• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

Deacon923 said:
I'm not even sure the aggravating factor concept makes sense. There is no way that there is any deterrent value in hate crimes laws. If a guy hates another person bad enough to beat him up or kill him, the thug is not going to suddenly think to himself "oh no, if I do this because of my hatred for gays I'll get 30 years instead of just 20 years" and refrain from killing his victim.

Hate crimes laws are basically a symbolic statement by the government that certain types of attitudes will not be tolerated. That statement is actually directed at the victimized party, and not really at the victimizers. Basically it's a political statement to specified minority groups that "your government has your back". As such, it doesn't make much sense from the standpoint of penal policy, but if you view it in that lens the "blue lives matter" law actually begins to make sense. The state of Louisiana is just sending the same signals to emergency responders as it has (apparently) sent to specified religious and racial minorities.
Click to expand...

There are valid policy justifications for enhanced penalties for the murder of a police officer other than those that arise under the rubric of "hate crime" law.
 
RJKarl said:
Trolling, trolling
Click to expand...

There is a difference in trolling and having one's tounge in his cheek.

My point is that almost all violent crime is motivated by hate at some level. I don't really see why we should care if one person hates another based on race, religion, bad breath, or whatever. The motive we should care about is the motive to commit a crime, not some amorphous "hate" that allegedly undergirds that motive. At root, hate crime legislation does nothing more than purport to regulate how people think. On this point, they are wholly ineffective.

Your counterexamples aren't good comparisons--there are good reasons for more harshly punishing someone who uses a weapon in a bar fight, for example. That relates to manner of the crime. Hate crime laws don't speak to manner. They speak to motives.
 
Junebug said:
There is a difference in trolling and having one's tounge in his cheek.

My point is that almost all violent crime is motivated by hate at some level. I don't really see why we should care if one person hates another based on race, religion, bad breath, or whatever. The motive we should care about is the motive to commit a crime, not some amorphous "hate" that allegedly undergirds that motive. At root, hate crime legislation does nothing more than purport to regulate how people think. On this point, they are wholly ineffective.

Your counterexamples aren't good comparisons--there are good reasons for more harshly punishing someone who uses a weapon in a bar fight, for example. That relates to manner of the crime. Hate crime laws don't speak to manner. They speak to motives.
Click to expand...

Hate means the crime is premeditated and is THE motive. Just like a killing for profit it THE motive.

As a lawyer, I would think you would understand the difference between "thought" and "action". There is no penalty in hate crime legislation for "thinking" you hate someone or even a building. You penalized for ACTING not thinking.

The punishment is for acting not thinking. There's no way around it.
 
Junebug said:
There are valid policy justifications for enhanced penalties for the murder of a police officer other than those that arise under the rubric of "hate crime" law.
Click to expand...
Would you expound upon that?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Would you expound upon that?
Click to expand...

Hate crime legislation is about attempting to outlaw bias. Enhanced penalties for killing a police officer aren't about bias. They are about keeping the peace and getting particularly dangerous people -- those that would assault the people designated by the government to keep the peace -- off the street. The same would be true about a law that provided for enhanced penalties for killing a government prosecutor or a judge. Those laws aren't about bias either.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
Hate means the crime is premeditated and is THE motive. Just like a killing for profit it THE motive.

As a lawyer, I would think you would understand the difference between "thought" and "action". There is no penalty in hate crime legislation for "thinking" you hate someone or even a building. You penalized for ACTING not thinking.

The punishment is for acting not thinking. There's no way around it.
Click to expand...

If you are penalized 10 years for committing an act and 15 years for committing the same act but with bias as your motive, it is difficult to say that there is no penalty for your thoughts.
 
jhmd2000 said:
This is quite a phrase, given the context.



Numbers is on to something here. If we're sending a message that "certain attitudes will not be tolerated" with "symbolic statements to the [victims]", I guess it doesn't matter if someone is rehabilitated. That's not the goal of a "zero tolerance" regime, apparently.

We're supposed to be against mass incarceration, unless someone has the wrong attitude. We're going to let the government use criminal sentencing procedures to right perceived societal wrongs. #yikes F is indeed for Fascism.
Click to expand...

I read this several times and can't figure out if you're agreeing with me or not (and rather you're sincere about it or not). I do a lot of research in criminal sentencing and the various aims and goals of sentencin. Rehabilitation is just one of the theories advanced, and while I would say it is the preferred goal of many liberal scholars, a lot of people have a difficult time squaring "rehab" with "murderer" if they're only getting a sentence long enough to reach a point to where they could rejoin society. There are also deterrence reasons and just purely punitive reasons.

Really there are a lot of outdated views on criminal punishment that don't match or gel with studies on what actually works.
 
Junebug said:
If you are penalized 10 years for committing an act and 15 years for committing the same act but with bias as your motive, it is difficult to say that there is no penalty for your thoughts.
Click to expand...

How does this guide your beliefs about terrorism?
 
Junebug said:
If you are penalized 10 years for committing an act and 15 years for committing the same act but with bias as your motive, it is difficult to say that there is no penalty for your thoughts.
Click to expand...

ACTIONS not thoughts...If you just think about it, you sit in your living room all day long.
 
Junebug said:
Hate crime legislation is about attempting to outlaw bias. Enhanced penalties for killing a police officer aren't about bias. They are about keeping the peace and getting particularly dangerous people -- those that would assault the people designated by the government to keep the peace -- off the street. The same would be true about a law that provided for enhanced penalties for killing a government prosecutor or a judge. Those laws aren't about bias either.
Click to expand...

Without looking, I am guessing that Louisiana, like most states and the federal government, already has laws on its books that increase penalties or create specific crimes for assaulting or killing a law enforcement officer. I agree with your take on those kinds of laws. That is why the new Louisiana hate crime law is the same as other hate crimes laws - it's not directed at potential perpetrators, it's a political signal to first responders that "we got your back". Which is fine, in a way. It's pretty much meaningless from a penal policy standpoint. A person who kills a cop or EMT is going to be locked up for a long, long, long time whether or not the prosecutor can prove some kind of "hate" so if the legislature wants to engage in this kind of signaling, why not. That said, I generally agree with the take that hate crime legislation is at best a political signal to specific constituencies with dubious policy outcomes, and at worst a government overreach that attempts to criminalize certain disfavored thoughts.
 
Deacon923 said:
I'm not even sure the aggravating factor concept makes sense. There is no way that there is any deterrent value in hate crimes laws. If a guy hates another person bad enough to beat him up or kill him, the thug is not going to suddenly think to himself "oh no, if I do this because of my hatred for gays I'll get 30 years instead of just 20 years" and refrain from killing his victim.

Hate crimes laws are basically a symbolic statement by the government that certain types of attitudes will not be tolerated. That statement is actually directed at the victimized party, and not really at the victimizers. Basically it's a political statement to specified minority groups that "your government has your back". As such, it doesn't make much sense from the standpoint of penal policy, but if you view it in that lens the "blue lives matter" law actually begins to make sense. The state of Louisiana is just sending the same signals to emergency responders as it has (apparently) sent to specified religious and racial minorities.
Click to expand...

Wakeforest22890 said:
I read this several times and can't figure out if you're agreeing with me or not (and rather you're sincere about it or not). I do a lot of research in criminal sentencing and the various aims and goals of sentencin. Rehabilitation is just one of the theories advanced, and while I would say it is the preferred goal of many liberal scholars, a lot of people have a difficult time squaring "rehab" with "murderer" if they're only getting a sentence long enough to reach a point to where they could rejoin society. There are also deterrence reasons and just purely punitive reasons.

Really there are a lot of outdated views on criminal punishment that don't match or gel with studies on what actually works.
Click to expand...

How many of the theories of punishment you have research align with the following statement (made in clarification of hate crime laws):

"it's a political statement to specified minority groups that 'your government has your back'?"
 
None. I think we agree then. These laws are not particularly productive. The fact that people of color are sentenced to disproportionately longer sentences when everything is controlled for except for race is evidence that regardless of hate crime laws, the government doesn't particularly "have your back."
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
None. I think we agree then. These laws are not particularly productive. The fact that people of color are sentenced to disproportionately longer sentences when everything is controlled for except for race is evidence that regardless of hate crime laws, the government doesn't particularly "have your back."
Click to expand...

Right. It is absurd to use the sentencing of Person A to send a political wink to Person B. Absurd.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Right. It is absurd to use the sentencing of Person A to send a political wink to Person B. Absurd.
Click to expand...

What's your end game here? Why don't you just come out and tell us what you're talking about?

Seems like the type of thing BKF would hate yet unsurprisingly he's too busy tilting at his own windmills to opine on anything else
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What's your end game here? Why don't you just come out and tell us what you're talking about?

Seems like the type of thing BKF would hate yet unsurprisingly he's too busy tilting at his own windmills to opine on anything else
Click to expand...

It would be nice if our government applied its laws and actions equally to people, no matter what their skin color happens to be.
 
I agree, but I suspect you're not talking about breaking down the statistics on sentencing and probation by race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top