Tell me again, why isn't this a hate crime?

[DisneyBamaFan]

I agree with all murders being 'hate crimes'. It seems common sense that you must hate someone to murder them.

Not necessarily. Some kill for other reasons. There are many killers who feel nothing at all for their victims. In fact, most of those who commit real atrocities have completely dehumanized their victims.

To select some crimes and deem them worse because of the classification of the victim is nonsense...

Agreed - when a life is taken intentionally, it is a tragedy. That is classification enough. Murder is murder...

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Pretty much, yes. Isn't that the point behind what most of you are saying? The crux of the argument against this stories relevance is: the guy is dead.

The story is still relevant - the question is about the relevance of the classification of the crime and the motive of the man, who is dead and cannot hurt anyone else.

Understand that the only reason that some crimes are identified as "hate" crimes is because there are stiffer penalties for those crimes. The reason for that is the liklihood that the perpetrator will commit such a crime again. When the perpetrator is dead, this loses relevance.

 

[Hercules10]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to be a pretty large group that thinks, more or less.

If the person who did something that would have/ could have been considered a crime happens to die during the commission of the event dies, then the event isn't really a crime nor should it be considered one.


I didn't know that this is how our justice system works. Anyone out there know for certain?

Because they cannot prosecute a corpse.

Had the shooter lived a DA might've attached hate crime upcharge to the murder charges. But I'd also be willing to bet the shooter would claimed he wasn't in his right mind at the time of the crime yada-yada-yada, blah-blah-blah. I'm glad the shooter saved us the trouble.

 

[Free4Life11]

Because the victims were not black. That's why. Is that the answer you're looking for?

I couldn't really care less whether a crime is classified as a hate crime. You seem to get so hung up on this issue?

 

[LuvOrlando]

Yeah, I am hung up on it, but not for the vulgar reason you cite. I am hung up on the principle, and will continue to be pretty much forever. That's the funny thing about integrity, people who have it seldom pale when the subject is unfashionable and I ain't going anywhere.



With regard to the corpse, I was under the impression that an investigation is still done whether or not the criminal is dead, therefore it is still relevant. IF he killed because he hated a particular group THEN it is a hate crime, and not classifying it as such is wrong... unless the whole designation is done away with. The only irrefutable point made is that the guy is dead. IF being dead means it wasn't a crime THEN the classification is irrelevant. IF that is not the case THEN it is still relevant. It's pretty plain to me.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...With regard to the corpse, I was under the impression that an investigation is still done whether or not the criminal is dead, therefore it is still relevant.

It will still be classified as a murder, and the deaths will be included in murder statistics. A trial need not take place for this to happen.

IF he killed because he hated a particular group then it is a hate crime. The only irrefutable point made is that the guy is dead. If being dead means it wasn't a crime then the classification is irrelevant. It that is not the case then it is still relevant.

But, if the only reason to classify something as a hate crime is to ensure that the person is treated as a likely repeat offendor and punished/tracked accordingly, then the perpetrator being dead effects this, doesn't it? We do not classify things as hate crimes just for the heck of it, or to create some sort of statistical category.

Why, exactly, does this bother you? If you are standing on integrity, what about NOT classifying this as a hate crime offends your integrity?

 

[golfgal]

Because discrimination, hate crimes and prejudice against white people is perfectly acceptable in this country because it wouldn't be politically correct to do anything about this. Even more so if you are a white female. It is ok to crack jokes about blonds, pay women less, etc. because they are white females but try cracking a joke about a minority group and OH MY the back lash. I am not saying that it is ok to make fun of anyone, it is just a double standard.

I was reading a post on a relocation board and it asked "where to all the African American's hang out"--meaning they wanted to find a bar or restaurant to meet people. I asked on the thread "so, if I posted the same topic but inserted "white" for AA, I would have been jumped all over for being racist but it is ok if you are black to not want to hang out with whites, right .

 

[LuvOrlando]

Why, exactly, does this bother you? If you are standing on integrity, what about NOT classifying this as a hate crime offends your integrity?

Because the same logic was used to deny ethnic minorities and women the right to vote, and the right to own property in the past. Historical abuses of this manner of thinking are well documented. If our laws are allowed to be subjective in their treatment of citizens then they can be bent easily whichever way the wind blows.

If we are all equal then the law must treat us all as equals without exception. If there are exceptions then they will upset me because the collective nod of approval towards their existence means we've learned nothing at all from history.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to be a pretty large group that thinks, more or less.

If the person who did something that would have/ could have been considered a crime happens to die during the commission of the event dies, then the event isn't really a crime nor should it be considered one.


I didn't know that this is how our justice system works. Anyone out there know for certain?

Yeah, I am hung up on it, but not for the vulgar reason you cite. I am hung up on the principle, and will continue to be pretty much forever. That's the funny thing about integrity, people who have it seldom pale when the subject is unfashionable and I ain't going anywhere.


With regard to the corpse, I was under the impression that an investigation is still done whether or not the criminal is dead, therefore it is still relevant. IF he killed because he hated a particular group THEN it is a hate crime, and not classifying it as such is wrong... unless the whole designation is done away with. The only irrefutable point made is that the guy is dead. IF being dead means it wasn't a crime THEN the classification is irrelevant. IF that is not the case THEN it is still relevant. It's pretty plain to me.

Yes, a crime was committed. No one here is saying otherwise. However, because the perpetrator is dead, it's classification as a "hate crime" is irrelevant. There is no one left to "pay" for the crime that was committed (whether by a longer prison sentence or financially).

And please don't kid yourself into believing you're the only one on this thread who is principled and has integrity. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Just because we may not agree with your call for a specific designation to be appointed to this crime, does not mean with are not principled and have integrity.

 

[LuvOrlando]

And please don't kid yourself into believing you're the only one on this thread who is principled and has integrity. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Just because we may not agree with your call for a specific designation to be appointed to this crime, does not mean with are not principled and have integrity.

That wasn't my idea. I didn't go calling anyone out by asking people to justify their own points of view did I? However MY predilection was questioned, and now because I defend myself you are attempting to put me on the defensive again. Nope, I'm not having it.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Because the same logic was used to deny ethnic minorities and women the right to vote, and the right to own property in the past. Historical abuses of this manner of thinking are well documented. If our laws are allowed to be subjective in their treatment of citizens then they can be bent easily whichever way the wind blows.

If we are all equal then the law must treat us all as equals without exception. If there are exceptions then they will upset me because the collective nod of approval towards their existence means we've learned nothing at all from history.

I agree with all of this, but think that any "hate crime" classification would be meaningless in this example for the reasons that I stated earlier.

You want to say that the murder of any group of people out of hate should be treated as a hate crime in court. I agree, but only under certain conditions - when there is a perpetrator to bring to justice and when the hate is a type that is likely to increase the liklihood that the person will commit such an act again.

A man who hates his wife and kills her for it is not commiting a hate crime (unless he has more than one wife ). He is commiting a crime motivated by hate, but that is not what defines a crime as a "hate crime".

A man who kills a woman (any woman) because he hates women is commiting a hate crime, and will probably do so again if allowed.

A man who murders someone because he is mentally ill - another story altogether. And not everyone who kills is mentally ill. In fact, very few are.

IMO, you need to find a case where a perpetrator should have been prosecuted for a hate crime but was not. They happen every day. Direct your outrage where it can make a difference.

Just my opinion...

 

[PrincessKsMom]

That wasn't my idea. I didn't go calling anyone out by asking people to justify their own points of view did I? However MY predilection was questioned, and now because I defend myself you are attempting to put me on the defensive again. Nope, I'm not having it.

Not trying to make you defend yourself at all. I was hoping this would remain the friendly discussion it started out as, without the mudslinging, but it seems to have take a turn for the worst, especially now that it's become about racism. Hopefully we can have a friendly discussion about another topic on the CB in the future.

 

[LuvOrlando]

WOW, remember when I posted not too long ago about people who come along and attempt to sabotage discussions by throwing out insults.
Has there ever been a clearer example?

I don't get how a person makes the leap of an argument for equality to racism, not only is that an ugly term but its usage is completely without merit.

I think that making me defensive is exactly what you are trying to do. You're throwing out bombs and pretending you're not. IT's not cool.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Because discrimination, hate crimes and prejudice against white people is perfectly acceptable in this country because it wouldn't be politically correct to do anything about this. Even more so if you are a white female. It is ok to crack jokes about blonds, pay women less, etc. because they are white females but try cracking a joke about a minority group and OH MY the back lash. I am not saying that it is ok to make fun of anyone, it is just a double standard.

I was reading a post on a relocation board and it asked "where to all the African American's hang out"--meaning they wanted to find a bar or restaurant to meet people. I asked on the thread "so, if I posted the same topic but inserted "white" for AA, I would have been jumped all over for being racist but it is ok if you are black to not want to hang out with whites, right .

WOW, remember when I posted not too long ago about people who come along and attempt to sabotage discussions by throwing out insults.
Has there ever been a clearer example?

I don't get how a person makes the leap of an argument for equality to racism, not only is that an ugly term but its usage is completely without merit.

I think that making me defensive is exactly what you are trying to do. You're throwing out bombs and pretending you're not. IT's not cool.

Actually my post on racism was referring to the post by golfgal, not anything you said, but since you seem to have me pegged as a troublemaker and pot stirrer, nothing will change your mind. I'm not here to sabotage you, your threads, or those of anyone else on the Board. I tried to play nice in the sandbox, but I guess it's just lost on some people.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

WOW, remember when I posted not too long ago about people who come along and attempt to sabotage discussions by throwing out insults.
Has there ever been a clearer example?

I don't get how a person makes the leap of an argument for equality to racism, not only is that an ugly term but its usage is completely without merit.

I think that making me defensive is exactly what you are trying to do. You're throwing out bombs and pretending you're not. IT's not cool.

And BTW LO, if you want to call me out personally, please feel free to do so, don't hide behind a generalized post when you mean me. We both knew you meant me, and I'm a big girl, I can take it.

 

[Arielle22]

Because the same logic was used to deny ethnic minorities and women the right to vote, and the right to own property in the past. Historical abuses of this manner of thinking are well documented. If our laws are allowed to be subjective in their treatment of citizens then they can be bent easily whichever way the wind blows.

If we are all equal then the law must treat us all as equals without exception. If there are exceptions then they will upset me because the collective nod of approval towards their existence means we've learned nothing at all from history.

I disagree with the entire idea of a "hate crime". If someone I loved is killed I want their killer be locked up for the same amt of time as someone charged with a hate crime. Why should it take a title for a murderer to get more time?

How is it equal treatment to call the same crime 2 different names for different punishment?

 

[LuvOrlando]

And BTW LO, if you want to call me out personally, please feel free to do so, don't hide behind a generalized post when you mean me. We both knew you meant me, and I'm a big girl, I can take it.

WOW, again, you've misdirected me. I didn't mean you, I meant the behavior which isn't any one person's domain. I generally do not remember posters, only content. If it was/is you that makes a habit of this sort of thing then you just outed yourself, don't hang it on me.

If you meant to direct a criticism at a poster not a thread then please be more specific in the future. This is a thread I started and if you throw out a generalized bomb you have to expect that everyone hit by the shrapnel will notice.... and respond.

I'm a big girl too and not only do I say what I mean, I mean what I say.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I disagree with the entire idea of a "hate crime". If someone I loved is killed I want their killer be locked up for the same amt of time as someone charged with a hate crime. Why should it take a title for a murderer to get more time?

How is it equal treatment to call the same crime 2 different names for different punishment?

It is a mechanism that our courts use to put people at risk of committing a crime again away for a longer period of time. They did not reduce the sentences for murderers - they increased the sentences for people who are considered a greater threat to society. That, to me, makes perfect sense. Had they reduced the standard sentence for murder to accomodate this new "category", I would agree with you.

Not every murder is equal, no matter what the victim's survivors might think...

 

[LuvOrlando]

I disagree with the entire idea of a "hate crime". If someone I loved is killed I want their killer be locked up for the same amt of time as someone charged with a hate crime. Why should it take a title for a murderer to get more time?

How is it equal treatment to call the same crime 2 different names for different punishment?

I can see what you are saying. But, our legal system does already differentiate crimes based upon intent such as in designation of manslaughter, homicide or Capitol Murder.

I think that, in practice, what we are now seeing unravel in the usage of 'hate crime' designation is that now the victim is more relevant than the crime itself. To me that is scary

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I can see what you are saying. But, our legal system does already differentiate crimes based upon intent such as in designation of manslaughter, homicide or Capitol Murder.

I think that, in practice, what we are now seeing unravel in the usage of 'hate crime' designation is that now the victim is more relevant than the crime itself. To me that is scary

I disagree. I think that we are seeing that our criminal justice system is looking for ways to punish criminals more effectively, based on the crime, the intent, and the liklihood of recidivism. But that is just my opinion...