Okay, some times here on AFF I attempt to give another perspective or an objectionable view whenever it appears that everyone is looking at things narrowly. I don't like to use the term "devil's advocate" but sometimes I do see the need to play that role whenever we are discussing very complex issues and I feel that the viewpoints are too simplistic to address them.
I do not have a problem with declaring and designating acts of terrorism as such, but here is an observation that I have made:
It appears to me that those who are most adamant about quickly declaring an act of terrorism as such and not simply a crime, are most adamant about not doing the same with hate crime designation. The argument that I hear is that there are sufficient legal designations for those crimes (for example murder is murder.)
Conversely, those who are most adamant about hate crime designation are most reluctant to designate an act of terrorism.
I do see a correlation between the two inasmuch as the designations take into account the special underlying motive in what would otherwise be an ordinary crime.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
No conservative is calling for a harsher penalty because Hasan’s act was an act of terror. Those who support hate crime legislation seek to impose greater penalty for a person who commits a violent act when that act is driven by hate. This is the heart of the opposition to hate crime legislation. Or the designation of an act as a hate crime.
I think we all understand the need to identify the intent of a crime. Richard Byrd was drug to death because he was black. Clearly this was a hate crime. Matthew Sheppard was killed for being gay. Clearly that was a hate crime. Those who did these horrible acts deserve the harshest penalty for what they did, but they don’t deserve greater punishment for why they did it.
Hasan, a terrorist, does not deserve the death penalty because he acted out as a terrorist. He deserves the death penalty for killing 13 people. Understanding his intent helps to prove his guilt and helps America understand the nature of the danger he and others who might act out like he did pose.
Understanding intent is important. Building punishment based on intent is both dangerous and insulting to others who have suffered equally but denied so great justice because their attacker didn’t hate them.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
No conservative is calling for a harsher penalty because Hasan’s act was an act of terror. Those who support hate crime legislation seek to impose greater penalty for a person who commits a violent act when that act is driven by hate. This is the heart of the opposition to hate crime legislation. Or the designation of an act as a hate crime.
I think we all understand the need to identify the intent of a crime. Richard Byrd was drug to death because he was black. Clearly this was a hate crime. Matthew Sheppard was killed for being gay. Clearly that was a hate crime. Those who did these horrible acts deserve the harshest penalty for what they did, but they don’t deserve greater punishment for why they did it.
Hasan, a terrorist, does not deserve the death penalty because he acted out as a terrorist. He deserves the death penalty for killing 13 people. Understanding his intent helps to prove his guilt and helps America understand the nature of the danger he and others who might act out like he did pose.
Understanding intent is important. Building punishment based on intent is both dangerous and insulting to others who have suffered equally but denied so great justice because their attacker didn’t hate them.
Ferd, many of the people I've heard discuss hate crime legislation are not talking about tougher sentences. Either way, I was just making an observation as to how the two sides basically argue the exact opposite thing in these two cases.
I just notice that those who bristle at the thought of not just calling a murder a murder and calling it a hate crime, find themselves on the opposite side in the terrorism thing...and vice versa for those who do like to use the hate crime label.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Ferd, many of the people I've heard discuss hate crime legislation are not talking about tougher sentences. Either way, I was just making an observation as to how the two sides basically argue the exact opposite thing in these two cases.
I just notice that those who bristle at the thought of not just calling a murder a murder and calling it a hate crime, find themselves on the opposite side in the terrorism thing...and vice versa for those who do like to use the hate crime label.
Stew, the only argument about hate crime that I have ever heard revoled around extended sentances for hate crimes. That has always been the objection.
extended sentances is the reason for the legislation. It is tioe only reason for it.
I dont see any hypocracy here at all. you are comparing apples and oranges.
Hate Crime legislation is about creating an extra crime with more harsh penalty for one crimial act.
What conserviatives have said about Hasan is that he is a terrorist. No one has argued that he should face a harsher penalty for being a terrorist.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Terrorism. Is that really a legal term? Hate Crime is a legal term.
Terrorism is a crime yes but it's usually done based on an ideology. For example Timothy McVeigh (however it's spelled) committed a criminal act of mass murder due to his ideology. It was not necessarily blood lust. It was not that he just wanted to murder. It was not a drug deal gone bad or robbing someone for money, It was his ideology.
And such acts are acts of war. He declared war against the US government.
Islamic radicals share the same traits.
Further these acts are not strategic. They are intentional indiscriminate acts of violence in most cases
One final thing. The US is not at war with Islam. However Islam is at war with the US...or at least a segment of Islam.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Stew, the only argument about hate crime that I have ever heard revoled around extended sentances for hate crimes. That has always been the objection.
extended sentances is the reason for the legislation. It is tioe only reason for it.
I dont see any hypocracy here at all. you are comparing apples and oranges.
Hate Crime legislation is about creating an extra crime with more harsh penalty for one crimial act.
What conserviatives have said about Hasan is that he is a terrorist. No one has argued that he should face a harsher penalty for being a terrorist.
Ferd, I understand what you are saying, and I do see the difference between the two as it relates to sentencing. I was just talking about people who I talk to who are opposed to the concept of Hate Crime Legislation from the standpoint that they do not believe there should be any designation even in name and description since murder is simply murder. It's just a thought I had.
Like I said, the reverse is equally true. Those who are most in favor of hate crime legislation seem to be hesitant to call murder terrorism.
Just a thought. I may be wrong
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Tim McVeigh was a domestic terrorist. It is important designation. It requires that we be vigilant against future acts like that.
Hate Crime, is only a legal designation because we have recently passed law making it so.
Those laws call for extra punishment for those who commit "hate crimes"
That legal definition means that someone has done something with the motivation of hate.
It is about greater punishment for a crime with hate as the motivating factor.
Knowing that Hasan is a terrorist, helps us understand an existential treat. By understanding the nature of the threat, we can better defend against others with the same motivation.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Okay, some times here on AFF I attempt to give another perspective or an objectionable view whenever it appears that everyone is looking at things narrowly. I don't like to use the term "devil's advocate" but sometimes I do see the need to play that role whenever we are discussing very complex issues and I feel that the viewpoints are too simplistic to address them.
I do not have a problem with declaring and designating acts of terrorism as such, but here is an observation that I have made:
It appears to me that those who are most adamant about quickly declaring an act of terrorism as such and not simply a crime, are most adamant about not doing the same with hate crime designation. The argument that I hear is that there are sufficient legal designations for those crimes (for example murder is murder.)
Conversely, those who are most adamant about hate crime designation are most reluctant to designate an act of terrorism.
I do see a correlation between the two inasmuch as the designations take into account the special underlying motive in what would otherwise be an ordinary crime.
I agree with Ferd's opinion on this and have to add, how can you KNOW it was a hate crime? Just because the person was gay doesn't mean that is why they killed him, neither can you say the color of someone's skin generated a hate crime.
It is guessing at best UNLESS the person admits it was a hate crime.
__________________
Happy moments, PRAISE GOD.
Difficult moments, SEEK GOD.
Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD.
Painful moments, TRUST GOD.
Every moment, THANK GOD.
I agree with Ferd's opinion on this and have to add, how can you KNOW it was a hate crime? Just because the person was gay doesn't mean that is why they killed him, neither can you say the color of someone's skin generated a hate crime.
It is guessing at best UNLESS the person admits it was a hate crime.
Esther, I'm not saying whether they should be labeled either way. I'm just pointing out that in my observations, many of the people who are adamant that a hate crime should not be labeled and that a crime is a crime, are the most adamant that acts such as that in Fort Hood should be designated an act of terrorism. The opposite is true in that many of those who want to label hate crimes are reluctant to label these acts as acts of terrorism.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Linear Mode
