What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

bigblue_dl said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. If intent is up in the air I'd rather we leave labels out of it.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

St. Clown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

St. Clown said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if I accept everything you just said as gospel I don't see that as a bad thing.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Handyman said:
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Handyman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

SJHovey said:
I guess my question is at the end of the day should the different contexts really matter.
Click to expand...

It already does when determining degrees of manslaughter or murder.

SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Handyman said:
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.
Click to expand...

It COULD mean the same thing. You and the other victim just rubbed the criminal the wrong way, no matter what color you are. That's the issue I have with the hate crime laws.

The criminal didn't do it based on skin color, or sexual orientation, or whatever. He did it because he does not like you, you have something he wants, whatever. Finding out exact intent is a bit more complicated than it seems, you know?
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Brenthoven said:
The criminal didn't do it based on skin color, or sexual orientation, or whatever. He did it because he does not like you, you have something he wants, whatever. Finding out exact intent is a bit more complicated than it seems, you know?
Click to expand...

It's not complicated if someone is Tweeting or Facebooking their intent. In which cases you're aware of was it complicated?
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Brenthoven said:
It COULD mean the same thing. You and the other victim just rubbed the criminal the wrong way, no matter what color you are. That's the issue I have with the hate crime laws.

The criminal didn't do it based on skin color, or sexual orientation, or whatever. He did it because he does not like you, you have something he wants, whatever. Finding out exact intent is a bit more complicated than it seems, you know?
Click to expand...

You dont think the person who put a noose around the Black kids neck in Mississippi did it cause the kid is Black and it means something specific? Are you actually that naive or is this your way of being the Devil's Advocate?

I get what your saying and in general I agree with you but come on man this is not a heavily esoteric deal to figure out. The attacker chose a noose for a reason. (and he wouldnt have chosen that for us for the same reason) There is an added bit of terrorism involved when you represent lynching to a Black person...and as such there should be a higher degree of punishment. I seriously dont understand how you can even argue against it.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

"I don't approve of it. But I understand."

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?
Click to expand...

I can see one difference immediately: the degree to which I am a danger to others. In the former case I'm a danger to tardy mailmen. In the latter, to black people (and Catholics? Does the Klan still hate Catholics? I haven't heard of a lot of anti-Catholic Klan rhetoric lately, maybe they've swapped in the Muslims.)


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?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a good argument. The idea is for the punishment to fit the crime. So for example there's no death penalty for rape, but that doesn't diminish the significance of rape.


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.
Click to expand...

Although I see where you're going, IMO you can't simply substitute any x for race. The idea of hate crimes is that there are historically persecuted-against characteristics. Discrimination against people based on these characteristics is a reality of life. This is not a theoretical exercise: actions harming people based on this prejudice are part of the everyday reality for these people.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Handyman said:
You dont think the person who put a noose around the Black kids neck in Mississippi did it cause the kid is Black and it means something specific? Are you actually that naive or is this your way of being the Devil's Advocate?

I get what your saying and in general I agree with you but come on man this is not a heavily esoteric deal to figure out. The attacker chose a noose for a reason. (and he wouldnt have chosen that for us for the same reason) There is an added bit of terrorism involved when you represent lynching to a Black person...and as such there should be a higher degree of punishment
Click to expand...

"Personal terrorism" is a good way to think about it. Put a noose around my neck I think of The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. Put a noose around a black person's neck and you are tapping in to the history of lynchings with all its degradation and violence. There is more of an offense in the second case -- there is the "terror" of all those associations.

Compare this and this.
 
Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Handyman said:
You dont think the person who put a noose around the Black kids neck in Mississippi did it cause the kid is Black and it means something specific? Are you actually that naive or is this your way of being the Devil's Advocate?

I get what your saying and in general I agree with you but come on man this is not a heavily esoteric deal to figure out. The attacker chose a noose for a reason. (and he wouldnt have chosen that for us for the same reason) There is an added bit of terrorism involved when you represent lynching to a Black person...and as such there should be a higher degree of punishment. I seriously dont understand how you can even argue against it.
Click to expand...

In THIS particular situation, the intent is pretty clear. I'm talking in general about the "hate crime" label. Apologies if that didn't come across.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top