Violent crime or hate crime?

HomeLAN said:
Luis, I'm going to be nice and assume you meant yank to be short for yankee. :D
Click to expand...

yes, that's what i meant, although my webster dictionary says it is "Yank" and not "yank", ohh whatever, you got it right ;) :D
 
hang on...you mean there is a capital 'y'?

does that mean there are capital otherletters too? nooooo :eek:

:D
 
:D

it might be also an english rule similar to the spanish one, in spanish any abbreviation should begin with a capital letter and terminated by a dot.
 
i think so, although i'm not 100% sure on the caps rule. we certainly shorten with a dot.
 
Well, this will be short compared to my epic post's on the subject.

These three men should be brought to justice for beating up a man. Not for beating up a gay man.

 
OMG...I agree with , too.

What must be understood is that a crime is a crime (good line, HomeLAN). Motive is not always equal to a crime. The most important thing in life, however, is respect. I don't have to like a person/group/etc., but I do have to respect their right to be who they are. The flip side is, I must also be respected in the same way. If I don't wish to know something, then it's my decision.
 
Luis, ris, HomeLAN, Gato, & Gonz, all on the same page :rolleyes:

hell is cold tonight

As America, in particular, has moved left, there have been a whole slew of laws written to cover teh latest fad crime. Why? Can't we live with a few dozen laws that cover the crime & leave the semantics to the pysch professors to argue over? Motivating factors are great for class study & become hinderences in the court. My idea is one law & several degrees of seperation. "Under penalty of law, is is deemed illegal to remove posession from another without express consent." Basically, don't steal (lives, goods, cash, material worth, etc).
 
The law, as Gonz wrote it, doesn't leave much out. Either you stole (removed without permission), or you didn't. Loopholes are created by those who would actually like to legalize their crime at the expense of society. ;)
 
You can't tell from looking at that if it's a hate crime or not. Each case needs to be taken on an individual basis. If they attacked him because he was gay it was a hate crime. Pure and simple. Is it a hatecrime just because he was gay? We need to establish why he was attacked. I hope minorities don't get that kind of privilidge in our society.
A crime is a crime but there are different levels of violence and some are more cruel then others resulting in a need for more severe punishment. If a person attacks another over a dispute the two have been having it's not the same thing as a random act of violence.
 
The motive behind a crime is not as offensive as the crime itself. As far as individually looking at a crime, I say that if a precedent is set for a punishment for an offense, then all subsequent offenses of the same nature get the same punishment. Motives be-damned. The only thing you do when you add the word 'Hate' to any infraction is give someone an excuse (loophole) later.
 
I disagree. If all crimes were equal then we could easily have manditory sentencing laws across the board.
Example:
1. A man kills a another man because he is green and he hates green men.
2. A man kills another man because he raped his child.

Both are murder under law, but who wouldn't at least have some sympathy for the man avenging his family.
 
The law is blind but we shouldn't be. We kill in war but refrain from calling it murder because we believe our wars are for a just cause, therefor putting us within* the law. Likewise, if someone harms my family under some circumstances i would take justice into my own hands. Excluding any notion god, the law is not above man, But man makes the law. Therefor murder is only what man classifies as murder. There is a difference between murder and killing. Murder is unjust killing. I hear what you're saying in principle, but i suspect under extreme circumstances you would be just as likely to kill a perpitrator who harmed one of your loved ones and i believe you would feel that you had atleast some just cause in your reaction. I don't think flexability in sentencing gives people an excuse to kill and get away with it, on the contrary. Example: Most rapes are commited by an acquaintance that the victim knows. If the perpitrator knows that i'm a man that will kill him without hesitation for harming my family then maybe he will hesitate to commit the crime in the first place. Sure this flexability in the law might let the criminal think he can get away with the crime but Americas Judge and Juror sytem is one of the best in the world making it easy to see through lies.


*or above
 
What about O.J.? :p I know...sensationalism, but you do get my point. Sometimes the guilty go free, sometimes the innocent suffer. Funny thing is...most of the folks that go free are either rich, or celebrities.

Question...

If you attempted to steal (got caught) over $6,000 in designer clothes, where would you be right now?

Second question...

Where is Wynona Rider?

One crime...one punishment. It's simple, it's easy, and it cuts 99% of the BS lawyers can do in a trial. Once you open the 'Pandora's box' of motives, et al, you wind up with the 'Twinkie Defense'...
 
Good point. The law is only as perfect as those writing it. The same goes for crack vs cocaine law.
So much of it depends on your perspective. The way i look at it, i'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man punished unjustly.
The system is a work in progress. I think we can learn something from from canadas book of law. Had OJ been tried there he'd be in jail now. The public justice system was a brilliant idea but when it was written cnn didn't exist. Canada doesn't let the cameras in the courtroom. And as far as the lawyers go... well i just like to think about OJ trying that glove on and laugh. I think we all just need a little Common Sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top