UK PETITION for rock/goth/other guys re: hatecrimes

[~K~]

We are on a slippery slope here and this is why politics usually aren't allowed on here although i will say this discussion has been civil ..

The OJ issue was purely a racial/money issue and both played a factor. it sharply devided the races and it should have been based just of the facts of the crime ...


If we were dealing in absolutes I would agree 100% with you. Murder is murder. The problem is that the dillution of laws over the years have caused these issues. So .. either make the laws very pointed and basic, or add protections ..

[~K~]

What I'm getting at, is that regardless of the "WHY", the punishment for commiting an act of violence on another human being should be the same. Call it a hate crime, or whatever the hell you want to call it. Everyone deserves the same level of protection afforded by the consequences of violent crimes. I believe all violent crimes should be punished far more severely than they are.

I agree and in a perfect world that makes total sense, but this world is far form a perfect place.

[Mrs Tekky]

Mrs Tekky,
Because the laws are already so diluted with explinations that it's getting hard to follow. I think rape is rape. I don't see a difference if a gun was involved or not. So I don't think that should be a bigger crime. It should be rape.

I understand that we have First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder but I see that as a bit different. Pre meditated vs. spur of the moment. That is a difference, but if the guy had a gun on him when he raped the person isn't a huge difference to me.

I think we need to tone down the laws, not make them more complicated. The more complicated means people like Albert Schipero (sp) or Johnnie Cockran (RIP) can find more loopholes to get these guys off.

Current with out the hate crime part of the law, you could have someone that walking past a synagogue that just happened to see a jewish person walk out. This person on the spur of the moment screams I hate jews and shoots the jewish person dead. They could get second degree murder because it was spur of the moment.

Take this same shooter - he plans a killing of a man because that man kicked his ass a year ago, he would be tried for first degree because he planned it.

It's not fair but it's the law currently. Now if you make the first situation into a hate crime the guy could get the same sentence as in the second scenario.

[Tashtego]

I've never heard an influential conservative in a position of responsibility give what amounts to "they deserved it" as a reason to oppose special hate crime designations. That is only for crazy people. The philosophy behind the opposition is largely based on it being unconstitutional to sentence for crimes that the accused did not stand trial for.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/7291/Hate-Crime.html

They don't have that barrier in the UK though AFAIK.

Hate crimes protection tends to be a more liberal type of thinking. Generally conservatives don't like to bend because of the issue. They wont discount they crime but they don't think it deserves special concern ..

Take the gay issue. Most conservative view gay issues as an immoral idea because so many conservatives are based around their faith. I guess this is why I am slighly progressive in my thinking( I'm not very religous)

Anyway the idea that some conservatives seem to have is that it's an immoral act and if they weren't engaging in the bevaviour then they would need to worry about the violence.. again narrowminded.

Oklahoma just has a politician (Sally Kern)that gave a speech that was secretly taped. In it she makes the comment that homosexuals were much worse than terrorists. Hardly the case and a very irresponsible point of view. These are our leaders ..

So take that mentality in Govt then add what could be construed as a hate crime. She can justify it because of what she deems immoral behaviour and people like that turn a blind eye.. so does every crime get treated with equal justice?


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...s&q=Sally+Kern

[CharvelRocker]

What I'm getting at, is that regardless of the "WHY", the punishment for commiting an act of violence on another human being should be the same. Call it a hate crime, or whatever the hell you want to call it. Everyone deserves the same level of protection afforded by the consequences of violent crimes. I believe all violent crimes should be punished far more severely than they are.

If we were dealing in absolutes I would agree 100% with you. Murder is murder. The problem is that the dillution of laws over the years have caused these issues. So .. either make the laws very pointed and basic, or add protections ..

Agreed. I am for making things simple and pointed. The governments job is to protect it's people. The judicial system is part of this. The problem is, it's no longer protecting it's people. It can't do this because a fair chunk of it's laws right now allow way too much room for bias, like hate crime laws.

If you think you got ruled against in a case, you have every right to stand up and say "The ruling was biased" and make an appeal and let a jury decide. You should NOT however be allowed to just sit there on the stand and say "Well the law says this is probably a hate crime, let's have a special penalty" as that just leads to all sorts of issues.

If I get slugged in the face by someone they hate me for some reason. I walk up and slug them, they did something to make me hate them at that moment. Should either party get special protection or be tried for a different crime because I might be of a different race, or have different hair, or wear different clothing or have a different orientation? Absolutely not.

[anuske9]

Exactly. Give the jury legal right to weigh circumstances of prejudice of any kind when deciding punishment.

I think that's the best way to go.

While convoluted laws are not something to be desired, neither are simple inflexible laws. (I'm not saying that's what anyone suggested, but it is a problem in some cases)

Re:CharvelRocker...

To consider a crime that was committed out of hate a hate crime is absurd. The problem that the 'hate crime' statute tries to deal with is ignorance, not hate.

[Spivonious]

I do agree with the three degrees of murder (planned, spur of the moment, and didn't mean to kill him a.k.a. manslaughter). If you carefully planned out how to kill someone you should get a more severe punishment than someone who shot someone in a hunting accident. Should we add a zero degree murder, where it was planned and based on discrimination? I don't think there's a point.

All dividing us does is lead to more division. Can't we all just get along?

[anuske9]

If I get slugged in the face by someone they hate me for some reason. I walk up and slug them, they did something to make me hate them at that moment. Should either party get special protection or be tried for a different crime because I might be of a different race, or have different hair, or wear different clothing or have a different orientation? Absolutely not.

If the laws are that ineffective and allow for such absurdities, than they need to be changed or gotten rid of...

[CharvelRocker]

If the laws are that ineffective and allow for such absurdities, than they need to be changed or gotten rid of...

And that is the issue! Hate crime in the USA is defined in practice as "Well you did something against someone because of their color, so it's a hate crime and we're going to hit you harder."

[anuske9]

edit

[Rupe]

I think some good points have been made here, but ultimately I side with those who say a crime is a crime and there is no need to sub categorize to any great extent with racial and sexual orientation crimes being the exception. People will always find reasons to hate so the "anger" is not necessarily funneled at "emos" or "hippies" but rather simply the fact that those groups and others are different than the "norm". By choosing to dress or look a certain way that is not homogenous, a person will always be a target.

I dealt with it for years as a long haired metal head back in the 80's but I chose to look the way that I did fully understanding that there was risk involved. I remember being approached one night by two "Biff and Skip" yuppie/jock types as I was walking home from the bars at Penn State. They started giving me shit over my hair and clothes to which I'm sure I had some sort of witty comeback. They proceed to let me know that they are about to kick my ass so I instantly drop an elbow across the one dudes nose and he's immediately out of commission. I then instantly go on to pummel the other guy until the police show up. Of course they think I'm the trouble maker and completely take the bleeding yuppies' side...I must be the bad guy since I have long hair. Seeing as this happened out in the open, luckily there were several witnesses who came over and explained that I was the one who was threatened and I was merely defending myself. One of the cops pulled me aside and asked how I managed to take out two decent sized guys and not get so much as a scratch myself. I explained that I was sober and they were hammered and that I was a Muay Thai fighter and knew how to end things quickly. He then told me that I could press charges but recommended that I didn't as I could get into a great amount of trouble for not warning the thugs who actually came after me! I guess the point of all this is that not only was I a target for the thugs, but the police as well based purely on my appearance. That said, I don't think it was specifically because I was a metalhead...had I been a deadhead or new wave or something else I probably still would have been a target. I chose to look different and I dealt with the consequences.

[Bengal]

Current with out the hate crime part of the law, you could have someone that walking past a synagogue that just happened to see a jewish person walk out. This person on the spur of the moment screams I hate jews and shoots the jewish person dead. They could get second degree murder because it was spur of the moment.

Take this same shooter - he plans a killing of a man because that man kicked his ass a year ago, he would be tried for first degree because he planned it.

It's not fair but it's the law currently. Now if you make the first situation into a hate crime the guy could get the same sentence as in the second scenario.

I believe a good prosecuting attorney could prove that the the intent was there because he was carrying a gun. I think a good attorney could prove that was first degree murder. I don't really see the jewish example as 2nd degree murder.

I've always seen 2nd degree murder as more of a crime of passion type of thing. You catch a guy cheating in cards and you shoot him. You catch your wife cheating on you and you shoot them both. That kind of thing. I am not an attorney though so that's just how I've seen it. But say you catch your wife cheating with a black man and you yell out "I hate black people" while shooting him for catching him with your wife, is that different? I don't think so. It's still a "spur of the moment" crime or a "crime of passion". Still 2nd degree murder.

Thought crimes. Isn't that kind of like the movie Minority Report? A bit if a strech but kind of.

[~K~]

I believe a good prosecuting attorney could prove that the the intent was there because he was carrying a gun. I think a good attorney could prove that was first degree murder. I don't really see the jewish example as 2nd degree murder.

I've always seen 2nd degree murder as more of a crime of passion type of thing. You catch a guy cheating in cards and you shoot him. You catch your wife cheating on you and you shoot them both. That kind of thing. I am not an attorney though so that's just how I've seen it. But say you catch your wife cheating with a black man and you yell out "I hate black people" while shooting him for catching him with your wife, is that different? I don't think so. It's still a "spur of the moment" crime or a "crime of passion". Still 2nd degree murder.

Thought crimes. Isn't that kind of like the movie Minority Report? A bit if a strech but kind of.

OJ had several good attorney's

[Bengal]

OJ had several good attorney's

Indeed. That speaks more to the money issue than the race issue.

If you have money, you have an easier time getting "off" on those type of charges. Or avoiding jail and getting probation, that kind of thing.

[åron]

The hate crime statute is more effectively used on less extreme cases like vandalism and damage to property. Murder still tends to be tried in the traditional way, but harassment, putting nazi symbols on synagogues, burning crosses on peoples lawn, etc deserve a harsher penalty than simple misdemeanors.