Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Three teens involved in vicious hate crime to be given probation

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    Your solution to the possibility of an us and them mentality is to decide attacks on some classes of people deserve a more severe punishment?


  • Options
    #123
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    No, my solution to the possibility of an us and them mentality is to decide that attacks which are motivated by specific things deserve more punishment.

    In fact, this isn't even "my" solution, this is already how the law behaves when it differentiates between murder and manslaughter. I'm just pointing it out.


  • Options
    #124
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    Pretty sure the difference between murder and manslaughter is planning not motivation.


  • Options
    #125
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    yoke wrote: »
    No, my solution to the possibility of an us and them mentality is to decide that attacks which are motivated by specific things deserve more punishment.

    In fact, this isn't even "my" solution, this is already how the law behaves when it differentiates between murder and manslaughter. I'm just pointing it out.
    Hate crime legislation is a hypocrisy of epic proportions and your earlier comparisons to Rwandan genocide are laughable if you think they would in any way have been prevented by hate crime legislation. Hate crime legislation is the closest thing to thought crime we're potentially ever going to see in our life time.


  • Options
    #126
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    psinno wrote: »
    Pretty sure the difference between murder and manslaughter is planning not motivation.

    Nope, according to the internet "Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    K4t wrote: »
    Hate crime legislation is a hypocrisy of epic proportions and your earlier comparisons to Rwandan genocide are laughable if you think they would in any way have been prevented by hate crime legislation. Hate crime legislation is the closest thing to thought crime we're potentially ever going to see in our life time.

    To think that properly enforced hate crime legislation in Rwanda in the years before the genocide would not have helped at all is ridiculous and stupid.

    It is like saying that having "anti-burglary" laws does not result in less burglaries in society.

    Let's do away with the burglary laws here, and see if the nation is ravaged by a mass of burglaries within a few years or not? Of course burglary will become rampant, if it's not illegal.


  • Options
    #128
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    yoke wrote: »
    Nope, according to the internet "Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice"

    Laws vary a lot by jurisdiction but I'm not sure the definition of involuntary manslaughter in isolation is much of a help in explaining the difference between manslaughter and murder when there is such a thing as voluntary manslaughter.


  • Options
    #129
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Yeah, I don't want a guy who burgles my house facing more time in prison if I happen to be gay or black thanks. Hate crime education and awareness might have helped, legislation would not and does not.


  • Options
    #130
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    psinno wrote: »
    Laws vary a lot by jurisdiction but I'm not sure the definition of involuntary manslaughter in isolation is much of a help in explaining the difference between manslaughter and murder when there is such a thing as voluntary manslaughter.

    But the point being made was that the penalty for killing a person "unintentionally" is different to killing a person intentionally, ie. that intent matters.


  • Options
    #131
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    K4t wrote: »
    Yeah, I don't want a guy who burgles my house facing more time in prison if I happen to be gay or black thanks. Hate crime education and awareness might have helped, legislation would not and does not.

    And that is precisely why "burgling a house" isn't considered a "hate crime".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    yoke wrote: »
    And that is precisely why "burgling a house" isn't considered a "hate crime".
    Yet you felt the need to introduce it into your argument anyway.

    And why not by the way? If a gay or a black guy gets robbed by a white guy because they are gay or black, surely that could be viewed as hate crime in the same way as an assault would have been? They simply burgled the gay or black person out of hate rather than assaulting them out of hate. The hate crime legislation angle/crap still applies.


  • Options
    #133
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭yoke


    I introduced it as an unrelated subject (a thought exercise) which shows that properly enforced laws can and do have an effect.

    A burglary is not the same a a robbery. If a gay or a black guy gets robbed by a white guy because they are gay or black, then yes that is a hate crime.
    The key element here is a threat to society - if you somehow formed a big enough group who thought that, for example, "old people" should be treated differently and not allowed to live in some areas, and then you proceeded to systematically abuse "old people" who you came across in high enough numbers that it affected the behaviours of a lot of "old people" who heard about your behaviour, then the state has to take action to prevent this perceived polarisation occurring within it's own borders - the state has to protect itself - by penalising those responsible more heavily.
    It's kind of like how the state (when it's at war) penalises enemy soldiers extremely heavily (shoots them) just for being "in the wrong gang/army", because the gang/army has become a threat to it's own national security.


  • Options
    #134
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    yoke wrote: »
    But the point being made was that the penalty for killing a person "unintentionally" is different to killing a person intentionally, ie. that intent matters.

    Intent and motive are not the same thing.


Advertisement