[Negotiator]

Great thread title.

Of course all murderers should be treated equally - if and only if they did the same murder under the same circumstances.

But after weeks of abuse, should the 14 year old rape victim who managed to shoot the 30 year old rapist dead treatet exactly the same as that rapist after killing the victim in the end slowly by torturing her ?

Hello ?

Same penalty in both cases ?

Seriously ??

[Arkady2009]

Read a news report that stated people who murder transgender or disabled people will receive a minimum sentence of 30 years. The reason behind this is they say is because that crime is a 'hate' crime, so it should be treated differently to other murders.
Why the need to single out certain groups in society and say their life is worth more than another member in society, why not treat all people who murder the same and impose equal sentences on them?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089715

Then I expect you wuld be okay with the killer of a police officer to be given a 10 year sentence (as appears to be the norm here) for murder?

[grassroots1]

Once I begin hearing fashionable new buzz terminology such as "hate crime" and "human rights",

Oh man, that is sig worthy. It's not like the concept of human rights has existed for centuries or anything.

[redcarpet]

It's not like the concept of human rights has existed for centuries or anything.

The oldest 'right' last I recall, was the so called 'Divine Right to Rule' of absolute monarchs.

We don't accept that nowadays.....

[grassroots1]

I was assuming he was referring to human rights as we now know them. Like the declaration of rights of man, the bill of rights, the UN declaration of human rights, etc. The concept of human rights being described as a "new buzzword" is ridiculous.

[godshumbleson]

But after weeks of abuse, should the 14 year old rape victim who managed to shoot the 30 year old rapist dead treatet exactly the same as that rapist after killing the victim in the end slowly by torturing her ?

Then we must ask why did she shoot to kill, if under the circumstances she somehow manages to get hold of a gun why not shoot him in the leg thus disabling him and then the police could of dealt with him.

It should always be the state that has the final say on the death penalty, the girl in your story has took the role of state and in some ways could be seen as aggrandizing herself. It is therefore regrettable that she should face the death penalty.

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

[Eran]

But after weeks of abuse, should the 14 year old rape victim who managed to shoot the 30 year old rapist dead treatet exactly the same as that rapist after killing the victim in the end slowly by torturing her ?

One could make a very good case that such killing wouldn't even count as murder.

But that is not the main point of the OP. Obviously, some murders should be treated differently, based on circumstances, likely of re-offence, nature of killing (e.g. was sexual abuse or torture involved), prior crimes, etc.

The main point is whether the motivation of the killer should be a factor in deciding on punishment.

Pants-of-Dog is taking a utilitarian approach to punishment - specifically, deterrence is an important component. Crimes that form a worrying trend should be treated more harshly than isolated crimes. This approach, taken to extreme, completely divorces justice from punishment. If such act works as deterrence, why not punish an innocent person?

[Pants-of-dog]

Because then the punishment is not related to the crime, and thus would create an arbitrary imposition of state power on individuals. I think we can agree that such imposition by the state is a Bad Thing.

[Eran]

I think I made a mistake, and I apologise.

Re-reading your post, it now seems that you are making a different point, namely that by murdering a member of a marginalised communities, the murderer's victims include not just the murdered individual, but the entire community, as members of the community who have not been personally targeted still face a heightened state of fear.

I still disagree, but for a different reason.

Let's assume that a murderer targeted a person because that person belongs to a given group, rather than because the murderer wanted a particular individual dead. The group could, but need not be a marginalised community. For example, a victim of a home-break-in-gone-bad is a member of the group of residents in a particular neighbourhood. He is not a member of a marginalised community, but is still a member of a particular group of people.

Every non-personal murder thus increases the level of fear amongst the group of like-individuals. That increase harms each of those members. Why is that more of an issue, deserving stricter punishment, merely because the group in question is a marginalised community rather than a different arbitrary group?

[Baff]

You need to pander to the masses.

If a murder creates greater public outrage, it's punishment must be adjusted to match that.
Scapegoats are a requirement for social order.

Justice must be seen to be done.
Where the seeing is often more important than the justice of any sentence given.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think I made a mistake, and I apologise.

Re-reading your post, it now seems that you are making a different point, namely that by murdering a member of a marginalised communities, the murderer's victims include not just the murdered individual, but the entire community, as members of the community who have not been personally targeted still face a heightened state of fear.

I still disagree, but for a different reason.

Let's assume that a murderer targeted a person because that person belongs to a given group, rather than because the murderer wanted a particular individual dead. The group could, but need not be a marginalised community. For example, a victim of a home-break-in-gone-bad is a member of the group of residents in a particular neighbourhood. He is not a member of a marginalised community, but is still a member of a particular group of people.

Every non-personal murder thus increases the level of fear amongst the group of like-individuals. That increase harms each of those members. Why is that more of an issue, deserving stricter punishment, merely because the group in question is a marginalised community rather than a different arbitrary group?

In all likelihood, a resident of a particular neighbourhood won't feel like a member of a targeted community because he or she has not been part of one historically.

[Eran]

Perhaps. But they will still feel less safe in their own homes. Why is that not equally legitimate and relevant?

[KlassWar]

they say is because that crime is a 'hate' crime, so it should be treated differently to other murders.
Why the need to single out certain groups in society and say their life is worth more than another member in society, why not treat all people who murder the same and impose equal sentences on them?

Right-wingers bitch and moan and whine when LGBT folks are given specific protection against abuse... Yet they don't bitch and moan about the notion of pigs and politicians having greater legal protection from aggression or murder. I call unadulterated hipocrisy on that one.

[Joe Liberty]

It's nonsensical. If I kill you because you support a different football team than me it's a hate crime. If I kill you because you are gay it is a hate crime, if I kill you because you slept with my girlfriend it's a hate crime, if I kill you because you were looking at me funny it's a hate crime.

There is no such thing as a friendly violent crime. Why put crimes against different people on a different level?

Two reasons, as I see it:

1. To criminalize certain thoughts. Sure, prejudice and stereotypes are bad, but "hate crimes" are an attempt to criminalize them. Of course, motive is nearly essential in determining a person's guilt, it's one piece of the puzzle. And it can be considered at sentencing. But you can't logically make motive a crime in and of itself; that's policing thought.

2. To further solidify in the minds of citizens the concept of group rights. Look no further than some of the arguments here that "hate crimes" should only be applied if the victim is a member of a "marginalized group". That's an admission that the entire exercise is about groups rather than individuals, and further, an admission that some groups are more worthy or more important than others. Your existence as an individual is thus marginalized, your worth reduced to a largely superficial group designation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Perhaps. But they will still feel less safe in their own homes. Why is that not equally legitimate and relevant?

Think of it this way. A black family gets their house broken into and they know it's because they're black. They not only feel the fear you describe, but also an additional fear that non-black people don't get.

Not to mention (and you'll like this) the fact that black people and others who have been institutionally oppressed by the state have a rational fear that the state will ignore crimes against them because of racism.

[Emerald Ocean]

Once I begin hearing fashionable new buzz terminology such as "hate crime" and "human rights", it's an automatic signal for me to stop listening to the moralist drivel which is being spewed most likely by young and highly political social scientists and social engineers with a warped pathology.

"Hate crime" would have been about as recognized as "sad milkshake" when I was growing up. Once again, I don't blame the minorities for exploiting such stupidity as much as I blame the twisted class of people we refer to as white men today for accepting and promoting it. Those loathesome ideas have driven this country into the shitter in a minute.

And applying it not only to the immigrants and their offspring who burned down north London last year, but to fake minorities such as "transgendered" loons is a case of adding insult to injury.

Let them burn their own neighborhoods down... That kind of savage behavior by London's immigrants will only serve to expedite the racial awakening of Native Britons.



.

[Eran]

A black family gets their house broken into and they know it's because they're black. They not only feel the fear you describe, but also an additional fear that non-black people don't get.

The logic doesn't work. If a relatively small group is targeted, each member has more reason to fear, but the extra fear is spread amongst a relatively small group.

If a larger group is targeted, each member has less reason for additional fear, but that extra fear is shared amongst many more people.

The two effects of the size of the targeted group are offset.

The fact that a crime has actually taken place is the surest proof that the group of peers of the victim have a rational fear. Whether you are a black person facing KKK persecution, or a white jogger assaulted in Central Park, you are still an innocent victim, and others like you have rational cause for additional fear.

[Arkady2009]

Read a news report that stated people who murder transgender or disabled people will receive a minimum sentence of 30 years. The reason behind this is they say is because that crime is a 'hate' crime, so it should be treated differently to other murders.
Why the need to single out certain groups in society and say their life is worth more than another member in society, why not treat all people who murder the same and impose equal sentences on them?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089715

So I take it that if someone kills a police officer, you would be okay with the killer being sentenced as if they killed a drug addict? We already treat certain groups differently, and that is one example.

[Eran]

So I take it that if someone kills a police officer, you would be okay with the killer being sentenced as if they killed a drug addict? We already treat certain groups differently, and that is one example.

Actually, a police officer killer is much more likely to have acted in legitimate self-defence than somebody who killed a drug addict. A-priori, I would have much more sympathy for the former than for the latter.

To answer your question, I totally reject the imposition of more severe penalties on police officer killers. However, this is not a good analogy. distinguishing based on the identity of the victim is not the same as distinguishing based on the motivation of the killer.

[KlassWar]

Actually, a police officer killer is much more likely to have acted in legitimate self-defence than somebody who killed a drug addict.

Full agreement here.