Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

If you hate "xxx" people and are willing to act out on that hate physically it gives you far more options to do so than say if you're unhappy with your wife, brother or a friend. Did being tagged a "serial killer" unfairly label Jeffrey Dahmer? How many here are upset that Obama didn't toss around, "terrorist" or whatever? We ascribe labels all the time to criminal activity and in some cases assign degrees of penalty. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend.

[St. Clown]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Because intent matters in our court system. It's the difference between murder 1 and manslaughter. In cases where a crime is committed out of racial hatred and clearly premeditated that should be taken into account.

Prior to hate crimes legislation, intent only mattered in whether the crime was committed, more or less, accidentally or with premeditation. Now we've entered an era where the reason of the crime matters and could be punished more harshly, not just whether or not it happened. The family of the victim won't care that their loved one was killed because of some reason aimed directly at the victim or a broader swath of people - their loved one is still dead regardless.

[St. Clown]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

If you hate "xxx" people and are willing to act out on that hate physically it gives you far more options to do so than say if you're unhappy with your wife, brother or a friend. Did being tagged a "serial killer" unfairly label Jeffrey Dahmer? How many here are upset that Obama didn't toss around, "terrorist" or whatever? We ascribe labels all the time to criminal activity and in some cases assign degrees of penalty. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend.

A serial killer defines a killer who has murdered multiple people spread out over many different occasions, but not enough people in a single instance to be labeled a mass murderer. It's not an assignment of intent, only of quantity of deed.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

A serial killer defines a killer who has murdered multiple people spread out over many different occasions, but not enough people in a single instance to be labeled a mass murderer. It's not an assignment of intent, only of quantity of deed.

It does define a killer that has murdered multiple people over multiple instances but in addition describes someone that most likely intends to continue the behavior until caught/dead. Again a one time argument with your brother that leads to a fight to me is less alarming than someone that targets someone because of their race.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

If you hate "xxx" people and are willing to act out on that hate physically it gives you far more options to do so than say if you're unhappy with your wife, brother or a friend. Did being tagged a "serial killer" unfairly label Jeffrey Dahmer? How many here are upset that Obama didn't toss around, "terrorist" or whatever? We ascribe labels all the time to criminal activity and in some cases assign degrees of penalty. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend.

I don't have a problem with labeling hate crimes, and treating them differently, as long as it is clear that the specific case is a hate crime. It seems like sometimes that isn't as cut and dry as it appears, and that, IMO, can lead to problems. Intent is not easy to determine is some cases.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

I don't have a problem with labeling hate crimes, and treating them differently, as long as it is clear that the specific case is a hate crime. It seems like sometimes that isn't as cut and dry as it appears, and that, IMO, can lead to problems. Intent is not easy to determine is some cases.

I agree with all of this. If intent is up in the air I'd rather we leave labels out of it.

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Why is harassment (or worse - much worse) by a person of one race against a person of a different race worse or a different crime than the same actions made involving two people of the same race?

I do believe that's point Col. Flagg wants to make.

Why do we call white people shooting up a church "crazy" and try them as murderers but if a Muslim kills people in a mall we call it "Islamic Terrorism"? Because while both involve killing they have different intents and context.

Putting a rope around my neck does not mean the same thing as putting a rope around a black kids neck and they should not be treated the same.

Sorry I just feel little sympathy for the supposed victim. (the criminal here)

[trixR4kids]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Prior to hate crimes legislation, intent only mattered in whether the crime was committed, more or less, accidentally or with premeditation. Now we've entered an era where the reason of the crime matters and could be punished more harshly, not just whether or not it happened.

Even if I accept everything you just said as gospel I don't see that as a bad thing.

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Why do we call white people shooting up a church "crazy" and try them as murderers but if a Muslim kills people in a mall we call it "Islamic Terrorism"? Because while both involve killing they have different intents and context.

Putting a rope around my neck does not mean the same thing as putting a rope around a black kids neck and they should not be treated the same.

Sorry I just feel little sympathy for the supposed victim. (the criminal here)

I guess my question is at the end of the day should the different contexts really matter.

We do this a lot in this country, quick to apply a racial or religious or even spousal context to what would otherwise simply be an assault or murder. By assigning it to a certain subcategory do we pretend to understand it better? Is this category assignment our way of trying to supply a reason for something that otherwise seems unreasonable? I really don't know the answers, but I've reached the conclusion we really don't do ourselves any favors by doing it. They are simply crimes. Making the punishment more severe based upon the context, or the motives of the accused is in and of itself evil in my opinion. I guarantee you that the guy shot in a random shooting in downtown Minneapolis doesn't feel any better about it just because it wasn't related to his marriage or his race or his religion.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Making the punishment more severe based upon the context, or the motives of the accused is in and of itself evil in my opinion.

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

I guess my question is at the end of the day should the different contexts really matter.

We do this a lot in this country, quick to apply a racial or religious or even spousal context to what would otherwise simply be an assault or murder. By assigning it to a certain subcategory do we pretend to understand it better? Is this category assignment our way of trying to supply a reason for something that otherwise seems unreasonable? I really don't know the answers, but I've reached the conclusion we really don't do ourselves any favors by doing it. They are simply crimes. Making the punishment more severe based upon the context, or the motives of the accused is in and of itself evil in my opinion. I guarantee you that the guy shot in a random shooting in downtown Minneapolis doesn't feel any better about it just because it wasn't related to his marriage or his race or his religion.

Honestly I dont know...in reality in a perfect world it wouldnt matter but we dont live in one so it is tough to say. To the actual victim and his family maybe not but remember they arent the only ones effected either. There is the larger community to think about as well.

Again though it isnt like hate crimes are the only place this is done...in the example I gave before why is one person called an Islamic Terrorist and the other a Crazy Murderer? As long as there is a degree of distinction in public perception then I have no problem with it in the law either.

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Honestly I dont know...in reality in a perfect world it wouldnt matter but we dont live in one so it is tough to say. To the actual victim and his family maybe not but remember they arent the only ones effected either. There is the larger community to think about as well.

Again though it isnt like hate crimes are the only place this is done...in the example I gave before why is one person called an Islamic Terrorist and the other a Crazy Murderer? As long as there is a degree of distinction in public perception then I have no problem with it in the law either.

The problem is that motive can be largely political.

Motive is not an element of most crimes. We don't have to show the reason why the guy killed his wife, just prove that he did it. I think part of the reason we try to keep motive out of it is that it necessarily causes us to take "sides" so to speak, as a government. Do we like, or dislike that motive, or don't we really care? It shouldn't matter.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

I guess my question is at the end of the day should the different contexts really matter.

It already does when determining degrees of manslaughter or murder.

We do this a lot in this country, quick to apply a racial or religious or even spousal context to what would otherwise simply be an assault or murder.

Assault and murder should never, ever be considered as simple, public opinion doesn't always translate to our courts, and in the end if we get it right then more power to the result. If we get it wrong and I hope that is few and far between then that is of course not a preferred result.


If the intent behind a crime is racially motivated which again opens up a wider scope of potential victims what exactly is the problem?

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

The problem is that motive can be largely political.

Motive is not an element of most crimes. We don't have to show the reason why the guy killed his wife, just prove that he did it. I think part of the reason we try to keep motive out of it is that it necessarily causes us to take "sides" so to speak, as a government. Do we like, or dislike that motive, or don't we really care? It shouldn't matter.

Motive matters when it's a sign post to whether you intended to commit the act or not.

I back over my mailman in my driveway. That's one thing.

I back over my black mailman in my driveway on my way to my Klan meeting after screaming "I'll kill you" after learning he's dating my daughter. That's another thing.

To my way of thinking, "hate crime" is a way of determining likely intent. I would prefer that there not be specific "hate crimes," but that when a suspect is prosecuted and a convicted criminal is sentenced that information is considered.

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Motive matters when it's a sign post to whether you intended to commit the act or not.

I back over my mailman in my driveway. That's one thing.

I back over my black mailman in my driveway on my way to my Klan meeting after screaming "I'll kill you" after learning he's dating my daughter. That's another thing.

To my way of thinking, "hate crime" is a way of determining likely intent. I would prefer that there not be specific "hate crimes," but that when a suspect is prosecuted and a convicted criminal is sentenced that information is considered.

Ok, but I want to be sure that we're not mixing up motive and intent.

If you intend to run over your mailman in your driveway, because you don't like that your mail is always late, that's murder.

If you intend to run over your black mailman in your driveway, after screaming at him and on your way to the Klan meeting, isn't that also just murder? Why do we need to "specialize" the crime?

Maybe this is where we differ. I don't think the second is any worse or any better than the first. Both are equally terrible and should be punished.

When we punish one more significantly than the other, then don't we effectively (whether intentional or not) diminish the significance of the other?

What if we take race out of it.

Let's say in one instance you intentionally run over your mailman because your mail is always late. In the second, you run over your mailman because you know he is an active supporter of "conceal and carry" laws and you hate people who support those laws.

Now, do we want the government to pick a side on that motive? Should we pass a law making it an illegal hate crime to commit that act by you?

That's the ultimate problem when we start assigning crimes by motive, is we make the government pick a side. We may think it's easy with things like race, since we'd hope the government would pick a side against racial hatred, but not all "hate" crimes are going to be so easy.