ADN

Our laws are already bias, as is the punishment...Why not up the ante..?

you better be joking...

1. because it creates incentive to be a victim. yay, let's promote weakness. Look at Georgia Congresswoman....

2. because it will ULTIMATELY end up in the establishment of more bias, and less balance.

3. The ultimate civil fees and costs are ultimately a tax on the locals, which will create more hostility.

4. The "protection" of heavier sentences indicates it is "more-wrong" to target certain peoples for illegal activity.

5. because fring groups which are no longer socially relevant continue to tax MY country's coffers.

and then if it perpetuates, you just have the same issue as in AmIraqA, where you have three peoples who hate each other trying to form a common sense of governement that demeans the others.

Crime is wrong, regardless of motive. if we need stricter penalities they have to be nationwide and apply to ALL.

I agree with Raum.

Tagging an extra amount of time to a sentence because it is classified as a hate crime would be rediculous.

"It's fighting racism with another form of racism"

Not in all cases but that's my basic theme around this discussion.

QUOTE(raum)Pete, you don't seem to understand what "Hate Crime" is.

Hate crime is the notion that a person's skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference, or some other similar characteristic is the motive for the crime commited against them.

such a malarky as certain people who would *never* attack people, unless they were gay.  or black.  or wore white shoes after labour day.  or whatever.

plain and simple, this is the same exact notion as a "mo" for a serial killer.  Like the guy who strangles college girls with "blonde hair and glasses."  This is a way to catch him, not a cause for a more serious sentencing.

One could argue a person who could typify others through prejudice are less likely to appreciate the rights of others, and more likely to see less of a problem with violating their rights, persons, or worse.  Which is why education is important...

but if you go out of your way to apply more severe sentences to certain demographics, you lend weight to the notion that "the govt. protects all them damn .... like they're something special."

You completely hit the nail right on the head, dead on!

I completely misinterpreted the topic. #-o


Basically, I think THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE. Prejudice IS NOT a valid reason to commit crime.

QUOTE(raum)you better be joking...

1.  because it creates incentive to be a victim.  yay, let's promote weakness.  Look at Georgia Congresswoman....

2.  because it will ULTIMATELY end up in the establishment of more bias, and less balance.

3.  The ultimate civil fees and costs are ultimately a tax on the locals, which will create more hostility.

4. The "protection" of heavier sentences indicates it is "more-wrong" to target certain peoples for illegal activity.

5. because fring groups which are no longer socially relevant continue to tax MY country's coffers.

and then if it perpetuates, you just have the same issue as in AmIraqA, where you have three peoples who hate each other trying to form a common sense of governement that demeans the others.

Crime is wrong, regardless of motive.  if we need stricter penalities they have to be nationwide and apply to ALL.


Exactly right. I agree wholeheartedly about the victim thing. I think its not just pathetic, but discrimination towards the feminine gender to say "help! I'm a poor weak defenseless woman! that big scary man is gonna come along and attack me!"

I used to get really riled up on the stupid lame "rule" that "Boys aren't allowed to hit girls". I would say that girls are also not allowed to hit boys, and I'd get back the ridiculous remark "yes they can".


The last line in the post I quoted, echoes my father's statement that ended that arguement- "NO ONE is allowed to hit ANYBODY".

There is NOTHING good about being weak, it shows a lack of moral character. In fact, I know this is controversial to say, but if you're really asking for it, then you deserve it without that "offender" getting punished.

Hmmm...I was only half joking... /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Is there any good reason, that you guys can think of, why there is a disparity in the sentencing of crack and powder form cocaine..? Shit we have tons of laws that are full of incongruent punishments...This just one of the most obvious and blatant if you ask me...

"Lowering crack penalties now would simply send the wrong message, that we care less about the people and the communities victimized by crack," Thompson told the commission. "It is something we really cannot support."

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/232 ... sion.shtml

In my eyes, that is pretty much saying that selling crack is worse than selling coke...That's a pure judgement call...That is not "selling drugs is selling drugs" thing...How ironic is the statement about sending the wrong message..?

see, victim mentality at its finest.

selling crack has to be more severe because it is cheap, and thus easier to get ahold of.

thus, the rationale is making a crime judgement based on its *potential* harm, not its value.

bullshit;

it is a ploy to show "we know what you um, *poor* people face, and are showing we care, so vote for us."

it is the entrance of people who want to be champions of the minority struggle into goverment at levels where that hookum and snookum mentality are ineffective. thus, congress is essentially a brothel for religious rights, left-overs, minorites, and anyone else who wants it in writing that they deserve tax dollars.

You know who should care what is being sold on the street corner; THE MAYOR and the people there.

not the friggin president, or congress, but the governor should have a say.

I need to be educated fully in the school of Raum.....I agree completely with everything you said....it was concise, correct, and to the point....unlike when I spew on for paragraphs and paragraphs when in essence I'd be saying the same thing you did....but less effectively.


1. because it creates incentive to be a victim. yay, let's promote weakness.

I find that to be an obsessively true statement, and very relevant to today's society even without this extra punishment situation...... People in my neighborhood don't know what racism is......we're an open suburb who pretty much accepts everyone.........and yet they always want to play the victim.....white and black.......

face it LG,

You inherited a world where an elected Black Female Member of The US Congress feels she has the right to punch a police officer in the line of duty, and will defend herself as being a victim of racial profiling to sway the vote for her innocence.

You inherited a world where your tax dollars will be used to assist people to live in your state who feel this country is the worst institution on the planet.

You inherited a world where people have to be given a FRIGGIN PICTURE to tell them not to drown their kids in paint cans.

You inherited a world where your elected officials have spent more than 4 times of your entire expected lifetime income on someone who isn't even in your country.

You inherited a world where some 12 million people have to enter this country without invitation or welcome before you are able to mention it without being considered an "extremist."

You inherited a world where YOUR kids already owe more than $28,000 dollars to the people most likely to become their nation's major advesary in their lifetime.

So, enjoy what you can. the chance of the century:

tonight, early in the am, time will be 01:02:03 04/05/06 - enjoy that.

vertical,
raum