Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Hate Crime Legislation

Name: Xel 2006-07-20 17:46

Amidst all the jive about guns and capitalism and all those funny people breaking each others bones over a sliver of sand, I think we should get down with THIS issue.
     Now, I've seen that South Park episode where the kids had the presentation on how most violent crimes were hate crimes and reverese racism and yada yada. That is the typical 'common-sensical' jazz I've heard before. I want a factual debate on this. We can at least try. What do you think? Philosophical debate is good, factual argumentation and examples of causality are preferable.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-20 18:37

What exactly is this "hate crime" you're talking about? Criminalise hating? That's blatant first amendment violation and you can't fight fire with fire. Or do you mean that we should have different penalties for crimes involving racial hatred?

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-20 23:30

>>2
  You should punish people for the crimes they actually commit, not for the ideas they have in their head as they commit the crimes. 

Name: Xel 2006-07-21 1:53

>>3 Well, that is a philosophical viewpoint. What of any empirical argumentation for or against?
>>2 Don't try to turn my question into a single monochrome desire to enforce an impossible doctrine. Chill.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-21 6:45

>>4
Try and argue against it..

Are you going to tell me that it should be illegal to think a certain way?

Crimes should be punished.  Thoughts shouldn't.  I can sit here and imagine myself raping some girl for hours and hours day by day, but I shouldn't be thrown in jail unless I ACT** on those thoughts, should I?

Do you really want to punish people just for *thinking* something? Thoughtcrime...

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-21 7:26

Why do they want to put me in jail for thinking "fucking niggers"?

Name: Xel 2006-07-21 7:57

How in the world could it be possible to derive an intent to legislate against mental patterns in my text? I was primarily asking for pragmatic examples and intelligent opposition, not made-up diametrical opposition. Here is some kind of proposition, anyway. All crimes have an immediate sentence, a neutral sentence. Helping an investigation or acting under a threatening situation limits the sentence, acting under intoxication or not having a moral defense adds to it. No juries, just maths. Is that proposition "gay" or something? What I think is hilarious is how Bush actually has an acceptingstance on hate crime legislation  as long as gays are not included. How nice of him, and how nice of those that voted for him.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-21 8:41

Bush runs for the jews that pays to keep him in power. Theres no way 50% of America suports him.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-21 8:48

I think the idea of hate crime legislation is a bad idea.  I'm not pro-hatecrime or anything, but if two individuals are involved in an incident, and they happen to have different color skin, prosecutors will go fucking bananas trying to make it a racial case when it may have just been two coked up asshats fighting over the last part of an 8ball.  It would be like how defense attorneys always try to claim insanity for murderers even when they really aren't insane.  Hate crime legislation will only fuck up the judicial process even more than it already is.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-21 21:21

>>7

It would be possible to derive an intent to legislate against thoughts because the advocates of punishment for hate crimes are essentially punishing people for thoughts in their head, not for actual actions committed. 

If a person commits a certain action which is illegal, punish them for that action.  If a couple people attack a homosexual in a bathroom and murder him, charge them with murder, not "hate crime". 

Anything other than this is not punishment for actual actions committed, but punishment for a thought they had in their head as they committed the actions (crimes). 

It shouldn't be a crime simply to hate, and punishing someone extra because of supposed hating at the moment they commit the crime is approaching the latter.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-22 5:04

South park was right, all crimes are hate crimes. So we should bump up the punishments for crimes to that of their respective hate crime.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-22 11:41

Hate crime penalty is a good idea. Note that black on white crime is about 300 times higher than white on black. More negroes going to prison! That is if the fucking government will admit that neegars commit hate crimes. Fuck the liberal pukes! I am fucking tires of coddleing niggers because of slavery. Niggers will always be violent jungle bunnies. An apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Or the jungle.

Name: Anonymous 2006-07-22 15:45

>>12
Liberal blacks = assholes
non-liberal blacks = superior

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List