I feel like we've had this thread already. More than once.

Before you can talk about how things should be punished, you have to establish what the point of punishing crime is. That way you can talk in these terms while making your argument.

I like these (not mine, or the author of the website, but got them from http://home.page.ch/pub/rfm@vtx.ch/punishment.html):

1. Incapacitation: A felon in prison cannot commit crimes while imprisoned.
2. Deterrence: The threat of punishment deters people from engaging in illegal acts.
3. Restitution: The felon is required to take some action to at least partially return the victim to the status quo ante.
4. Retribution: The felon harmed society; therefore society (or the direct victims) is entitled to inflict harm in return.
5. Rehabilitation: The punishment changes the felon in order to make him a better citizen afterwards.

So in terms of these, why should we punish people *more* harshly for committing a crime out of hatred rather than some other motivation?

Should a person who commits a hate crime be removed from society longer than a person who commits the same crime but without the hate?
Should other people be deterred from committing a crime motivated by hate more than a crime motivated by something else?
Do perpetrators of a crime motivated by hate owe more to a victim than the same crime not motivated by hate?
Does society need more retribution for crimes motivated by hate?
Does a hate criminal need to be changed more than a non-hate criminal?

I think an answer of "Yes" to any of the above questions has serious thought-crime connotations.

3/11/2010 11:59:36 AM

Man, I could have gotten away with a simple misdemeanor for spitting on those niggers, if only the THOUGHT POLICE hadn't found out I hate Black people

3/11/2010 12:03:58 PM

Quote :

"Man, I could have gotten away with a simple misdemeanor for spitting on those niggers, if only the THOUGHT POLICE hadn't found out I hate Black people."

This statement is valid. (I bet you thought you were being sarcastic.)

The crime there is spitting on someone. Your thoughts are not an additional crime, unless you support the policing of one's thoughts.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 12:04:24 PM

I think he's made it clear that he does.

his conclusions are borne out of emotion, not logic.

3/11/2010 12:35:58 PM

So forwarding a non-work related e-mail that talks about a sporting event is no different than forwarding a joke about black people being monkeys, right?

I mean, they're both forwarding non-work related e-mails, so they should be treated equally.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 12:38:57 PM

In the context of what the company feels like firing you over? Sure, whatever.

In the context of being charged with a crime, they are equivalent.

3/11/2010 12:58:55 PM

lol

3/11/2010 1:00:29 PM

Quote :

"I bet $20 that d357r0y3r is a White Christian male."

God, please answer this question. Would it make make his opinion more or less worthy in your mind if he was? If so, by definition, you are a racist bigot.

3/11/2010 1:06:36 PM

No, it means that he's never had to personally deal with racism, at least not in a way that greatly affected his life. Nor had his parents or grandparents.

It's always the White males who complain about "thought crime persecution," when they don't have to worry about being lynched for being in the wrong small town in West Virginia.

It's always the White males who complain about "negro scholarships," when they had their college paid for by their parents or had no trouble getting loans due to their good grades (and Whiteness).

It's always the White males who complain about "entitlement programs," when they have a cushy middle-class job and a family to support them.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 1:12 PM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 1:07:53 PM

lol

(that contributed a lot to this thread, didn't it?)

Am I allowed to quote John McWhorter here to show God that there are black people who think entitlement programs are actually hurting the black community? Or is he not black enough?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : John McWhorter]

3/11/2010 1:32:18 PM

Quote :

"It's always the White males who complain about "thought crime persecution," when they don't have to worry about being lynched for being in the wrong small town in West Virginia."

They're still lynching people for thought crimes in West Virginia? I thought they outlawed that years ago!

3/11/2010 1:39:05 PM

Quote :

"So there's no difference between shooting someone in the head during a robbery and executing a black man and writing "dead nigger" on his chest?"

Why would you think there is a difference? What additional harm above and beyond the muder was committed here? Arguably the first criminal should be punished more since he committed a robbery and a murder.

If it's because it terrorizes some community of people, then charge the criminal under the appropriate terrorism charges and be done with it. No need for a special "minorities only" law.

So lets go back to our guy shooting someone else during a robbery. Which of these crimes is a hate crime, where the murder deserves more severe punishment and why? Of the ones that are hate crimes, are any more serious than the others and deserving of even harsher punishment?

To set the stage, it's a bank robbery, and the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The victim did nothing to provoke the robber, it was a shooting in cold blood.

The murderer is a white male and his victim is a white male.

The murderer is a white male and once bought nazi literature and his victim is a white male

The murderer is a white male and secretly a neo-nazi and his victim is a white male.

The murderer is a white male and openly a neo-nazi and his victim is a white male.

The murderer is a white male and openly a neo-nazi wearing neo-nazi paraphernalia and the victim is a white male.

The murderer is a white male, openly neo-nazi, wearing paraphernalia and wrote a suicide note saying he was going to "purge the world of impurities" and his victim is a white male.

The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a Jewish male

The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a Muslim male

The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a white woman.

Same murderer, the victim is a Chinese man.

Same murderer, the victim is a Chinese woman.

Same murderer, the victim is a Native-American man.

Same murderer, the victim is a Native-American woman

Same murderer, the victim is a Mexican man.

Same murderer, the victim is a Mexican woman.

Same murderer, the victim is a gay man.

Same murderer, the victim is a lesbian.

Same murderer, the victim is a mulatto man.

Same murderer, the victim is a mulatto woman.

Same murderer, the victim is an African-American man.

Same murderer, the victim is an African-American woman.

Same murderer, the victim is a gay, African-American, Muslim man who rescues orphans and puppies.

How do you answers change if the murderer is Chinese, Muslim, Mexican, African-American, gay or a woman?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/11/2010 8:17:39 PM

3/11/2010 8:44:01 PM

Quote :

"I bet $20 that d357r0y3r is a White Christian male."

Sweet, you can just pay me through Paypal. It's funny that you could possibly think I'm a Christian, given my posting history.

3/11/2010 8:51:00 PM

Quote :

"Same murderer, the victim is a gay, African-American, Muslim man who rescues orphans and puppies."

well done

3/12/2010 12:04:09 AM

I feel compelled to share this bit of info of my personal life:
I grew in in Los Angeles, where the school I attended was 60% hispanic, 20% african american, and 20% white.
In elementary, the school I attended was 80% african american, and <20% white.

I have been subjected to racism as a white person, so God, I disagree with your ASSessment.

Quote :

"No, it means that he's never had to personally deal with racism, at least not in a way that greatly affected his life. Nor had his parents or grandparents. It's always the White males who complain about "thought crime persecution," when they don't have to worry about being lynched for being in the wrong small town in West Virginia. It's always the White males who complain about "negro scholarships," when they had their college paid for by their parents or had no trouble getting loans due to their good grades (and Whiteness). It's always the White males who complain about "entitlement programs," when they have a cushy middle-class job and a family to support them. "

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/12/2010 2:10:09 AM

God is hands down the worst and most dangerous type of liberal. Every political position he has seems to be purely emotionally based and nearly completely devoid of any fact based assessment of anything. And what makes it even more shocking as that he too is a white guy that probably came from a middle class family and in reality has no fucking clue what racism is about.

Is this just some seriously clever and well executed trolling (much better than Solonari could dream of pulling off?)...because a college educated individual can't be this intellectually bankrupt.

3/12/2010 6:49:03 AM

^

3/12/2010 7:26:12 AM

I'm not saying it's right, but being charged with a felony for this?

3/12/2010 8:33:06 AM

While we're sharing personal stories about race, heres mine:

I went to a private school with a mere ~127 students at the high-school level. My class size was 26. The overwhelming majority of students were white and wealthy. In the high school, there were two black students. During my junior year, something happened that hadn't happened in recent memory at the school: a student stole a teacher's purse and used her credit card. This was a big deal for the school - we had an hour long assembly covering it. It turned out to be one of the two black students. He was expelled. The other black student was the high school basketball star; at one point, a close-up picture of him, mid-jump, took up the entire top half of the News & Record Sports section front page. He was given a full ride to Clemson.

3/12/2010 9:48:18 AM

In before, "if it was a white kid he would have gotten a slap on the wrist".

3/12/2010 10:39:07 AM

^^Dwon Clifton from Westchester?

The description sounds like it. I had the pleasure of guarding him on a few occasions.

3/12/2010 11:06:22 AM

^Exactly right. Small world

3/12/2010 11:59:18 AM

hahaha. a bunch of COTTON BALLS makes someone feel "intimidated?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. oh my god, there's a q-tip, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

3/12/2010 3:01:15 PM

Yes, attempting to insult, offend, upset, enrage, and at times, terrorize a community can be neatly reduced to charges like "littering".

Do you people even listen to yourselves, or do you really have a huge hard-on for defending racists and bigots at the expense of practically everybody?

3/12/2010 3:06:53 PM

i wonder if a black person had to clean it up

3/12/2010 3:21:33 PM

Quote :

"Yes, attempting to insult, offend, upset, enrage, and at times, terrorize a community can be neatly reduced to charges like "littering". Do you people even listen to yourselves, or do you really have a huge hard-on for defending racists and bigots at the expense of practically everybody?"

God damn dude, just read the thread. No one here is defending their actions. There's a huge difference between defending the action and saying that the action should not be punished by the government. There are other ways of dealing with things besides a felony conviction.

3/12/2010 3:43:05 PM

White Fraternity Mocks Black History Month With “Compton Cookout”
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/white-fratenity-mocks-black-hitory-month-with-compton-cookout/

3/12/2010 3:43:41 PM

Quote :

"The invitation urged all participants to wear chains, rapper-style urban clothing by makers such as FUBU and speak very loudly. Female participants were encouraged to be “ghetto chicks” with gold teeth, cheap clothes and “short, nappy hair.” The invitation said the party would serve watermelon, chicken, malt liquor, cheap beer and a purple sugar-water concoction called “dat Purple Drank.”"

3/12/2010 3:49:21 PM

Quote :

"God damn dude, just read the thread. No one here is defending their actions. There's a huge difference between defending the action and saying that the action should not be punished by the government. There are other ways of dealing with things besides a felony conviction."

Obviously. Why shouldn't the government punish targeted, intentional harassment aimed at harming society again?

3/12/2010 4:00:45 PM

They were trying to "harm society"?

3/12/2010 4:04:31 PM

Don't be dense

3/12/2010 4:09:09 PM

Society is not a person. "Harming society" should not be a crime. If you actually cause harm to some person within society, that's a different story.

3/12/2010 4:15:47 PM

Quote :

"Why shouldn't the government punish targeted, intentional harassment aimed at harming society again?"

You said it. You said it was "aimed at harming society". So, are you saying that their intent was to harm society?

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2010 4:16:33 PM

This is why it's good 19 year old libertarians don't run our government

not going to respond to some intentionally dense posturing, either. Got better shit to do.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2010 4:17:25 PM

so, basically, you can't defend what you said. and you will now run away

3/12/2010 5:27:55 PM

Quote :

"Society is not a person. "Harming society" should not be a crime. If you actually cause harm to some person within society, that's a different story."

Actions that harm society lead to people being harmed.

What you're saying is that instead of recognizing the obvious source of a problem, we should wait for someone to get harmed first, while ignoring the root cause of what essentially are symptoms. This is a pretty poor way of dealing with ANYTHING.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2010 6:21:40 PM

Quote :

"Actions that harm society lead to people being harmed."

Alright. When people do end up getting harmed, that's when the government should step in. If we're going to punish anything that could eventually lead to harm, our justice system becomes Minority Report except without the ability to see the future.

Quote :

"What you're saying is that instead of recognizing the obvious source of a problem, we should wait for someone to get harmed first, while ignoring the root cause of what essentially are symptoms. This is a pretty poor way of dealing with ANYTHING."

I'm actually not saying we should ignore the source of the problem. I'm saying it can be dealt with by society, and not by government. If someone does some racist shit, we can discourage that behavior by making that person feel bad about what they've done. We can even tell them that they can't be apart of our organization, or that they can't be on our property. We don't need to put them in jail, though.

Interesting that you'd make a point about ignoring the root cause. Our entire economic policy is based around treating symptoms rather than the root cause. You didn't hear many on the left criticizing the Federal Reserve until it became popular to do so, though.

3/12/2010 9:11:12 PM

If society wasn't capable of being harmed, then what is "Terrorism" and why are we warring against it in particular?

3/12/2010 10:56:54 PM

Quote :

"I'm actually not saying we should ignore the source of the problem. I'm saying it can be dealt with by society, and not by government. If someone does some racist shit, we can discourage that behavior by making that person feel bad about what they've done. We can even tell them that they can't be apart of our organization, or that they can't be on our property. We don't need to put them in jail, though. "

That presumes we trust society to punish racism.

There is absolutely no reason to do so considering the history of the country, and various other things.

3/12/2010 11:11:09 PM

Are you really suggesting that this country hasn't punished racism?

Quote :

"What you're saying is that instead of recognizing the obvious source of a problem, we should wait for someone to get harmed first, while ignoring the root cause of what essentially are symptoms. This is a pretty poor way of dealing with ANYTHING."

How does adding extra years to someone's sentence, after they've already committed the crime, help to address the root cause of the problem?

3/13/2010 8:11:08 AM

Quote :

"Yes, attempting to insult, offend, upset, enrage, and at times, terrorize a community can be neatly reduced to charges like "littering"."

Quote :

"If it's because it terrorizes some community of people, then charge the criminal under the appropriate terrorism charges and be done with it. No need for a special "minorities only" law."

3/13/2010 8:59:16 AM

Quote :

"passive aggressive hate crime"

haha

winner.

3/14/2010 4:51:06 AM

Quote :

""If it's because it terrorizes some community of people, then charge the criminal under the appropriate terrorism charges and be done with it. No need for a special "minorities only" law.""

the "minorities only" law is exactly the "terrorism charge" you are talking about. except that its not "minority only" and has been used against people who had criminal actions against white people that were deemed to be hate crimes.

Quote :

"How does adding extra years to someone's sentence, after they've already committed the crime, help to address the root cause of the problem?"

since when is the sole purpose of criminal punishments to address the root cause of the issue. how does charging me $100 months after i was caught speeding address the root cause of the problem?

[Edited on March 14, 2010 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2010 12:48:28 PM

cotton balls, people. COTTON FUCKING BALLS.

3/15/2010 1:43:45 AM

Don't be dense.

3/15/2010 10:25:52 AM

Don't be obtuse.

3/15/2010 11:02:26 AM

Freedom of speech + littering.

They made no threat, are they hateful dicks, yes, but they are allowed to be hateful dicks.

Any really diverse institution will contain hateful dicks. If everyone thinks the same way, then you don't actually have diversity.

What should have happened is you let the students say, wow those are some hateful pricks. Which they will say, because the majority of them aren't racist assholes.

But instead of letting your diverse campus actually handle itself, you have to bring in the cops, and then make it something bigger than it is.

If you want a real diverse environment you have to be able o deal with thoughts and opinions that are not your own, and my not even be socially acceptable.

If we want real diversity, we can't only include the views that we like, or find socially acceptable.

3/15/2010 12:44:17 PM

cotton balls. dude. COTTON BALLS. I'm not giving a fuck right now about how to deal w/ "hate crimes." I'm simply saying this wasn't in any way a hate crime. It was, as ^ pointed out, a couple kids being dicks. It's akin to someone telling a black-joke. Insensitive? Sure. Worthy of a fucking felony charge? Hell no.

3/16/2010 12:03:39 AM

Quote :

"They made no threat, are they hateful dicks, yes, but they are allowed to be hateful dicks. "

You are not actually, not when it comes to protected classes like race.

It's the same as how screaming fire in a theater is illegal too, and not covered under free speech.

Quote :

"If you want a real diverse environment you have to be able o deal with thoughts and opinions that are not your own, and my not even be socially acceptable. "

This is already done, except we've established long ago for good reason that there is nothing to be gained by allowing people to be racists assholes. It is damaging to society, especially a society with a history like ours.

^ why do you keep repeating that? Clearly it's not an issue of cotton balls. Some part of you retarded brain must surely realize this, because you can somehow recognize deeper concepts in other contexts. BUt when it comes to race, your brain seems to shut down. You must be one of those idiots that feel you're being persecuted for being white because you can't walk up to any black man and yell "nigger" in his face.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2010 12:13:42 AM