Nov 26, 2007 08:42 am Maybe racist and homophobic related crimes should be called "Ignorancy Crimes" that seems like a larger factor in their presence than hate.
Interesting Story This Morning
Posted on Nov 26, 2007 07:37 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
On the bus this morning, listening to the radio on my new Zune they had a story about "hate crime" in Minnesota. Apparently St. Cloud (central Minnesota college town) has the highest "hate crime" rate in the state.
Then, their spin was that the other cities are not reporting correctly, to me that sounds kinda funny. "Well, we have the highest hate crime rate because the others lie!".
Secondly...isn't pretty much all crime "hate crime"...isn't "hate crime" a stupid thing to even study. I mean, I know what they are trying to study and report on, but I would think that should fall under racism or homophobia than "hate crime".
I dunno, just gave me something to think about on the bus I guess, I just find the phrase "hate crime" incredibly stupid.
[ Back to Top ]
Nov 26, 2007 08:42 am Maybe racist and homophobic related crimes should be called "Ignorancy Crimes" that seems like a larger factor in their presence than hate.
Nov 26, 2007 09:10 am I want to see the love crime stats.
Nov 26, 2007 09:12 am I think the Loring Park area in Minneapolis is leading that stat...
Nov 26, 2007 11:46 am Hate crime makes sense to me, and I think it's used because it is an overall general term.
I would say most crimes are perpetrated out of greed, not hate. I think there is a difference. Anyways...
Nov 26, 2007 12:18 pm Yeah, but should it be punished differently? My bigger problem with labeling crimes is that they try to enforce more harsh rules if a guy gets beat up cuz he's gay as opposed to just being a typical crime victim, and that is incredibly stupid in my way of thinking. A crime is a crime, if a dude beats up and robs another dude race, religion or sexual preference should be moot, the dude beat and robbed somebody, end of story.
Nov 26, 2007 12:49 pm Well, if you do sentence differently, you're sentencing based on motive, not on outcome... I'm not sure, if which way I fall on this one...
Nov 26, 2007 12:50 pm Exactly, I don't think motive matters, you kill somebody they are dead regardless of the reason you did it.
Nov 26, 2007 04:04 pm Motive matters in the US system because -
###Not sure if I'm getting the names right warning###
Jefferson and many thinkers along his lines believed incarceration was only meant to inhibit the offender... to keep them from offending again... so if someone killed because it was an accident they got a lower sentence because it was unlikely for them to kill again... whereas if someone liked to kill they got a life sentence because they probably would kill again.... to those thinkers the death sentence imposed too much onto the offender... even though I believe it has it's place... particularly to those who 'like to kill.'
So that trickled down to other laws... basically the entire system is not meant to 'punish' but to 'prevent' ...because the value of the 'punishment' changes over time... having mandatory minimum sentences would go directly against most of the founders beliefs.
Of course one of the huge problems now is that the founders didn't have meth addicts to deal with... or other criminals undeterred by incarceration. In fact I would say most US founders would suggest that drug addicts and the like get life sentences in rehab asylums until they are 'cured.'
Dec 04, 2007 12:14 am The reason capital punishment is not the deterrant it is supposed to be is that it is not imposed nor executed in a timely manner due to long, LONG appeal processes. Also, there is much more doubt considered by jurors and judges causing the death penalty to be avoided for fear of wrongful convictions.
I think the death penalty should only be imposed for murder, rape, and any violent crime on children. It should also require at least three eyewitnesses, DNA match and verification, or confession. It should not apply to totally circumstantial cases. Appeals should have priority and be completed in one year, and sentence imposed within 48 hours thereafter.
Dec 04, 2007 04:29 am i think everyone should automatically be born with the death penalty, and that people should have to accomplish something that's so good it saves 'em.
there's a way to make the world better, eh?
Dec 04, 2007 05:43 pm 'scuse me if I don't spell this right, my Latin could be better ("Why I speak Latin like a native!"):
Actus non facit ici mensit reum.
An act itself does not constitute guilt, unless guilt is in the mind.
It's why we have murder in differing degrees, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.
Quote:
I think the death penalty should only be imposed for murder, rape, and any violent crime on children. It should also require at least three eyewitnesses, DNA match and verification, or confession. It should not apply to totally circumstantial cases. Appeals should have priority and be completed in one year, and sentence imposed within 48 hours thereafter.
Nice!!!!
Dec 04, 2007 09:38 pm I think my trans is a bit better... considering ici isn't a latin word as far as I can tell :)
Actus non [facitico] mensit reum.
performance does not make mind criminal (or plaintiff - it can go both ways)
But from my JAG days...
Action always constitutes guilt, guilt does not constitute criminality.
unofficial corps motto "Everybody's guilty!" :) - that or "Deny all claims!"... but not everyone gets to do claims processing...
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.