This is the reason there is a DEATH PENALTY - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Carrie · 10-14-2002, 10:34 PM

The most important part of "hate crime" is "crime".
Who cares if it was based on some stupid neanderthal thinking that one color is better than another or one sexuality is better than another or one sex is better than another? Who really gives a good fuck? It doesn't matter.
What matters is that the person committed a CRIME. Murder, beating, robbing - these all have laws against them punishable by time in jail and/or the death sentence. There shouldn't be *more* of a sentence because of *why* they did it. There is only the fact that they did it when they knew they shouldn't have. Nothing else matters.

"Hate crime" is two things: thought police in action, and feel-good bullshit for people who fear those unlike themselves. The totality of it is nonsense.
The only thing that matters is that there was a crime, and the perpetrator needs to be punished. Period.

Carrie · 10-14-2002, 10:38 PM

PS - those against the death penalty... tell me why the sniper running around DC/VA/MD shooting women in the head while they stand next to their husbands and shooting little kids in the gut and shooting men on business trips with 6 kids to feed at home shouldn't be executed.
If you can.

eroswebmaster · 10-14-2002, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie
PS - those against the death penalty... tell me why the sniper running around DC/VA/MD shooting women in the head while they stand next to their husbands and shooting little kids in the gut and shooting men on business trips with 6 kids to feed at home shouldn't be executed.
If you can.

I'm not against executing someone who has commited crimes such as these...my problem lies with this being carried out by the state based upon a decision made by a jury of your "peers."

And if you haven't figured out that there are serious tards sitting on juries in this country fucking shit up day in and day out...then you are one of them.

I suggest you watch Paradise Lost ...you can rent it at blockbuster.

And then check out http://www.wm3.org

As long as there is even just ONE case like this...I am not convinced fallible men and women should be making such decisions.

Kanoealoha · 10-14-2002, 10:53 PM

Hate crimes remind me of when they USE to ask rape victims about their sexual history...hence, making it seems as though they wanted it to happen. When their sexual history had nothing to do with being raped. Bottom line, you killed someone...
Go shit twice and die. You're taking up my oxygen

PornoDoggy · 10-14-2002, 10:58 PM

No, Carrie, the paranoic right wing "though police" argument has no place in this discussion.

To me, a distinction for a crime motivated by the race, sexual orientation, relgion, etc., is no different from a special distinction for killing a law enforcement officer. There is a henious nature to the crime that is designed to terrorize an entire segment of society.

It transcends crime ... it's terrorism. And it should be treated as such.

Carrie · 10-14-2002, 11:05 PM

PD, I *do* think the "thought police" comment has a place in this discussion (and it's not coming from a paranoiac right-wing perspective).
If Jimmy is a heterosexual male who doesn't like gays, is that a crime? If he really *hates* gays and does everything he can to avoid them, is that a crime?
No, but the term "hate crime" makes the gays feel better, somehow more protected, against those that are different from them.

Now, if Jimmy goes out and kills a gay man, is that a "hate crime", or is it just murder?
It's just murder, plain and simple. It might be pre-meditated, it might not be - either way, Jimmy knows it's wrong to kill another human being and he knows it's against the law, but he did it anyway. It doesn't matter *why* he did it, it just matters that he did.

Just as if I came home and found Castlehawke banging the hell out of some babe he picked up on the corner and I beat his skull in with a baseball bat after ripping out his throat with my bare hands.
It doesn't matter that it was a "crime of passion", what matters is that I knew it was wrong to kill him, but I did it anyway.

In both cases, Jimmy and I should be charged on the fact that we killed someone - not *why* we killed someone.

pimplink · 10-14-2002, 11:12 PM

Thanks for sharing the link on the West Memphis Three. Very troubling case, indeed. It seems that quite a number of innocent people get the death penalty as recent DNA exonerations show.

Quote:

Originally posted by eroswebmaster

I'm not against executing someone who has commited crimes such as these...my problem lies with this being carried out by the state based upon a decision made by a jury of your "peers."

And if you haven't figured out that there are serious tards sitting on juries in this country fucking shit up day in and day out...then you are one of them.

I suggest you watch Paradise Lost ...you can rent it at blockbuster.

And then check out http://www.wm3.org

As long as there is even just ONE case like this...I am not convinced fallible men and women should be making such decisions.

PornoDoggy · 10-14-2002, 11:15 PM

Carrie, Jimmy has the right to hate gays. Jimmy has the right not to associate with gays - until Jimmy puts his feelings into action. It's not a question of making gays or minorities feel better at all. It''s about protecting society.

If Jimmy kills a gay man to get his money to buy drugs, it's not a hate crime. If Jimmy kilss a gay man just because he's gay, it takes makes it a different sort of crime entirely. In your analogy, you seem to think there is no difference in your bashing in his head at the time you catch him with the bimbo, and bashing it in at breakfast three days later. The law says there is that distinction.

Just like society has deemed attacking a policeman to be a "greater" evil than attacking a civilian, crimes motivated by bigotry should be treated as more than a random homicide. I stand by my comparison to terrorism.

Carrie · 10-14-2002, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eroswebmaster
I suggest you watch Paradise Lost ...you can rent it at blockbuster.

I will. I have to move (AGAIN, dammit) starting in the morning, continuing all through the week; watching a movie would be a good way to relax. And if you think it might change my mind, I'm all for it.

I agree that people err, and that when you've got a group of people together on a jury, the average IQ isn't very high. Kinda like our porn surfers. We have to make sites for an "average" IQ, rather than sites that would appeal to the more intelligent surfer who thinks "come on in baby, I'm waiting for you!" is corny and fake.

But what I really rely on is the evidence. Yes, twenty years ago the evidence was questionable. Look at the means of determining evidence that we have today. I think that someone caught today and proven by forensic evidence and testing to have committed the crime DID commit the crime.

I also believe that every single person sitting on death row who was put there more than ten years ago should have any DNA evidence re-tested because of the fallability of the methods used back then and the improved methods of testing we have now.

Don't forget also that there are a lot of people who do commit the crime that get to walk free, because those "average" people sitting on the jury got together in a group and convinced each other that this isn't the person who committed the crime. I can't say I'm a big fan of jury deliberation. Let each person make up their own mind and cast their vote based on the evidence presented to them... not fellow juryman Joe-Bob's *opinion* of the evidence presented to them.

Carrie · 10-14-2002, 11:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PornoDoggy
It''s about protecting society.

Isn't that what the laws against murder are about?

If Jimmy kills a gay man to get his money to buy drugs, it's not a hate crime. If Jimmy kilss a gay man just because he's gay, it takes makes it a different sort of crime entirely.

I disagree. It's murder in both cases. It's wrong in both cases. It's against the law in both cases - and it was against the law before "hate crime" legislation ever passed.

In your analogy, you seem to think there is no difference in your bashing in his head at the time you catch him with the bimbo, and bashing it in at breakfast three days later.

There isn't. It's still bashing in his head, and it's still against the law - no matter why I did it.

The law says there is that distinction.

And..?
The law also says that it's illegal to perform oral sex in North Carolina. That it's illegal to own vibrators in Georgia.
Sometimes, and in this case, the law is not being the impartial, objective statute that it was meant to be.

Who is making the laws? People. People with opinions like you and I. Who do you think made up the law about vibrators? Probably bible-belting prudes who thought vibrators were the "objects of satan" or something. Who pushed to pass the laws for "hate crimes"? Minority groups in fear of those who don't like something about them.

The problem here is not that Jimmy is killing Sean because Sean is gay.
The problem is that our justice system is not respected enough to make Jimmy think twice before killing Sean. Nowadays, a death sentence means three hots and a cot with cable tv, a full-service universal gym, and free college degrees along with book and television movie rights for the rest of your life.
Murder is murder.

(I might have those states wrong but you get my point - there are plenty of absurd sex laws like this out there. Along with walking your chicken on the sidewalk being a crime.)

Carrie · 10-14-2002, 11:33 PM

On the same topic - who has seen Minority Report?

Is it still a crime if you haven't committed it yet? (Hate or not, hehe)

PornoDoggy · 10-14-2002, 11:40 PM

Carrie, the crime of passion mitigating circumstance goes back to common law, I think. Just as there are degress of theft and degrees of assult, there are degrees of homicide. Special Circumstances, they are usually referred to. A killing in commission of a robery; killing a police officer in the execution of his duties. It varies from state to state.

Carrie · 10-14-2002, 11:48 PM

Quote:

It varies from state to state.

This is also a problem. Why should the sentence be different for killing a policeman in Virginia than it is for killing a policeman in Montana? Or Alaska? Or Florida?
The sentence should be the same - the crime is the same. (Just as I believe the sentence should be the same for killing someone regardless of the reasoning behind the killing.)

More than anything, this all points out multiple problems with our justice system. You want to really get me going? Talk about judges who give children back to their sexually abusive parents so they can rape their kids again or who let multiple DWI offenders get their licenses back so they can go out and run over our children.
Arrgh - just thinking about it gets me going.

eroswebmaster · 10-15-2002, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink
Thanks for sharing the link on the West Memphis Three. Very troubling case, indeed. It seems that quite a number of innocent people get the death penalty as recent DNA exonerations show.

NP...if you haven't seen either of the documentaries I suggest you watch them both.

eroswebmaster · 10-15-2002, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carrie

But what I really rely on is the evidence. Yes, twenty years ago the evidence was questionable. Look at the means of determining evidence that we have today. I think that someone caught today and proven by forensic evidence and testing to have committed the crime DID commit the crime.

DNA evidence isn't always a factor...so called "circumstantial evidence" can be.

And then when DNA evidence is a factor you may not be able to afford to put on the best defense against such a case...you do not have the means to investigate the labs conducting the tests, their methods etc.
Mistakes do happen.

It is you with limited funds against the state while their funds are limited as they do have budgets, they can and will exhaust those budgets to hang the next "cop killer," or "child killer."
In cases where this is the scenario...most involved get tunnel vision as in the West Memphis Three case.

Let's not forget a competent defense.
A man on death row in Texas lost his appeal to have his case retried even though his lawyer slept through important parts of the trial.

He finally won his appeal...I don't recall at what level but still this kind of incompetence happens quite often.

In some cases lawyers handling capital cases lack experience.

Quote:

I also believe that every single person sitting on death row who was put there more than ten years ago should have any DNA evidence re-tested because of the fallability of the methods used back then and the improved methods of testing we have now.

I agree whole heartedly...I think that if new evidence is brought forth especially DNA evidence at any time it should be considered.
I don't care how much it costs taxpayers to fight it...when something as final as death is the possible result then all avenues must be exhausted imho.

Quote:

Don't forget also that there are a lot of people who do commit the crime that get to walk free, because those "average" people sitting on the jury got together in a group and convinced each other that this isn't the person who committed the crime.

But see that is the beauty of our jurisprudence system...it was designed that 10 guilty men should go free to save one innocent rather than 10 innocent men should die to punish one guilty.

However...we know this is not always the case.

[Labret] · 10-15-2002, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eroswebmaster

and women should be making such decisions.

If Hank endorses it, we all must endorse it.

Oh wait, no we dont. Fuck Hank that sellout bitch.

untitled · 10-15-2002, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by [Labret]

Did you make that button?

Who can I contact get some of those made?

You can email me at [email protected]

10-14-2002, 10:34 PM	#51
Carrie Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Virgin - nee Posts: 3,162	The most important part of "hate crime" is "crime". Who cares if it was based on some stupid neanderthal thinking that one color is better than another or one sexuality is better than another or one sex is better than another? Who really gives a good fuck? It doesn't matter. What matters is that the person committed a CRIME. Murder, beating, robbing - these all have laws against them punishable by time in jail and/or the death sentence. There shouldn't be more of a sentence because of why they did it. There is only the fact that they did it when they knew they shouldn't have. Nothing else matters. "Hate crime" is two things: thought police in action, and feel-good bullshit for people who fear those unlike themselves. The totality of it is nonsense. The only thing that matters is that there was a crime, and the perpetrator needs to be punished. Period.

10-14-2002, 10:38 PM	#52
Carrie Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Virgin - nee Posts: 3,162	PS - those against the death penalty... tell me why the sniper running around DC/VA/MD shooting women in the head while they stand next to their husbands and shooting little kids in the gut and shooting men on business trips with 6 kids to feed at home shouldn't be executed. If you can.

10-14-2002, 10:53 PM	#54
Kanoealoha Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Happy Valley Posts: 1,261	Hate crimes remind me of when they USE to ask rape victims about their sexual history...hence, making it seems as though they wanted it to happen. When their sexual history had nothing to do with being raped. Bottom line, you killed someone... Go shit twice and die. You're taking up my oxygen

10-14-2002, 10:58 PM	#55
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	No, Carrie, the paranoic right wing "though police" argument has no place in this discussion. To me, a distinction for a crime motivated by the race, sexual orientation, relgion, etc., is no different from a special distinction for killing a law enforcement officer. There is a henious nature to the crime that is designed to terrorize an entire segment of society. It transcends crime ... it's terrorism. And it should be treated as such.

10-14-2002, 11:05 PM	#56
Carrie Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Virgin - nee Posts: 3,162	PD, I do think the "thought police" comment has a place in this discussion (and it's not coming from a paranoiac right-wing perspective). If Jimmy is a heterosexual male who doesn't like gays, is that a crime? If he really hates gays and does everything he can to avoid them, is that a crime? No, but the term "hate crime" makes the gays feel better, somehow more protected, against those that are different from them. Now, if Jimmy goes out and kills a gay man, is that a "hate crime", or is it just murder? It's just murder, plain and simple. It might be pre-meditated, it might not be - either way, Jimmy knows it's wrong to kill another human being and he knows it's against the law, but he did it anyway. It doesn't matter why he did it, it just matters that he did. Just as if I came home and found Castlehawke banging the hell out of some babe he picked up on the corner and I beat his skull in with a baseball bat after ripping out his throat with my bare hands. It doesn't matter that it was a "crime of passion", what matters is that I knew it was wrong to kill him, but I did it anyway. In both cases, Jimmy and I should be charged on the fact that we killed someone - not why we killed someone.

10-14-2002, 11:15 PM	#58
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	Carrie, Jimmy has the right to hate gays. Jimmy has the right not to associate with gays - until Jimmy puts his feelings into action. It's not a question of making gays or minorities feel better at all. It''s about protecting society. If Jimmy kills a gay man to get his money to buy drugs, it's not a hate crime. If Jimmy kilss a gay man just because he's gay, it takes makes it a different sort of crime entirely. In your analogy, you seem to think there is no difference in your bashing in his head at the time you catch him with the bimbo, and bashing it in at breakfast three days later. The law says there is that distinction. Just like society has deemed attacking a policeman to be a "greater" evil than attacking a civilian, crimes motivated by bigotry should be treated as more than a random homicide. I stand by my comparison to terrorism.

10-14-2002, 11:30 PM	#60
Carrie Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Virgin - nee Posts: 3,162	[QUOTE]Originally posted by PornoDoggy It''s about protecting society. Isn't that what the laws against murder are about? If Jimmy kills a gay man to get his money to buy drugs, it's not a hate crime. If Jimmy kilss a gay man just because he's gay, it takes makes it a different sort of crime entirely. I disagree. It's murder in both cases. It's wrong in both cases. It's against the law in both cases - and it was against the law before "hate crime" legislation ever passed. In your analogy, you seem to think there is no difference in your bashing in his head at the time you catch him with the bimbo, and bashing it in at breakfast three days later. There isn't. It's still bashing in his head, and it's still against the law - no matter why I did it. The law says there is that distinction. And..? The law also says that it's illegal to perform oral sex in North Carolina. That it's illegal to own vibrators in Georgia. Sometimes, and in this case, the law is not being the impartial, objective statute that it was meant to be. Who is making the laws? People. People with opinions like you and I. Who do you think made up the law about vibrators? Probably bible-belting prudes who thought vibrators were the "objects of satan" or something. Who pushed to pass the laws for "hate crimes"? Minority groups in fear of those who don't like something about them. The problem here is not that Jimmy is killing Sean because Sean is gay. The problem is that our justice system is not respected enough to make Jimmy think twice before killing Sean. Nowadays, a death sentence means three hots and a cot with cable tv, a full-service universal gym, and free college degrees along with book and television movie rights for the rest of your life. Murder is murder. (I might have those states wrong but you get my point - there are plenty of absurd sex laws like this out there. Along with walking your chicken on the sidewalk being a crime.)

10-14-2002, 11:33 PM	#61
Carrie Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Virgin - nee Posts: 3,162	On the same topic - who has seen Minority Report? Is it still a crime if you haven't committed it yet? (Hate or not, hehe)

10-14-2002, 11:40 PM	#62
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	Carrie, the crime of passion mitigating circumstance goes back to common law, I think. Just as there are degress of theft and degrees of assult, there are degrees of homicide. Special Circumstances, they are usually referred to. A killing in commission of a robery; killing a police officer in the execution of his duties. It varies from state to state.