - 11:53 AM.

[Nick]

It already does get punished more harshly, it's called the principle of proportionality...so the punishment of a crime should be in proportion to how severe the crime was.

Therefore there can be no justification for extra laws to be created to add extra punishments for these crimes.

And yeah you're right about the murder thing, i shouldn't have said it 'has to', but in the vast majority of cases it would usually boil down to premeditation or not. And over here we don't actually have first-degree, second-degree murder etc, we just have murder and manslaughter so I was kind of just explaining using our system since i don't know much about the American one.

There is justification if there are already laws that aren't being followed. It's more of an issue of enforcing the laws better because there are often cases where you'll get a racist or homophobic judge who will rule in favor of the perpetrator because of their own bias. This was one of the issues in the Matthew Shephard hearing.

[Waser Lave]

There is justification if there are already laws that aren't being followed. It's more of an issue of enforcing the laws better because there are often cases where you'll get a racist or homophobic judge who will rule in favor of the perpetrator because of their own bias. This was one of the issues in the Matthew Shephard hearing.

You'd struggle to find a law that hasn't been broken at least once...if you change laws just because a minority broke them, then there's no point in having laws in the first place.

[Nick]

You'd struggle to find a law that hasn't been broken at least once...if you change laws just because a minority broke them, then there's no point in having laws in the first place.

No, it's not about people breaking them, it's about judges and juries taking into account that gay-bashing IS a hate crime, because at the moment there's question as to whether or not they are.

[Black Flame]

Ok now I'm not trying to sound mean or homophobic(which I am not on any terms), but I just have one question: If some guy comes up to a person with a metal pipe and asks if the person is gay(and the person is), why does the person say yes? The person would have to know that he was most likely going to get beaten up if he says that he is gay, especially if the guy with the pipe is following him around.There's the chance the person could still have been beaten up even if they said no, I know that. But it just doesn't seem logical to me. He would have to know the guy was a gay-basher, right? Why would you risk your life?

No one should have to be ashamed and fearing for their life if they answer 'yes', but that's how the world is. Obviously not everyone is like this, but not everyone likes gays either. It's sad that discrimination even exists, but sadly it can't and never will be permenately stopped, now matter how many laws are passed.

Now Urban, I'm sure you're not ashamed of being gay. Telling everyone on the site your sexuality is a sign of bravery, a sign that you don't care what anyone thinks about you being gay. You shouldn't have to be ashamed because you didn't choose to be gay. But I want to know if you would risk your life due to your sexuality. Assuming your answer would change his mind, if a guy with a pipe in his hand asked if you were gay, what would you say? Be completely honest.

It's sad that the old man was killed, but I agree with everyone else. Hate crimes are cruel and unfair, but there shouldn't be a special law made for killing a minority. Some sort of harsher punishment if it's proven it's a hate crime like Kitsune said I agree with, but not a law.

Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to sound mean or homophobic.

[Nick]

Uh, so basically you agree with me that hate crimes deserve harsher punishments? Basically, all I'm saying is that a law should be created stating that crimes of hatred result in harsher punishment, so in theory, you agree with me.

[Christopher Robin]

Well, if Gays get Hate Crime laws, I demand Newfies get them too. We're discriminated as Seal-Beatin' REEEEEEEED NAIIIICKS!


YEEEE-HAW! Almost pup season!


/sarcasm

Edited by Pomroy / Trixx, 24 March 2007 - 05:34 PM.

[Nick]

If someone attacks you for being that, then yes, you should.

[Christopher Robin]

Or I could get my buddies, and beat the sh-poop out of the attacker

[Tetiel]

Murder does NOT have to be premeditated. But since a fair amount of you guys continue to make statements without knowing what the hell you're on about, I can't actually be bothered explaining it to deaf ears. This whole argument reeks with total ignorance.

Actually yeah, isn't that only Murder 1? I think this may qualify under Murder 2 but unfortunately I'm not sure.

[kuwaz]

If someone attacks you for being that, then yes, you should.

So um... just making it clear, are you... homosexual, urban? I mean that as an honest question, just making it clear.

[Nick]

So um... just making it clear, are you... homosexual, urban? I mean that as an honest question, just making it clear.

No, I love poon.

[Waser Lave]

Murder does NOT have to be premeditated. But since a fair amount of you guys continue to make statements without knowing what the hell you're on about, I can't actually be bothered explaining it to deaf ears. This whole argument reeks with total ignorance.

We've already been through that if you'd have bothered to read the other posts.

[kuwaz]

Murder does NOT have to be premeditated. But since a fair amount of you guys continue to make statements without knowing what the hell you're on about, I can't actually be bothered explaining it to deaf ears. This whole argument reeks with total ignorance.

Arguments only occur when theres strong beliefs, if there was no ignorance people wont be arguing xD. Fairly hard to convince anyone else to let go of their bias views.



@Urban, thanks for clearing that up.


---

Not so easy to clear up a hate crime when the church opposes it and general morals dont support gay rights. It is a bad thing to kill someone for being gay, but its a lot more complicated than racism. I dont think people are generally taught to be gay... So if you wanna get rid of gay hate crime, you're gonna have to change a whole society's base of beliefs, considering that most people are straight (fact), I really dont think you can just end this specific hate crime, no matter what laws you pass.

Edited by eVolves, 26 March 2007 - 07:10 AM.

[Ives]

Yeah, I'm not following the eye for an eye mentality, especially with hate crimes. Jail is pretty awful too. Extreme boredom, borderline mental breakdown, fear, and violence between inmates. Not a fun thing, and maximum security for murder is even crazier.

Not that doing a crime invoked by hate or fear is a good thing, but it doesn't mean you need to be exposed to extremely cruel and unusual punishment for it.

Edited by Athean, 27 March 2007 - 04:03 AM.

[Nick]

I was kidding about the "poon" fyi. I couldn't even imagine diving into a muff.

[Sweeney]

I was kidding about the "poon" fyi. I couldn't even imagine diving into a muff.

And he's probably the only one who didn't know it.

[Tetiel]

I was kidding about the "poon" fyi. I couldn't even imagine diving into a muff.

But you still have anyways.

[Nick]

Edited, just ignore this post.

Edited by Urban, 27 March 2007 - 12:40 PM.

[Tetiel]

What is said on MSN, stays on MSN.

Actually... you stated it on the board before.

[illicit]

Hmm... I think that any case of murder should be treated with the same punishment... if I killed someone because they were gay and I hate gays, or if I killed my husband because he was cheating on me and I hate cheaters, I still fuckin killed someone, and should be punished in the same fashion. We shouldn't need extra laws to tell us not to commit crimes against a certain group of people, we shouldn't be committing crimes against anyone