Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
I understood exactly what he was claiming. Do you notice how inconsistent your view is with how our law has historically and currently works?
|
Nonsense.
It is perfectly consistant and no amount of obfusication or ad hominim attack changes that.
The core arguement you are trying to make is that the status of the victim (gay, black, etc) should be taken into account during trial and sentencing. Further, you are trying to argue that this consideration is equal to the consideration we give to the criminal justice classifications of different types of homicide, e.g. first degree murder vs vehicular homicide, etc. Nothing is farther from the truth. Those classifications go to
circumstance and
intent whereas you would have us believe
motive should also be considered.
This is an arguement I reject utterly.
Quote:
Using that same logic, you would have to conclude that victims of spontaneous murder are less important than when their attackers planned it beforehand because we have two different crimes and punishment for those, as well.
|
No no and no.
The crimes are what they are and should be punished as such, regardless if the victim was a white business man or a black homosexual hairdresser.
Quote:
If I hit you with a bat out of malice and you can prove it in court then I will have a more severe charge and sentence than if I had merely hit you because I was angry or even without feeling--accidental or in self-defense.
|
This is as close as you've come to actually making a convincing arguement, but I can concede that there are aggravating circumstances (such as anger or lack of) which might enhance or mitigate sentencing PROVIDED that these rules are applied evenly.
Can you see the difference from this and what you are argueing for?
Quote:
Our legal system is based on the intent and what we are arguing over in terms of what constitutes "thought" in regards to the offender--how violently did he or she violate our social norms. It is not about justice between a victim and offender--that's the role of civil lititgation. Criminal trials are purely between the state and offender.
|
Can you see how you've contradicted yourself?
You say that the "trials are purely between the state and the offender." yet you are argueing that a particular trait of the
victim be considered in the trial.
If it is as you say, then the victim should sue the offender if they feel additional victimization due to other factors.
You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
I would be very surprised if either of you have had extensive experience with the criminal infrastructure. If you don't have personal experience, how do you get your information--from the movies, media, rumor, perceptions, etc.
|
Ad hominim attack not even worth response.
Quote:
|
The legal system is a codified struggle over values and beliefs--thoughts. Whether you like it or not, the people in charge of the legal structure create legislation that controls actions and thoughts--we learn society's norms via people close to us, educators, distant relations (work, friends, etc), and also the law.
|
Something else we agree on, except that I would add that it is the
citizens who are ultimately in charge of the legal structure and as a citizen, I am saying NO to the offensive idea of a "Hate Crime". Now it remains to be seen how many fellow citizens I can convince so we can elect people to office that agree with us.
Quote:
|
Hate crime legislations is not some new, liberal attempt to control thought.
|
Yeah, right.