**** Crimes

I confront a guy who ********* and ***** my prepubescent ******** and, in a spontaneous fit of rage, I shoot him to death. Or, I lay a trap for a gay guy to meet me for drinks at a bar and, in a well-planned and fully intentioned act of ********, take him out to a field, strap him to a post and beat the living **** out of him until he dies.

Both acts result in the same outcome for the victim.....they die. Are both crimes equally "bad" from a moral standpoint?

I can see what you're trying to say Jagger, but aren't the difference between these two motives already covered when one of these perpetrators is charged with ****** and another one is charged with a lesser manslaughter charge?

I don't see why the type of **** has to be brought into it other than one thing. It's only purpose is for a few politicians to be able to suck up to different groups of people by saying "see, I like you and your people more than my opponent does because I got tough on people who are targeting people like you..."
 
I **** ALL discrimination under the law.

I do too. I don't see **** crime legislation as discrimination. Matthew Shepherd's killers were brought to justice as they should have been but I fail to see the harm that is done to note that the motivation for the crime was to exact retribution simply because the poor guy happened to be gay. Otherwise, it would be what....just a random *******? The reality of it was, they ****** him only because he was gay. Why making that an integral part of the case is somehow inappropriate is beyond me.

I guess the differentiation boils down to an example such as if I were to **** someone simply because they were gay (or black or white or whatever) and for nor other specific reason, in my view, the motivation for that crime should have a specific label applied to it as a "****" crime (just like existing statutes include ****, robbery, arson, assault, grand theft....ad infinatum as a motivation instead). If it helps justify the prosecution's case against the accused against those who would be predisposed to commit such horrific acts, I say more power to them.

I don't see the law as discriminatory. The message is....don't let your prejudices and bigotry compel you to commit crimes. Why that is somehow a bad thing makes no sense to me.

I can see what you're trying to say Jagger, but aren't the difference between these two motives already covered when one of these perpetrators is charged with ****** and another one is charged with a lesser manslaughter charge?

I don't see why the type of **** has to be brought into it other than one thing. It's only purpose is for a few politicians to be able to suck up to different groups of people by saying "see, I like you and your people more than my opponent does because I got tough on people who are targeting people like you..."

You are correct from the punishment viewpoint. I simply fail to understand why making the motivation for the crime as being specifically ****-related (as I already noted in the above response to Philbert) is somehow wrong or discriminatory.

Not all crimes are ****-related and if there is a legal differentiation to illustrate when such crimes are, that's OK with me.
 
The original concept behind **** crimes was to remove the organized intimidation and resulting fear for people of various backgrounds, creeds and other, clearly minority status. It would prevent people from ******* their right to freedom and right to assembly as an excuse to push up against the law, but not break it -- until it was too late, and then it was hard to prove.

Unfortunately, the politically correct non-sense has taken over. And once a legal precedent is set, we're screwed. It's happened with personal property (eminent domain, war on *****, etc...) and it's happening more and more with insults turned into allegedly organized, racial slurs.

This asshole pulled up aside of someone who pissed them off on the highway. The defense didn't deny it was road rage. But the PC machine went after an individual, a single individual, not an organized group or not a person who has a history of repeat offenses, and put him under the bus.

This is not what the law was designed for. Should he do time? Sure. He was clearly admitting guilt over road rage behavior. I mean, I can count on more than both of my fingers how many times myself and my wife have been threatened with racial slurs on the road because I refused to drive more than 5mph over the speed limit (and someone else was holding us up).

But apparently I'm a white male, and my wife a white female, and we're the problem. That's what pisses me the fuck off. We've gone beyond the "organized ****" issues, and now we're into "sensitivity" and it only goes one way! Where were the civil rights leaders for the Duke LaCrosse team?

And people think this doesn't happen the other way. I'm sorry, but the last 15 years, I've seen a shitload of discrimation the other way.
 
Back
Top