Not A Hate Crime?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

And peeps wonder why our children are so eager to leave Oklahoma after college. The one's who don't get a good education stay.

Some stay because they were also raised with more family values and value family more than money and goods

Not to sound like an donkey here, but family values don't pay the bills.  I'm all for that, but when it comes right down to it, a little tolerance is good for everyone.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

And peeps wonder why our children are so eager to leave Oklahoma after college. The one's who don't get a good education stay.

Some stay because they were also raised with more family values and value family more than money and goods

Yeah, there's some good 'family values' for you. Go torch the gays 'cause God says its ok.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[]

My bet on the story is an ex girlfriend that can't take the fact she lost out to another guy.

What are you talking about? Race and Homosexality are similar in that they are genetic - you are born that way. If you aren't gay then you have no right to argue this since you really have no idea, do you?

Religion is completely choice-based. In fact it is mostly because of religion that we even have hate crimes.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

It makes you wonder doesn't it...


However, on a slightly different note I find the entire notion of a hate crime to be ridiculous.  Either the act is illegal or its not and "hate crime" is merely a term thought up by some overzealous lawyer in DC in an attempt to look like a hero for "doing something".  If you burn someone's house down, inflict bodily harm or destroy someone's property regardless of whether or not its white on black, black on white, white on white, etc etc etc, the punishment should be the same.

Actually, hate crimes are called as such because they are motivated by prejudice, or 'hatred' of the victim. It isn't just a random act of violence or criminal behavior. These are criminal acts inflicted upon persons specifically because of their designation, i.e. Jewish, Black, gay, etc. It is very different.

I suspect you have never been the target of such criminal hatred, and I also suspect you would feel differently about it if you had.

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[]

My bet on the story is an ex girlfriend that can't take the fact she lost out to another guy.

What are you talking about? Race and Homosexality are similar in that they are genetic - you are born that way. If you aren't gay then you have no right to argue this since you really have no idea, do you?

Religion is completely choice-based. In fact it is mostly because of religion that we even have hate crimes.

There is no "gay" gene.  They have discovered genes that may (emphasis on the word MAY) cause gay tendencies.  Basically people do not know if it is a choice or not.  

Whether or not it is a choice or someone is born gay is completely irrelevant with regard to their rights as citizens of the country and of the state.  If two consenting adults are compelled by nature to be gay, or simply choose to be gay is irrelevant in my opinion.  They are entitled to the same rights and protections as you, me and bob down the street.

[waterboy]

We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.

Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.

Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.

Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.

Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.

Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked?  They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after.  This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[]

My bet on the story is an ex girlfriend that can't take the fact she lost out to another guy.

What are you talking about? Race and Homosexality are similar in that they are genetic - you are born that way. If you aren't gay then you have no right to argue this since you really have no idea, do you?

Religion is completely choice-based. In fact it is mostly because of religion that we even have hate crimes.

There is no "gay" gene.  They have discovered genes that may (emphasis on the word MAY) cause gay tendencies.  Basically people do not know if it is a choice or not.  

Whether or not it is a choice or someone is born gay is completely irrelevant with regard to their rights as citizens of the country and of the state.  If two consenting adults are compelled by nature to be gay, or simply choose to be gay is irrelevant in my opinion.  They are entitled to the same rights and protections as you, me and bob down the street.

I never said there was a 'gay gene'. And I personally do know that it is not a choice, and if you ask almost every gay person would tell you the same.

Thank you for pointing out that gay persons should be entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. Currently, in Oklahoma, they are not.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.

Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.

Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.

Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked?  They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after.  This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...

Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.

Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...

[tulsapoolplyr88]

I hate crime just as much as anyone else.....


[]

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.

Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.

Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.

Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked?  They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after.  This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...

Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.

Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...

You make good points, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I do agree these people are very dangerous but anyone who commits arson is a dangerous person, as is vandelism of this sort.

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.

Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.

Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.

Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked?  They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after.  This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...

Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.

Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...

Man I hate not having an edit button here...

If a cross were burned on a black family's lawn I'd call it harassment and arson.  I personally do not believe in hate crimes.  Crimes should be punished equally regardless of who they target.  Again a personal opinion as you have yours, we'll probably not see eye to eye on this one

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:Originally posted by azbadpuppy

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.

Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.

Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.

Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked?  They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after.  This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...

Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.

Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...

Man I hate not having an edit button here...

If a cross were burned on a black family's lawn I'd call it harassment and arson.  I personally do not believe in hate crimes.  Crimes should be punished equally regardless of who they target.  Again a personal opinion as you have yours, we'll probably not see eye to eye on this one

And you are entitled to your opinion. I just have to point out that you may feel differently if you were a victim of this kind of crime. It's easy to say that laws protecting certain groups are unnecessary when you aren't in one of those groups. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not at the expense of my (or anyone elses) safety and well being.

Is it hurting anyone to have these laws, other than the criminals? If it helps protect people and keeps criminals off the streets longer then how can it be a bad thing? If it deters even one criminal from carrying out a violent crime, how is that unnecessary? In a perfect world we wouldn't need such laws. However, since obviously there are quite a few a**hole bigots out there causing trouble, we do need them.

[we vs us]

The problem with just enforcing the laws on the books is that it doesn't encompass the whole crime.  The cops in the article are right.  It's just vandalism.  But you and I know that the meaning of the crime is worse than, say, if it were a prankster kid, and it is potentially much worse if the vandals come back and escalate even further.

It also can't be stressed enough:  the hate crime designation exists to diagnose the motivation of the perp, not to protect specific groups. It's a really fine distinction, but a crucial one. If the perp is motivated to commit his/her crime because of a bias towards a specific group, rather than an individual, then voila, there's your hate crime.  It does NOT mean that any crime against gays is automatically a hate crime because they are a protected group. So what that means is that, yes, Maude, us poor downtrodden straight white religious men can be targets of hate crimes, too, and we can be targeted by gay muslim women from American Samoa.  There is a popular perception that the hate crime designation protect minorities only, and that's simply not true.  It protects everyone.

[rwarn17588]

I'm not a huge fan in principle (please note caveat) of hate-crime laws, especially when you have what are called "factors of aggravation" during sentencing. If a crime was motivated by bigotry, then that's obviously a cue for a judge to hand down a tougher sentence than vandalism that was simply mischievous.

But my theory is that hate crimes were enacted because you still have judges out there (think older guys in the deep, rural South) that hold their own biases against people of other races and sexual orientations, and would simply ignore those factors of aggravation, much like many Southern judges (and juries) did during the civil rights era of the 1950s and '60s.

So, in the interest of justice, I think hate crime laws are OK and warranted.