RE: Pray for Brandon

RE: Pray for Brandon (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

x_SoliDeoGloria_x -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 7:59:36 PM)
That is a very tragic story. Obviously, what Brandon did was wrong, but I think it is interesting, as someone pointed out, that he was a victim of bullying by Lawrence. I didn't initially look at it that way, but after it was pointed out, I would definitely agree. There are many forms of bullying. I also hope he gets tried as a juvenile. This may be somewhat off-topic, but I have to say that I totally object to the concept of "hate crime." If you commit a crime against a person, you should obviously be punished for the crime you committed, but I don't think that the penalty should be increased becase you "hated" the person. Murder is murder and should be punished as such. Assault is assault and should be punished as such, etc., regardless of whether the victim was "hated" by the perpetrator.

Marcus. -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 9:33:31 PM)
All crimes are motivated by hate. You certainly wouldn't kill, steal, mug, rape, or beat up someone you cared about.

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 10:44:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marcus. All crimes are motivated by hate. You certainly wouldn't kill, steal, mug, rape, or beat up someone you cared about. I think hate in context of hate crimes carries a whole different meaning. When you assault someone because you feel that the person is somehow less of a person due to race, religion, gender, etc, it's different from assaulting a random guy to steal his wallet. It's not a matter of creating a "special class". Everyone is protected by hate crime laws.

crankius -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 10:50:23 PM)
I agree that "hate crime" is a silly concept. All crime is hateful. To attach a special "hate" element to a crime is to punish the thinking of the individual and makes us into a thought police society (remember Orwell's 1984). And, it's not true that all individuals are protected equally under a hate crime law. Hate crime laws elevate some victims over other victims.

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 10:57:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crankius I agree that "hate crime" is a silly concept. All crime is hateful. To attach a special "hate" element to a crime is to punish the thinking of the individual and makes us into a thought police society (remember Orwell's 1984). And, it's not true that all individuals are protected equally under a hate crime law. Hate crime laws elevate some victims over other victims. So if Person A attacks Person B because he is a black/Jew/whatever, that's no different than a random attack? If the thinking directly leads to and can explain the physical offense, then yes, it should be taken into consideration. Hate crimes are meant to intimidate other members of that group, so they do not just affect the person to whom the crime was directed.

crankius -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 11:00:33 PM)
I am allowed to think whatever I want in a free society. It's the murder that is the crime--not the thinking.

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 11:10:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crankius I am allowed to think whatever I want in a free society. It's the murder that is the crime--not the thinking. The government has decided that, for instance, if the crime was motivated by racism, it's a tad more insidious than a random act of violence. A Klanmember dragging an African-American man behind a pickup truck is an act of intimidation that targets the African-American group as a whole. If a member of the Nation of Islam committed the same crime with a Caucasian person, that, too, would be a hate crime.

crankius -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/20/2008 11:19:05 PM)
Yes, I realize hate crime laws are in place. My statement was meant in a general way--a free society shouldn't punish people for thinking. BTW, I seriously doubt Brandon was trying to intimidate all gays.

Sophie11 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 2:08:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 The government has decided that, for instance, if the crime was motivated by racism, it's a tad more insidious than a random act of violence. A Klanmember dragging an African-American man behind a pickup truck is an act of intimidation that targets the African-American group as a whole. If a member of the Nation of Islam committed the same crime with a Caucasian person, that, too, would be a hate crime. And what if the crime was a matter of one hating the other between two average white folks? Why is it that there should be any more of a degree of punishment due to race? What about the fact that many times people are punished to a further extent just because the victim is anything but a straight white male? Why is it not a hate crime for an Asian man to beat a white man but it is for a white man to beat an Asian man? Why is it more insidious? It seems to me these types of laws do nothing more than keep racism alive. I agree with crankius, it should be the murder or the attack that is the crime and not the unprovable thought process of the criminal who committed it.

henny -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 2:19:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 Why is it not a hate crime for an Asian man to beat a white man but it is for a white man to beat an Asian man? Why is it more insidious? It seems to me these types of laws do nothing more than keep racism alive. I agree with crankius, it should be the murder or the attack that is the crime and not the unprovable thought process of the criminal who committed it. You misunderstand the laws completely. It isn't more of a crime for a white man to beat up an Asian. Hate crimes only come into effect if the White man beat up the Asian as a political and racially motivated act meant to inspire fear in a specific group of people as a whole. I'm skeptical of certain aspects of hate crime laws (i.e. I don't think they should be wide enough to be enforceable in any circumstance where a crime is committed against a protected group), but I do see the reasoning behind them. They are really no different than having harsher penalties against terrorism, for example, as they are dealing with similar types of "effects." Usually acts of terrorism will be punished more severely just because people recognize that in terrorism the effects of the crime extend beyond just its immediate victims -even to the point that the victims themselves are often meaningless and random when it comes to perpetrating the crime. If this wasn't the case, 9/11 would just be several thousand homicides as oppossed to a deliberate act of aggression meant to inspire fear in an entire group of people (i.e. Americans). Obviously, as an act of terrorism, the effects reverberated (and were intended to reverberate by the perpetrators) far beyond just the immediate victims -and thus, I think it's reasonable that we have harsher punishments for things like terrorism (and it you think about it, laws that treat "terrorism" harsher than other violent crimes really are, to use some people's arguments against "hate crimes," nothing more than laws that punish people for the specific "thought" and "intent" that goes into a crime. But I don't see why people are so shocked by this, given that we have ALWAYS implemented varying degrees of punishment based on "thought." "Thought" and intention are usually the biggest differences between how we decide if something is 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder/manslaughter/assault, etc -and our justice system has ALWAYS taken thought/intention into account when determining the severity of punishment. If this wasn't the case the punishments would be the exact same for someone who accidentally hits someone with their car, and someone who deliberately hits someone with the car. The only difference between the two is thought/intent of the crime). Hate crimes work the same way as special laws against terrorism (or at least I think they should work the same way). They are meant to acknowledge that with many crimes the effects reverberate far beyond just the immediate victims. Lynchings in the south, for example, really were much more damaging than just mere murder. As acts of violence they were meant to inspire fear in an entire community, and in this sense, are really no different than terrorism. That said, I personally think that for hate crimes to take effect it should be the burden of the prosecution to prove that the crime was motivated in some way by the express desire of the perpetrator to use the crime to make a political statement or instill fear in some way in a much larger community. So I don't think this particular case would necessarily be a hate crime, even though it might end up being tried as one (although I don't know enough about it to say for sure). A perfect example of something that would be a hate crime, though, was that White Supremesist guy a few years ago who drove into a neighborhood of minorities (I can't remember if it was Jewish or blacks) and just starting killing random people. In that case the crime wasn't just murder, but rather was a deliberate act of terrorism meant to inspire fear and negative effects in a larger effects in a community that extends beyond the immediate victims.

Sophie11 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 2:39:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 Why is it not a hate crime for an Asian man to beat a white man but it is for a white man to beat an Asian man? Why is it more insidious? It seems to me these types of laws do nothing more than keep racism alive. I agree with crankius, it should be the murder or the attack that is the crime and not the unprovable thought process of the criminal who committed it. You misunderstand the laws completely. It isn't more of a crime for a white man to beat up an Asian. Hate crimes only come into effect if the White man beat up the Asian as a political and racially motivated act meant to inspire fear in a specific group of people as a whole. What I am saying is how do you know it was for racially inspired reasons? If the defendant says it was not then how do you prove such a thing? What seems to be happening in many cases is that it is automatically assumed to be a hate crime if the victim belongs to any "protected class" of persons. This is a dangerous avenue to take and IMO only aggravates further racism in some people who now feel they have to fear any confrontation with a protected person being misconstrued as a hate crime. quote: A perfect example of something that would be a hate crime, though, was that White Supremesist guy a few years ago who drove into a neighborhood of minorities (I can't remember if it was Jewish or blacks) and just starting killing random people. In that case the crime wasn't just murder, but rather was a deliberate act of terrorism meant to inspire fear and negative effects in a larger effects in a community that extends beyond the immediate victims. I agree. But I do not think the crime ought to be punished in a different manner simply based on the beliefs of the person involved, or their thought process during the act.

henny -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 2:43:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: x_SoliDeoGloria_x That is a very tragic story. Obviously, what Brandon did was wrong, but I think it is interesting, as someone pointed out, that he was a victim of bullying by Lawrence. I didn't initially look at it that way, but after it was pointed out, I would definitely agree. There are many forms of bullying. I also hope he gets tried as a juvenile. I actually posted on this story in this thread way back when it first happened. No one replied. Not even a "gee that's a shame" (Christian compassion in action, I guess). But why do you think it is "interesting" that the murderer was a "victim of bullying by Lawrence?" By all accounts this Lawrence kid was bullied in the past as well, but I'm not sure what difference it makes when it comes to murder. But anyway, I actually hope this Brandon kid is tried as a juvenile as well. Not because any specifics of the case, but I think 14 is too young to ever be tried as an adult. 16 or 17 maybe, but I don't think 14 works. By all accounts it's certainly a deliberate and premeditated act of murder, though, so I think he should get the absolute punishment allowed for juveniles in such cases.

henny -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 2:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 What seems to be happening in many cases is that it is automatically assumed to be a hate crime if the victim belongs to any "protected class" of persons. Not really. Crimes are committed between people of different races all the time. Hate crimes rarely come up in most of these cases. I agree that it would be a bad thing if all crimes committed between people of different races were automatically slapped with "hate crime," which is why, as I said, it should be the burden of the prosecutor to prove the extra element. But this usually isn't the case. When hate crimes do come up, though, they usually make the news (especially the right wing outrage circuit, which tends to magnify them when they happen). And for practical purposes they are usually really difficult to prove, so prosecutors usually just avoid them (especially with more severe crimes, like murder, where the penalty will be severe enough on its own that adding a hate crime charge won't change the sentencing). But even if you use less severe examples than murder, it's kind of ludicrous to act as if there's absolutely no difference (in intention and effects) between, for example, some pranksters throwing a brick into their teacher's window, and a guy throwing a brick with racial epithets written on it into a minorities window for the express fear of intimidating them. Or no difference (in effects and intent) between a guy getting mad at his neighbor and burning trash in his yard or the KKK burning crosses in the yards of black people. There's a huge difference in the effects and damage of such crimes -and one can't get at the differences without considering intent. quote: I agree. But I do not think the crime ought to be punished in a different manner simply based on the beliefs of the person involved, or their thought process during the act. It's not just thought/intent, but thought/intent/effects. Again, we've always considered thought processes along with the crime. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have distinctions between degrees of crimes, murder, manslaughter, etc. There'd also be no difference between murder and terrorism if we didn't take these sorts of things into account.

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 8:22:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 Why is it not a hate crime for an Asian man to beat a white man but it is for a white man to beat an Asian man? Why is it more insidious? It seems to me these types of laws do nothing more than keep racism alive. I agree with crankius, it should be the murder or the attack that is the crime and not the unprovable thought process of the criminal who committed it. You misunderstand the laws completely. It isn't more of a crime for a white man to beat up an Asian. Hate crimes only come into effect if the White man beat up the Asian as a political and racially motivated act meant to inspire fear in a specific group of people as a whole. I'm skeptical of certain aspects of hate crime laws (i.e. I don't think they should be wide enough to be enforceable in any circumstance where a crime is committed against a protected group), but I do see the reasoning behind them. They are really no different than having harsher penalties against terrorism, for example, as they are dealing with similar types of "effects." Usually acts of terrorism will be punished more severely just because people recognize that in terrorism the effects of the crime extend beyond just its immediate victims -even to the point that the victims themselves are often meaningless and random when it comes to perpetrating the crime. If this wasn't the case, 9/11 would just be several thousand homicides as oppossed to a deliberate act of aggression meant to inspire fear in an entire group of people (i.e. Americans). Obviously, as an act of terrorism, the effects reverberated (and were intended to reverberate by the perpetrators) far beyond just the immediate victims -and thus, I think it's reasonable that we have harsher punishments for things like terrorism (and it you think about it, laws that treat "terrorism" harsher than other violent crimes really are, to use some people's arguments against "hate crimes," nothing more than laws that punish people for the specific "thought" and "intent" that goes into a crime. But I don't see why people are so shocked by this, given that we have ALWAYS implemented varying degrees of punishment based on "thought." "Thought" and intention are usually the biggest differences between how we decide if something is 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder/manslaughter/assault, etc -and our justice system has ALWAYS taken thought/intention into account when determining the severity of punishment. If this wasn't the case the punishments would be the exact same for someone who accidentally hits someone with their car, and someone who deliberately hits someone with the car. The only difference between the two is thought/intent of the crime). Hate crimes work the same way as special laws against terrorism (or at least I think they should work the same way). They are meant to acknowledge that with many crimes the effects reverberate far beyond just the immediate victims. Lynchings in the south, for example, really were much more damaging than just mere murder. As acts of violence they were meant to inspire fear in an entire community, and in this sense, are really no different than terrorism. That said, I personally think that for hate crimes to take effect it should be the burden of the prosecution to prove that the crime was motivated in some way by the express desire of the perpetrator to use the crime to make a political statement or instill fear in some way in a much larger community. So I don't think this particular case would necessarily be a hate crime, even though it might end up being tried as one (although I don't know enough about it to say for sure). A perfect example of something that would be a hate crime, though, was that White Supremesist guy a few years ago who drove into a neighborhood of minorities (I can't remember if it was Jewish or blacks) and just starting killing random people. In that case the crime wasn't just murder, but rather was a deliberate act of terrorism meant to inspire fear and negative effects in a larger effects in a community that extends beyond the immediate victims. Thank you, henny. Your reply was more astute than anything I could have come up with. I never really understood why most conservative Christians seem to oppose hate crime laws when they have nothing to do with "special classes" of people.

Sophie11 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:07:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny But even if you use less severe examples than murder, it's kind of ludicrous to act as if there's absolutely no difference (in intention and effects) between, for example, some pranksters throwing a brick into their teacher's window, and a guy throwing a brick with racial epithets written on it into a minorities window for the express fear of intimidating them. Or no difference (in effects and intent) between a guy getting mad at his neighbor and burning trash in his yard or the KKK burning crosses in the yards of black people. There's a huge difference in the effects and damage of such crimes -and one can't get at the differences without considering intent. In that case there is a difference, but the difference is that the brick has been written on. If the pranksters who threw the brick in the teacher's window had written nasty things on that brick then it would be equivalent. quote: quote: I agree. But I do not think the crime ought to be punished in a different manner simply based on the beliefs of the person involved, or their thought process during the act. It's not just thought/intent, but thought/intent/effects. Again, we've always considered thought processes along with the crime. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have distinctions between degrees of crimes, murder, manslaughter, etc. There'd also be no difference between murder and terrorism if we didn't take these sorts of things into account. The differences between degrees of murder is more to do with intent than it is how badly someone disliked the other. And being that we already have laws about terrorism, why the need for "hate crime" laws then?

Sophie11 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:09:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 I never really understood why most conservative Christians seem to oppose hate crime laws when they have nothing to do with "special classes" of people. You must be joking....

WesP -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:12:53 AM)
quote: Thank you, henny. Your reply was more astute than anything I could have come up with. I never really understood why most conservative Christians seem to oppose hate crime laws when they have nothing to do with "special classes" of people. HHV5, To make the statement that they "have nothing to do with..." is pretty ignorant and wrongfully judgmental. You are disregarding a lot of Christians. henny, BTW, to say that Christians exhibit a lack of compassion becauce they did not respond to your post is rather the same as the above.

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:16:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 I never really understood why most conservative Christians seem to oppose hate crime laws when they have nothing to do with "special classes" of people. You must be joking.... I'm not. It's an observation I made after interacting with many Christians on and off online forums.

Sophie11 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:18:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 I never really understood why most conservative Christians seem to oppose hate crime laws when they have nothing to do with "special classes" of people. You must be joking.... I'm not. It's an observation I made after interacting with many Christians on and off online forums. I was referring to the part about hate crimes having nothing to do with special classes.

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:19:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: henny But even if you use less severe examples than murder, it's kind of ludicrous to act as if there's absolutely no difference (in intention and effects) between, for example, some pranksters throwing a brick into their teacher's window, and a guy throwing a brick with racial epithets written on it into a minorities window for the express fear of intimidating them. Or no difference (in effects and intent) between a guy getting mad at his neighbor and burning trash in his yard or the KKK burning crosses in the yards of black people. There's a huge difference in the effects and damage of such crimes -and one can't get at the differences without considering intent. In that case there is a difference, but the difference is that the brick has been written on. If the pranksters who threw the brick in the teacher's window had written nasty things on that brick then it would be equivalent. quote: quote: I agree. But I do not think the crime ought to be punished in a different manner simply based on the beliefs of the person involved, or their thought process during the act. It's not just thought/intent, but thought/intent/effects. Again, we've always considered thought processes along with the crime. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have distinctions between degrees of crimes, murder, manslaughter, etc. There'd also be no difference between murder and terrorism if we didn't take these sorts of things into account. The differences between degrees of murder is more to do with intent than it is how badly someone disliked the other. And being that we already have laws about terrorism, why the need for "hate crime" laws then? You're missing the point...Our nation doesn't have a history of violence towards educators.

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:24:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WesP quote: Thank you, henny. Your reply was more astute than anything I could have come up with. I never really understood why most conservative Christians seem to oppose hate crime laws when they have nothing to do with "special classes" of people. HHV5, To make the statement that they "have nothing to do with..." is pretty ignorant and wrongfully judgmental. You are disregarding a lot of Christians. henny, BTW, to say that Christians exhibit a lack of compassion becauce they did not respond to your post is rather the same as the above. It is just as ignorant and wrongful to assume that violence based on race, religion, etc is no different than a random act of violence. No one is NOT protected by hate crime laws. If a radical black Muslim attacks a white Christian based on his hatred of 1) white people and/or 2) Christian people, that would be a hate crime.

WesP -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:25:11 AM)
quote: It is just as ignorant and wrongful to assume that violence based on race, religion, etc is no different than a random act of violence. No one is NOT protected by hate crime laws. If a radical black Muslim attacks a white Christian based on his hatred of 1) white people and/or 2) Christian people, that would be a hate crime. I did not say anything of that sort. [;)]

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:25:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 I never really understood why most conservative Christians seem to oppose hate crime laws when they have nothing to do with "special classes" of people. You must be joking.... I'm not. It's an observation I made after interacting with many Christians on and off online forums. I was referring to the part about hate crimes having nothing to do with special classes. Then tell me, what ARE these "special classes"?

Sophie11 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:28:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 You're missing the point...Our nation doesn't have a history of violence towards educators. So then are you saying we need to impose a greater punishment based on the past history? I thought it was based on thought process during the moment, not what people did years ago?

HHV5 -> RE: Pray for Brandon (7/21/2008 10:35:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sophie11 quote: ORIGINAL: HHV5 You're missing the point...Our nation doesn't have a history of violence towards educators. So then are you saying we need to impose a greater punishment based on the past history? I thought it was based on thought process during the moment, not what people did years ago? Yes. Because the thought process (ie: racism) that resulted in violence of the past is still alive today in some people.

Page: << < prev 55 56 [57] 58 59 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI