Three teens involved in vicious hate crime to be given probation

28-02-2015 3:59am

K4t wrote: »

I have explained several times in my posts. You suggested Ireland should introduce hate crime legislation. I pointed out how that would be bad and a regressive step for a free and liberal nation.

You are massively deluded if you think hate crime legislation somehow affects your rights in this free and liberal nation..

If I get in a fight and some guy smashes me with a bottle, fair enough. If I got smashed in the face with a bottle because of my race, religion or sexuality etc. it's far different. That person is naturally predisposed to assaulting a large number of people without provocation and needs far far far tougher sentencing along with a framework allowing for them to be killed in a civil suit.

johnny osbourne · 28-02-2015 4:02am

well your my friend

hatrickpatrick · 28-02-2015 4:06am

Deleted User wrote: »

If I get in a fight and some guy smashes me with a bottle, fair enough. If I got smashed in the face with a bottle because of my race, religion or sexuality etc. it's far different.

How is it different, exactly? At the end of the day you're still a human who was still attacked in a horrific manner and sustained horrific injuries from said assault. Whether you were attacked because someone had an issue with your colour or because someone was on crystal meth and attacked the first person they say is irrelevant, is it not? The consequences are identical for the victim.

That person is naturally predisposed to assaulting a large number of people without provocation and needs far far far tougher sentencing along with a framework allowing for them to be killed in a civil suit.

So are psychopaths and gangland criminals, so why should they be treated any differently to hate crimes?

Ironically enough, the reason I oppose the concept of hate speech and hate crimes is because I fundamentally believe in equality and egalitarianism. Part of that involves being treated as well as everyone else, but part of it also involves receiving no special treatment.

Eugene Norman · 28-02-2015 4:12am

bb1234567 wrote: »

What the ? So if I steal a car from some lady because she happened to leave her car unattended, then I stole it out of hatred towards her? Complete BS. Victims of hate crimes are Targeted BECAUSE of certain characteristics they possess.

Like Paddys? Or gingers?

I agree with hate crime legislation but it needs to be unbiased. White on black. Black on white. Homophobic attacks. Hetrophobic attacks ( as unlikely as that may be), attacks on gingers, jews, Muslims, baldies, liverpool fans, United fans etc

Whenever it can be proven that the crime was violent becsuse of an irrational dislike of another ( particularly a stranger) rather than say financial gain.

Eugene Norman · 28-02-2015 4:15am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is it different, exactly? At the end of the day you're still a human who was still attacked in a horrific manner and sustained horrific injuries from said assault. Whether you were attacked because someone had an issue with your colour or because someone was on crystal meth and attacked the first person they say is irrelevant, is it not? The consequences are identical for the victim.

So are psychopaths and gangland criminals, so why should they be treated any differently to hate crimes?

Ironically enough, the reason I oppose the concept of hate speech and hate crimes is because I fundamentally believe in equality and egalitarianism. Part of that involves being treated as well as everyone else, but part of it also involves receiving no special treatment.

To my mind if you are walking down the street and attacked for a reason based on the way you look, or some other difference then that puts you statistically in much more danger than potential robberies which might turn violent or a pub row. It also makes the urban environment scary.

Eugene Norman · 28-02-2015 4:19am

bb1234567 wrote: »

You're saying it as if its okay he was brutally murdered because he sold drugs and was hiv positive
and so what if it wasn't a true hate crime?It doesn't take away from the severity of other such hate motivated crimes. Hate crimes are different to other crimes, I don't understand what you're trying to do really.

Well if it want an anti gay crime then it either wasn't a hate crime or all violent crimes are hate crimes.

28-02-2015 4:21am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is it different, exactly? At the end of the day you're still a human who was still attacked in a horrific manner and sustained horrific injuries from said assault. Whether you were attacked because someone had an issue with your colour or because someone was on crystal meth and attacked the first person they say is irrelevant, is it not? The consequences are identical for the victim.

So are psychopaths and gangland criminals, so why should they be treated any differently to hate crimes?

Ironically enough, the reason I oppose the concept of hate speech and hate crimes is because I fundamentally believe in equality and egalitarianism. Part of that involves being treated as well as everyone else, but part of it also involves receiving no special treatment.

It's about prevention of crime in the future. If you commit a crime based on hate, you're going to do it again. The entire legal system hinges on motive..

As well as that, your logic leaves no room for war crimes, terrorism or genocide either.

hatrickpatrick · 28-02-2015 4:30am

Deleted User wrote: »

It's about prevention of crime in the future. If you commit a crime based on hate, you're going to do it again. The entire legal system hinges on motive..

If you commit a crime based on fuelling a drug habit, you're equally more likely to do it again. Yet we don't have a special, separate category for "drug assault" in the legal system.

As well as that, your logic leaves no room for war crimes or genocide either.

I'm an anti-war activist. All war crimes should be dealt with in the same way as they would be if a civilian committed them or ordered them to be committed - this would actually reduce a lot of the "collateral damage" and "bad orders" BS soldiers such as the Abu Ghraib photographers use to get out of charges for what they actually did, namely assault causing harm and sexual molestation. Genocide is simply mass murder on a massively epic scale - by all means if somebody commits genocide, charge them with an individual count of murder for everyone they've killed and everything they subsequently conspired to kill before being caught.

The end result would ultimately be the same, while at the same time maintaining the principle of equality in the legal system.

28-02-2015 4:35am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you commit a crime based on fuelling a drug habit, you're equally more likely to do it again. Yet we don't have a special, separate category for "drug assault" in the legal system.

I'm an anti-war activist. All war crimes should be dealt with in the same way as they would be if a civilian committed them or ordered them to be committed - this would actually reduce a lot of the "collateral damage" and "bad orders" BS soldiers such as the Abu Ghraib photographers use to get out of charges for what they actually did, namely assault causing harm and sexual molestation. Genocide is simply mass murder on a massively epic scale - by all means if somebody commits genocide, charge them with an individual count of murder for everyone they've killed and everything they subsequently conspired to kill before being caught.

The end result would ultimately be the same, while at the same time maintaining the principle of equality in the legal system.

If the drug addict is targetting Jews and is trying to inflict as much damage as possible, it's very different.

And you don't even know what genocide is. I'll save my effort for someone else.

Eugene Norman · 28-02-2015 4:39am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't even know what genocide is. I'll save my effort for someone else.

This argument would be better if you explain why he didn't understand genocide rather than that petulant whine.

hatrickpatrick · 28-02-2015 4:41am

Deleted User wrote: »

If the drug addict is targetting Jews and is trying to inflict as much damage as possible, it's very different.

How is it different? The end result is a bunch of people being targeted and potentially harmed by a psychopath. I don't see how bringing discrimination into it helps anyone.

And you don't even know what genocide is. I'll save my effort for someone else.

Genocide is attempting (or in some horrible cases, succeeding) to wipe out a particular demographic, be it an ethnic group, a religion, whatever. Problem?

28-02-2015 4:47am

Eugene Norman wrote: »

This argument would be better if you explain why he didn't understand genocide rather than that petulant whine.

I'm not a dictionary and I don't need to explain something in order to say it's wrong.

Eugene Norman · 28-02-2015 4:47am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is it different? The end result is a bunch of people being targeted and potentially harmed by a psychopath. I don't see how bringing discrimination into it helps anyone.

Genocide is attempting (or in some horrible cases, succeeding) to wipe out a particular demographic, be it an ethnic group, a religion, whatever. Problem?

To be fair you said "mass killings" which isnt the same definition as you now are giving.

Eugene Norman · 28-02-2015 4:50am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not a dictionary and I don't need to explain something in order to say it's wrong.

To be taken seriously you do. This is a forum for written public debate. If somebody in a spoken public debate were to stand up and say " he doesn't understand genocide" and that's all without explaining why the speaker was wrong it's not much of an argument. More a heckle.

28-02-2015 4:52am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Genocide is attempting (or in some horrible cases, succeeding) to wipe out a particular demographic, be it an ethnic group, a religion, whatever. Problem?

So your new and correct definition just described genocide as a mass hate crime yet you refuse to accept that hate crime exists or should be legislated.

28-02-2015 4:56am

Eugene Norman wrote: »

To be taken seriously you do. This is a forum for written public debate. If somebody in a spoken public debate were to stand up and say " he doesn't understand genocide" and that's all without explaining why the speaker was wrong it's not much of an argument. More a heckle.

You said yourself that he described it as mass killings. He intentionally skipped the motivation for the killings and in any public debate, he'd have been crucified for it because funny enough, the motivation is exactly what he's arguing against.

yoke · 28-02-2015 5:02am

Whether you were attacked because someone had an issue with your colour or because someone was on crystal meth and attacked the first person they say is irrelevant, is it not? The consequences are identical for the victim.

No the consequences are not identical.

Victims are not necessarily stupid idiots who are incapable of thinking after the event - i'm pretty sure the victim in a lot of crimes would figure out pretty soon the reason for the attack, and the way it was dealt with by the courts would determine whether the victim would trust society again to protect them, or not.

If the victim figured out that their car was robbed and found burnt out after a joyride because they left the keys outside the car door, they would probably notice their own stupidity and move on.
However, if the victim figured out that their car was burnt out on the driveway because they were of a different ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation/whatever, and that the attacker was sending a message that they were not welcome, you can bet that that message was received by whoever heard about the attack. In that case the state has to act differently, to protect it's own integrity - it's the entire state's guarantee of freedom to individuals that's being attacked here, not just the car, hence it deserves a worse punishment.

hatrickpatrick · 28-02-2015 5:02am

Deleted User wrote: »

So your new and correct definition just described genocide as a mass hate crime yet you refuse to accept that hate crime exists or should be legislated.

I don't think it should be treated than any other form of mass murder or conspiracy to mass murder. Let's suppose I plan to kill 4.5 million Irish people and succeed in killing 2 million. If I was charged with 2 million counts of murder and a further 2.5 million counts of attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder, the subsequent sentencing would surely prevent any re-offending, as would the sentencing for conspiracy to murder 4.5 million people if I succeeded in killing nobody.

I feel this is a massive straw man anyway. Genocide and hate crime are not the same thing. Genocide can only be analogous to mass murder (or conspiracy to mass murder) on the same scale - whereas a hate crime can involve any number of people from one to thousands.

My point is, if I get assaulted because someone saw that I had a fancy smartphone and wanted it, or I get assaulted because someone overheard my Irish accent and has a problem with Irish people, at the end of the day I've been assaulted and whatever scumbag assaulted me will do so again because a scumbag is a scumbag. I genuinely don't see further defining this as helpful in any way - not if we want to reach a point in society where demographic becomes irrelevant.

28-02-2015 5:17am

Fine, you win.

yoke · 28-02-2015 5:29am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My point is, if I get assaulted because someone saw that I had a fancy smartphone and wanted it, or I get assaulted because someone overheard my Irish accent and has a problem with Irish people, at the end of the day I've been assaulted and whatever scumbag assaulted me will do so again because a scumbag is a scumbag. I genuinely don't see further defining this as helpful in any way - not if we want to reach a point in society where demographic becomes irrelevant.

So you don't see a difference between someone who's motive is to get your smartphone, and someone who's motive is to actually hurt you?

By that logic, you should also not care if you are hurt by accident, or if you are hurt on purpose by someone.

I'd love to see how you'd react to a 2 year old running over your toes on their tricycle.

CB19Kevo · 28-02-2015 6:08am

How can anyone trust that the courts will deal fairly with people when we see regular occurrences such as this.

We could easily wipe out 80 percent of crime in this country if we got serious about it.
More police and CCTV,massive education rollout,Linking of police,social welfare and customs systems,tough'r sentencing,judicial accountability,more prison spaces,stricter door policies in bars n nightclubs,investment in drug rehab and homeless shelters,relaxation of criminalasation of marijuana,investment in social services.

It would be a coupe of billion in investments over 10 years or so but the entire country could reap the rewards.

Take any incident that you see reported and ask if anything in the above list could have stopped it.

Bongalongherb · 28-02-2015 6:39am

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Judges don't generally take the prison population into consideration when passing sentence.

But these judges are well aware of the prison over-crowding situation as would show within their charter in regards to prison population detainees.

Bongalongherb · 28-02-2015 6:42am

CB19Kevo wrote: »

How can anyone trust that the courts will deal fairly with people when we see regular occurrences such as this.

We could easily wipe out 80 percent of crime in this country if we got serious about it.
More police and CCTV,massive education rollout,Linking of police,social welfare and customs systems,tough'r sentencing,judicial accountability,more prison spaces,stricter door policies in bars n nightclubs,investment in drug rehab and homeless shelters,relaxation of criminalasation of marijuana,investment in social services.

It would be a coupe of billion in investments over 10 years or so but the entire country could reap the rewards.

Take any incident that you see reported and ask if anything in the above list could have stopped it.

We want to do it, but it's not 'We' that can do it, it's up to the government and justice system to change and forward it, that's what we employ them to do but they don't do their job.

Little CuChulainn · 28-02-2015 9:06am

Bongalongherb wrote: »

But these judges are well aware of the prison over-crowding situation as would show within their charter in regards to prison population detainees.

When they see it as an issue they will mention it, especially when it comes to kids. They generally leave it to the prison authorities to sort it out otherwise. That's why we have so many on temporary release and early release.

Bob24 · 28-02-2015 10:13am

Any info about who the parents are and how they reacted to this?
Surely they also have a shared responsibility in what happened.

conorhal · 28-02-2015 11:33am

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The initial attack started because the lad was gay (clue for ya - It's in the headline to the story)

A hate crime is a crime motivated by racial, sexual, religious or other prejudice. In countries which have hate crime legislation it means the guilty party gets a harsher sentence. The rationale behind this approach is blindingly obvious.

As for 'all crime is hate crime', I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Any chance you might explain?

I suspect they had no motivation at all, if it hadn't been that family it would have been sombody else that they goaded into a reaction so that they could have their 'fun'.
Personally I hate the whole notion of hate crimes and the hierarchy of victimhood it creates, though obviously I feel a stronger gut reaction to an assault when it involves a vunerable person and I think that should absolutely be a factor that is taken into account when it comes to sentencing.

There's no shortage of people that live in a constant state of fear in their own homes thanks to roaming gangs of feral kids that own and terrorize some neighbourhoods. I spoke to a guy on a course once that was in the process of moving house, he sold up after a year of being terrorised by a gang of eight or nine 12-16yr olds. It started with him asking them to move on because they were making a lot of noise drinking outside his house and sitting on his garden wall. That simple request meant he could no longer park in his own area (car vandalised twice), had his windows broken, had a hole kicked in his front door and all kinds of really, really vile things said to his wife and daughter who would be taunted by these teens when they walked down the street. He lived under a constant threat of violence and becaues of the age of those involved the police couldn't or wouldn't do anything.

The problem isn't the lack of hate crime legislation, the problem is the utter abandonment of whole comunities by the authorities who have left good people and many, old, vunerable and defenseless individuals at the mercy of these depraved and violent thugs. Address that and you'll find the only legislation you need is already on the statute books.
The truth is, and the guards admitted it to the guy, that there is no place to put these kids so the courts can't lock them up and the counsel won't evict them because that would be just moving the problem along and again, they don't have enough social housing to move them to anyway.

If this problem is to get fixed it needs comunity policing, specialist detension centers built for young offenders and I'd suggest the dutch model of 'scum towns' built out of shipping containers where you get dumped if you're evicted from counsel housing because of anti-social behaviour. The chilling reality is that people like those girls do the things they do because there's no real sanction on them, and yes things like this happen all the time, they just don't get reported because it doesn't involve a jucy headline like 'hate crime against gay teen'.

Baby Jane · 28-02-2015 2:40pm

Hate crime can be a difficult one to quantify. Sometimes there are cases of attacks on people that are deemed to have a racial, homophobic, or other "political" type motivation, when it's not the case - the attackers are just scum and their victim is just in the wrong place at the wrong time; sometimes a physical or whatever trait may be used against them to add to the nastiness, but the attack would happen either way.
That doesn't mean hate crimes don't occur - of course they do. People get assaulted for their skin colour and being gay sadly, but I think an eagerness to apply "hate crime" to any attack at all undermines what an actual hate crime is.

Amazingfun wrote: »

Or when Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were both raped tortured and murdered by a group of Blacks? They were sending a mesage too.....were they not?

Yes.

hatrickpatrick · 28-02-2015 3:14pm

yoke wrote: »

So you don't see a difference between someone who's motive is to get your smartphone, and someone who's motive is to actually hurt you?

Not if both of the aforementioned do me a serious head injury and land me in hospital. The end result is that I've been landed in hospital with a serious head injury.

By that logic, you should also not care if you are hurt by accident, or if you are hurt on purpose by someone.

This makes absolutely no sense. No person who violently assaults you is doing so "by accident". They chose to attack you and try to do you a serious injury, whether that be in order to get your stuff or in order to feel like they've satisfied some sick desire to hurt a certain demographic.

I'd love to see how you'd react to a 2 year old running over your toes on their tricycle.

Sure, because opposing certain laws is totally the same thing as not believing in the age of majority

If an adult ran over my toes on his or her bike because they'd run a red light, I'd certainly want to see some kind of dangerous driving charge implemented. This one is a particularly sore point for me to be honest as my daily walk to and from college is riddles with light breaking gob****es who render green men entirely redundant.

bb1234567 · 28-02-2015 3:23pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not if both of the aforementioned do me a serious head injury and land me in hospital. The end result is that I've been landed in hospital with a serious head injury.

This makes absolutely no sense. No person who violently assaults you is doing so "by accident". They chose to attack you and try to do you a serious injury, whether that be in order to get your stuff or in order to feel like they've satisfied some sick desire to hurt a certain demographic.

Sure, because opposing certain laws is totally the same thing as not believing in the age of majority
If an adult ran over my toes on his or her bike because they'd run a red light, I'd certainly want to see some kind of dangerous driving charge implemented. This one is a particularly sore point for me to be honest as my daily walk to and from college is riddles with light breaking gob****es who render green men entirely redundant.

Stupid, we need to recognise certain crimes as hate crimes to determine increased risks that certain minorities have of being abused over the average person.

conorhal · 28-02-2015 4:06pm

bb1234567 wrote: »

Stupid, we need to recognise certain crimes as hate crimes to determine increased risks that certain minorities have of being abused over the average person.

I'd tend to disagree, as I mentioned in my previous post I dislike the devisivenes of the notion of hate crimes and hierarchy of victimhood it creates. I believe that equality before the law means just that and assault is assault regardless of the motivation.
Take two theoretical examples, two innocent men are targeted, one because the thug that attacks him believes that he his a gay man, the other is a victim of a purely random attack.
The first manages to brush it off and refuses to allow himself to be disuaded from expressing who he is regardless of what some mindless thug thinks, the other has his confidence badly shattered and begins to suffer panic attacks and agrophobia which makes him reluctant to even leave his own home.
I would argue that a stiffer sentence is due to the perpetrator of the second attack then would be the case for the first.
When it comes to addressing how to deal with such assaults, I don't think clasifying the crimes differently is the right thing to do. I would address the complex issues involved by making it mandatory for a judge to take into account a victim impact statement when it came to sentencing people that have commited crimes against a person like assault and intimidation. In that way the victim, who often is forgotten as soon as a verdict is arrived at, returns to the center of the notion of justice and the judge can consider additional penelties based on other factors related to the crime.
So in the first case, if the young man in question is now afraid to be open about his sexuality because he fears an assault, that should be taken into account. It would be the same for the young man suffering agrophobia and panic attacks. The judge would have to look beyond the cuts and bruses and consider the devastating impact the attack has had on his life when sentencing the criminal.
I would also consider it proper that the judge could also take into account broader societal implications of the crime (because crime doesn't happen outside a society and does have implications for it), if for example ther had been a spate of attacks on gay people then it would be right for the judge to consider a harsher sentence because of the broader chilling effect such an attack would have for members of the gay comunity. In other words, let the punishment fit the crime rather then tailoring a crime to punish sombody based on the percived motivation for the crime, or making the motivation a crime in and of itself, because when you start down that road you can end up going in some scary Orwellian directions.
I really don't know of course, there are many complex issues at play and I don't have all the answers, but I do feel that enacting such hate legislation is a move in the wrong direction and feels tokenistic and unlikely to address the actual root causes of a problem and possibly even makes them worse.

lazybones32 · 28-02-2015 4:35pm

Is a "hate crime" different from a "love crime"?

Drunken teens will probably start on anyone who they think couldn't kick the $hit out of them. Who can say it was motivated by sexuality?
The same probably would have happened if he was straight but that story wouldn't be newsworthy...

end of the road · 28-02-2015 4:54pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/mum-kicked-and-burned-by-girls-after-defending-her-son-from-gay-abuse-31025969.html

Well, as long as they apologise very nicely. I realise that these girls are under 18 and have no previous but this seems excessively lenient for the nature of the crime. Do you think they should get off without a recorded conviction?

no . these bits of vermin are a danger and need to be off the streets

RWCNT · 28-02-2015 5:55pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ironically enough, the reason I oppose the concept of hate speech and hate crimes is because I fundamentally believe in equality and egalitarianism. Part of that involves being treated as well as everyone else, but part of it also involves receiving no special treatment.

Egalitarianism is nonsense.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=equality+vs+justice&safe=off&tbm=isch&imgil=ytOT_wZPYfs_mM%253A%253BGYbIJQMXV-uEXM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fkathyescobar.com%25252F2013%25252F10%25252F22%25252Fjustice-is-more-than-equality%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ytOT_wZPYfs_mM%253A%252CGYbIJQMXV-uEXM%252C_&usg=__2CSx_HQyPnwSH95WqohIp1gnu88%3D&biw=836&bih=376&ved=0CC0Qyjc&ei=xvLxVK-RIam27gazqYH4Dw

bb1234567 · 28-02-2015 5:55pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

Is a "hate crime" different from a "love crime"?

Drunken teens will probably start on anyone who they think couldn't kick the $hit out of them. Who can say it was motivated by sexuality?
The same probably would have happened if he was straight but that story wouldn't be newsworthy...

Probably but they were shouting homophobic slurs at the families house so it appears like a hate crime, even if it wasn't and they would have attacked regardless of whether the son was gay or not.

bodice ripper · 28-02-2015 5:56pm

underage and no previous record?

result seems reasonable.

Duke O Smiley · 28-02-2015 5:59pm

I really have to stop reading this thread because it is making me irrationally angry.

The justice system in this country is an absolute joke and that judge is a disgrace.

corner of hells · 28-02-2015 6:07pm

Duke O Smiley wrote: »

I really have to stop reading this thread because it is making me irrationally angry.

The justice system in this country is an absolute joke and that judge is a disgrace.

Its unusual for women under 18 to be detained with only Oberstown the place of detention, the judge is not at fault , he must act under the Childrens Acts.

Rubberchikken · 28-02-2015 6:13pm

the judges hand are probably tied by the laws, he didn't make them, can only enforce them.

these girls behaved in an appalling way and if they don't get sent to jail, then they should be on their best behaviour for the rest of their lives because if they leatned nothing from this then heaven help anyone who has to deal with them in the future.

as they are under 18, the parents should be held somewhat responsible too. seems to me that a bit of work teaching them to be proper humans is on the cards hopefully.

shameful behaviour though

foggy_lad · 28-02-2015 6:15pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Its unusual for women under 18 to be detained with only Oberstown the place of detention, the judge is not at fault , he must act under the Childrens Acts.

The problem is that the massive cost of detention for these youths is so high that the DPP often doesn't proceed with prosecutions as the cost of the case and any detention outweighs the damage done and this tells such vermin that they are untouchable!

How are these vermin actually punished if no actual punishments are allowed?

probation is a joke as is community service. corporal punishment is the only way with these vermin!

lazybones32 · 28-02-2015 11:29pm

bb1234567 wrote: »

Probably but they were shouting homophobic slurs at the families house so it appears like a hate crime, even if it wasn't and they would have attacked regardless of whether the son was gay or not.

But that's my point; the teens would have picked on whatever was the most obvious characteristic to ridicule and focused on that. If he had big ears and was straight, he would still have had that experience that night but the story wouldn't be deemed worthy of Media attention. Crimes against heterosexuals are crimes but a crime where someone uses the word "homo" or "gay" is somehow worse and is classified as a hate crime?

Cuban Pete · 01-03-2015 3:46am

Not worse, per se. It's the difference between a single remark and harassment, you might say, as poor an analogy as that is.

Such laws only lack sense if you completely ignore the history of violence perpetrated against specific minority groups with the intent of driving them away from participating in society. If you ignore the periods where our own governments legislated against us. Social attitudes don't change overnight. You can change laws but you can't so easily change society.

If a group is being targeted unequally then I don't see the problem in affording them extra legal protections. There's no history of systemic violence against straight people or people with big ears or what have you.

Not all double standards are wrong. Sometimes they're even necessary. The reality simply is that certain groups are going to be targeted for violent crimes with the purpose of intimidation or whatever you want to call it. The message is that we don't belong in society, we're not "normal" and so deserve to be assaulted and murdered.

Is it a case of not understanding or just not agreeing?

Carlos Orange · 01-03-2015 3:52am

bodice ripper wrote: »

underage and no previous record?

result seems reasonable.

I don't really get why people have a first one free attitude to crime.

K4t · 01-03-2015 4:12am

Cuban Pete wrote: »

If a group is being targeted unequally then I don't see the problem in affording them extra legal protections.

So you'd rather acknowledge the belief that they are unequal by treating them as unequal under the law? That just hypocritical.

There's no history of systemic violence against straight people or people with big ears or what have you.

Yes, because it is stupid. Although, history is century after century of people committing violence against other people, mostly straight; change ears to noses too and you've a whole new ball game.

Anyway, the point is, just as committing violence towards people because they're straight or have big ears is entirely stupid and illogical, so is committing violence towards people because they're gay. Both reasons for the violence are incredibly stupid and should be acknowledged by society as such. Which is exactly why both crimes of violence against the straight and big eared folks and crimes of violence against gay people, should be treated as equal under the law. A crime is a crime.

lazybones32 · 01-03-2015 5:21am

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Not worse, per se. It's the difference between a single remark and harassment, you might say, as poor an analogy as that is.

Such laws only lack sense if you completely ignore the history of violence perpetrated against specific minority groups with the intent of driving them away from participating in society. If you ignore the periods where our own governments legislated against us. Social attitudes don't change overnight. You can change laws but you can't so easily change society.

If a group is being targeted unequally then I don't see the problem in affording them extra legal protections. There's no history of systemic violence against straight people or people with big ears or what have you.

Not all double standards are wrong. Sometimes they're even necessary. The reality simply is that certain groups are going to be targeted for violent crimes with the purpose of intimidation or whatever you want to call it. The message is that we don't belong in society, we're not "normal" and so deserve to be assaulted and murdered.

Is it a case of not understanding or just not agreeing?

*shakes head*

It's not that I don't know where to begin...it's the fear I won't stop if I do begin.

old_aussie · 01-03-2015 6:15am

They played the "drunk" card.

Get out of jail.

That sends a message to all, do what you like as long as you can play the drunk card.

lazybones32 · 01-03-2015 7:16am

old_aussie wrote: »

They played the "drunk" card.

Get out of jail.

That sends a message to all, do what you like as long as you can play the drunk card.

In fairness, a person gets plenty of time to prepare for their day in Court...get the suit, wash the face, practice the guilty and remorseful face...it'd be refreshing to see a night-Court, where the person is brought before a Judge in the state that they caused the trouble in...but asking a Judge to work at night would contravene their Constitutional Right to a night's sleep.

Tony EH · 01-03-2015 9:35am

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Well, as long as they apologise very nicely. I realise that these girls are under 18 and have no previous but this seems excessively lenient for the nature of the crime. Do you think they should get off without a recorded conviction?

Sure they haven't been protesting against Irish Water or not paying their TV license.

Why would they do any jail time?

:pac:

Cuban Pete · 01-03-2015 11:26am

K4t wrote: »

So you'd rather acknowledge the belief that they are unequal by treating them as unequal under the law?

Society doesn't treat all groups the same so yes, I don't see the problem here. Until we live in a perfect world where people don't treat others unequally, we'll have laws that protect those more at risk.

That just hypocritical.Yes, because it is stupid. Although, history is century after century of people committing violence against other people, mostly straight; change ears to noses too and you've a whole new ball game.

But straight people aren't targeted for violence because they're straight. That is what you and others don't seem to understand.

Anyway, the point is, just as committing violence towards people because they're straight or have big ears is entirely stupid and illogical, so is committing violence towards people because they're gay.

Doesn't stop people engaging in it, though. We don't abolish laws against theft and murder just because those crimes are illogical.

Both reasons for the violence are incredibly stupid and should be acknowledged by society as such. Which is exactly why both crimes of violence against the straight and big eared folks and crimes of violence against gay people, should be treated as equal under the law. A crime is a crime.

A crime is not a crime. Why differentiate between manslaughter and murder? Assault and sexual assault? Theft and robbery? Because intent (and to an extent, effect) is a key component of crime.

Crimes against minority groups are treated as different because those minority groups are treated differently by society; because they are targeted because they're minority groups. If you're straight and someone attacks you, you don't have to worry about it being because you're straight. You don't have to hide your straightness or fear you'll be discriminated against because of it.

It's wrong that minority groups are unequally targeted for violence and discriminated against but sticking your head in the sand and saying "it's illogical" doesn't change the reality that it happens.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2015 11:49am

psinno wrote: »

I don't really get why people have a first one free attitude to crime.

I really don't get why people are so eager to put teenagers in jail.

Little CuChulainn · 01-03-2015 12:00pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

I really don't get why people are so eager to put teenagers in jail.

Because some of them are as dangerous as any grownup.

Three teens involved in vicious hate crime to be given probation

Comments