In our last episode, <5pc57fFqnjpmU1@mid.individual.net>, the lovely and
talented G-Ride broadcast on tx.politics:

"Auntie Lib" <wallenbrock@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194380223.444838.159690@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

J Young wrote:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR07I05&f=WX06L03

FRC to Congress: All Violent Crimes are Hate Crimes, Protect Equal
Justice Under the Law

<snip>

While I shudder at the very thought that I actually agree with J
Young, I must be honest and admit that I do.

I have always had a problem with "hate crime" as a sub-set of crime.
If you kill someone, the punishment should be the punishment for
whatever "level" of felony you are convicted of. If you kill your
pregnant girlfriend because you don't want to be a dad, the crime you
committed is no different than if you kill a black man simply because
he is black. Murder is murder; manslaughter is manslaughter.

Bashing someone's head in is a crime. It doesn't matter why you did
it. So you're angry at being jobless or someone cuts you off in
traffic or you don't like the color of their skin or the fact that
they're gay. Whatever. The person responsible should be punished for
what they did, not what they were thinking while they did it.

Creating this sort of special sub-set of crimes is open to all sorts
of abuses. Painting a swastika on someone's door is a disgusting
prank and the person who did it should be punished for it by being
made to apologize and clean up the mess, same as for any other prank.
But if you call it a "hate crime" suddenly there's a whole new set of
punishments and the person who paints the gang sign is treated
differently from the person who paints the swastika. I don't think
that's right. We're all too pathetically politically correct as it is
and getting much too thin-skinned when it comes to "offenses" we
believe are being perpetrated against us.

Just my humble opinion.

I agree with your humble opinion. I think I mentioned how strange it was
to
agree with "J Young" on some other thread he started awhile back
regarding
hate crimes.

The theory of criminal law is that the offense is against the state
(society
in general). That is why indictments are generally styled "The State v."
or "The People v." not "The Victim v." or "The Victim's Survivors v." It
is also why "The State v. O.J" (a criminal complaint) is different from
"Goldman v. O.J" (a civil action).

Long before there was hate crimes legislation, there were "enhanced"
penalties in some jurisdictions for killing a police officer in the
performance of his duty. That was not because somehow a police officer
was
any deader than any other murder victim. It was because attacking a
police
officer in the performance of his duty was an attack on society's means of
protecting itself, and therefore was a greater offense against society.

The theory of hate crimes legislation is that the intent of hate crimes is
terrorism. The offense to society is not merely that of the harm that
comes
to the victim, but also that of the damage to the social fabric by
inciting
terror and hatred. The courts have held that society has the right to
consider itself especially offended by crimes which include the intention
of
creating social disruption.

In our last episode, <5pc57fFqnjpmU1@mid.individual.net>, the lovely and
talented G-Ride broadcast on tx.politics:

The theory of hate crimes legislation is that the intent of hate crimes is
terrorism. The offense to society is not merely that of the harm that comes
to the victim, but also that of the damage to the social fabric by inciting
terror and hatred. The courts have held that society has the right to
consider itself especially offended by crimes which include the intention of
creating social disruption.

The theory of hate crimes legislation is that the intent of hate crimes is
terrorism. The offense to society is not merely that of the harm that comes
to the victim, but also that of the damage to the social fabric by inciting
terror and hatred. The courts have held that society has the right to
consider itself especially offended by crimes which include the intention of
creating social disruption.

In our last episode, <5pc57fFqnjpmU1@mid.individual.net>, the lovely and
talented G-Ride broadcast on tx.politics:

"Auntie Lib" <wallenbrock@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194380223.444838.159690@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

J Young wrote:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR07I05&f=WX06L03

FRC to Congress: All Violent Crimes are Hate Crimes, Protect Equal
Justice Under the Law

<snip>

While I shudder at the very thought that I actually agree with J
Young, I must be honest and admit that I do.

I have always had a problem with "hate crime" as a sub-set of crime.
If you kill someone, the punishment should be the punishment for
whatever "level" of felony you are convicted of. If you kill your
pregnant girlfriend because you don't want to be a dad, the crime you
committed is no different than if you kill a black man simply because
he is black. Murder is murder; manslaughter is manslaughter.

Bashing someone's head in is a crime. It doesn't matter why you did
it. So you're angry at being jobless or someone cuts you off in
traffic or you don't like the color of their skin or the fact that
they're gay. Whatever. The person responsible should be punished for
what they did, not what they were thinking while they did it.

Creating this sort of special sub-set of crimes is open to all sorts
of abuses. Painting a swastika on someone's door is a disgusting
prank and the person who did it should be punished for it by being
made to apologize and clean up the mess, same as for any other prank.
But if you call it a "hate crime" suddenly there's a whole new set of
punishments and the person who paints the gang sign is treated
differently from the person who paints the swastika. I don't think
that's right. We're all too pathetically politically correct as it is
and getting much too thin-skinned when it comes to "offenses" we
believe are being perpetrated against us.

Just my humble opinion.

I agree with your humble opinion. I think I mentioned how strange it was to
agree with "J Young" on some other thread he started awhile back regarding
hate crimes.

The theory of criminal law is that the offense is against the state (society
in general). That is why indictments are generally styled "The State v."
or "The People v." not "The Victim v." or "The Victim's Survivors v." It
is also why "The State v. O.J" (a criminal complaint) is different from
"Goldman v. O.J" (a civil action).

Long before there was hate crimes legislation, there were "enhanced"
penalties in some jurisdictions for killing a police officer in the
performance of his duty. That was not because somehow a police officer was
any deader than any other murder victim. It was because attacking a police
officer in the performance of his duty was an attack on society's means of
protecting itself, and therefore was a greater offense against society.

The theory of hate crimes legislation is that the intent of hate crimes is
terrorism. The offense to society is not merely that of the harm that comes
to the victim, but also that of the damage to the social fabric by inciting
terror and hatred. The courts have held that society has the right to
consider itself especially offended by crimes which include the intention of
creating social disruption.

On 6 nov, 00:18, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR07I05&f=WX06L03

FRC to Congress: All Violent Crimes are Hate Crimes, Protect Equal
Justice Under the Law

And we care about these bozos without the slightest credibility in
which way exactly?

Tell us, nazi turd,

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:29 -0800, J Young <younginsights@aol.com>

Washington D.C. - Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
called the Senate vote on so-called hate crimes "a discriminatory move
creating second-class victims."

So killing a Catholic merely because he's a Catholic should carry no
greater punishment than, say, killing a black man who raped a white
Catholic woman.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:29 -0800, J Young <younginsights@aol.com>
wrote:

FRC to Congress: All Violent Crimes are Hate Crimes, Protect Equal
Justice Under the Law

Washington D.C. - Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
called the Senate vote on so-called hate crimes "a discriminatory move
creating second-class victims."

So killing a Catholic merely because he's a Catholic should carry no
greater punishment than, say, killing a black man who raped a white
Catholic woman.
--

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:29 -0800, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com>
wrote:

FRC to Congress: All Violent Crimes are Hate Crimes, Protect Equal
Justice Under the Law
Washington D.C. - Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
called the Senate vote on so-called hate crimes "a discriminatory move
creating second-class victims."

So killing a Catholic merely because he's a Catholic should carry no
greater punishment than, say, killing a black man who raped a white
Catholic woman.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com