Originally Posted by BillSWPA
There's nothing civil about this war.
The specific politics, religion, and gender identity of any shooter is not particularly meaningful.
What's truly loathsome is the effort by the media and others to try and attribute those things as causes. The media is particularly bad about pushing identity when they see it as politically advantageous, or in this case suppressing (or outright misleading) when it's inconvenient.
If you are wondering why the compass is broken, look at the coverage.
This is why I'm sick and tired of the creation of new laws for "hate crimes" and offenses of various stripes...based upon gender, identity, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc.
One set of laws for all. A homicide or rape or other transgression against another doesn't need to be different for different "groups". Murder is murder is murder...white, black, brown, yellow, red, man, woman, or child, Jew, Christian, Muslim, gay straight, unicorn or whatever. Instead of enhancements written into the law for particular "groups", the sentencing judge should be afforded leeway based upon the facts and merits of the case.
(Of course, I realize, after many years spent bringing criminal cases to trial, that it is more complicated and nuanced.)
I don't believe I'll live long enough to see a return to sanity. I thought the country was putting itself at future risk in the late 90's...but I didn't quite see this coming.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Not to divert but the argument for hate crime laws is that there are two crimes in the incident:
1. The actual attack
2. The attack is being used to terrorize the targeted group, causing them pain, terror and a change in their real world behavior. As you cannot wear the symbols of your faith or go into certain areas.
Whether one believes that #2 constitutes a reason for a second crime, I leave to the reader to debate. If you give the judges leeway to add to a sentence, how is that different from a specific statute?
Anyway, that could be a different thread.
I do think the trans issue is irrelevant except maybe in the sense that is a cause for emotional problems that led to a grievance solved through violence. Many other issues led to such grievances and similar incidents.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
I know a few gay dudes. For some reason these gay dudes loath lesbians. I'm not in their circle of friends but I've heard their comments. I never did figure that one out.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Since we can't get off sexual orientation, Baron Von Steuben who helped whip the Continental Army into shape and save the Revolution was gay. Was that causal for his excellent military abilities?
Now, could we get back to the incident and who cares about Herbert, J. Edgar or other Hoovers. We had a Hoover vacuum cleaner - who cares.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
Can you cite a criminal statute that is written on the basis of an affinity group? I'm unfamiliar with this existing*. My understanding is that the enhancements for hate crimes, or rather separate charges for hate crimes, is based upon motive and not simply the victim's inclusion into a group. i.e. a black man killing a black man generally isn't going to get a hate crime levied, as the laws regarding hate crimes are not based on the black man being black man...rather, the reason the black man was killed, nor does the proverbial black man need to be a black man for the hate crime to apply: he can be of any race, ethnicity, or religion including a WASP. What matters is whether the crime constituted a hate crime, not the gender/identity/nationality/ethnicity/religion of the victim.
As you desire, the laws as currently written to not dole out separate punishments based on the gender, identity, nationality, ethnicity, or religion of the victim. If that happens, it's due to the personal whims of the judge, which would only get more pronounced if we removed mandatory minimums or sentencing guidelines.
At least, I haven't heard of what you're speaking about. It doesn't exist at the federal level, but I can't pretend to know every states' law. If it's something specific to your locality/state, I'm curious to see it.
*With the exception that the only affinity group/identity that has enhancements/different statutes simply for the sake of being in that group, I believe, are government officials (in particular police officers) and those of exceptional vulnerability (children, elderly, pregnant women, and disabled).
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
That might be part of the problem. There seems to be a lot of people these days that fail to launch. Parents are enabling their children to fail. I'm sure some kids can't make it on their own, I know one who graduates HS this year. He will always be living with his parents but they've done a good job preparing him to function outside his home. He has a job and has developed good social skills.
I also know a person who is about 30 who still lives at home. Good social skills and physically able to work. Parents just never demanded that he (assumed) had to live on his own.
My wife and I talk about this occasionally. She has 4 sibs and I have 1 and 4 steps. Her parents had the same plans as mine. Once you graduate from HS it's time to hit the road. We all did and we're all still alive except my oldest step brother. Go to work, go to college or enlist. That was more or less common in the 60's and 70's. What changed?
OK Boomer.
Last edited by Borderland; 03-29-2023 at 10:41 AM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Amen to that!
Assessing an extra severity of penalty if an infraction is adjudged a "hate crime" amounts to the assumption of "thought crime" (a la Orwell's 1984), and has no place in objective assignment of guilt in legal proceedings against criminals.
Now, if only the police were being consistently supported by their administrative superiors, and permitted to do their jobs, and if only the existing laws were being enforced, and the criminals incarcerated instead of being instantly released...
"Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman
What if the attackers explicitly announce that the incident was directed at a minority group? Some during the attacks have announced their motivation for the attack or left evidence of their motive.
I grant you that if X attacks Y with Y being a group usually targeted and there is no explicit evidence of such, that is problematic.
If X attacks Y and plans are found or statement found that the motive was to:
1. Hurt the target
2. Terrorize the target group
is that a thought crime?
Again, the argument is for 2 crimes - the physical attack on the victim and second, the wanting to terrorize. Folks seem hung up on that a beating is a beating but ignore the second aspect.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
Reply With Quote