-Caveat Lector-
>> hence the 20% penalty surcharge.
>yes. however, a crime is still actually being
>committed. therefore, this is a realcrime and not a
thoughtcrime.
I have found numerous articles - many of them by
attorneys - who disagree with your assessment of
whether or not this constitutes thoughtcrime
>if johnny joe bob joe smith- jones III tattos "i hate
> niggers" on his forehead, and dreams about killing
>blacks every night in his sleep - then he is
>committing a thoughtcrime. if he wires himself, blows
>up a black church while in service, somehow survives
>and is convicted of a hate crime then he stopped
>committing a thoughtcrime the day he wired himself.
>do you understand?
I understand what you believe to be true. I disagree.
>>> "A person shall be subject to enhanced criminal
>>>penalties if the person purposely selected the
>>>victim
>"purposely selected the victim" - this is not
>thoughtcrime legislation as committing the
>crime is a pre-requisite to being punished.
Undoubtedly an oversight that will be corrected once
these laws, which are crimes themselves are firmly in
place. The purpose of federal hate crimes is to take
total control of all criminal courts in all the states
of the United States. Hate crime laws are no different
from having a law prohibiting disrespect for the law.
Thus if one is acquitted of a crime one can still be
tried for disrespect as evidenced by that same act.
Once the precedent is set, it will be extended to
cover more and more contingencies. The official list
of "haters" will come to include anyone who opposes
the favored government policy du jour. The logic of
the precedent will drive statists to eventually make
all such "haters" criminals subject to imprisonment.
Journalists, writers--and you-- will be hauled off to
prison for the crime of "hate," if you say the wrong
word or cross the wrong lawmaker - not tomorrow, but
it will happen.
>the purpose of hate crimes legislation is not to
>attack the white majority. the notion that anybody in
>power is out to attack the white majority, when the
>white elite has 99.8% of all power in this continent,
>is completely laughable.
The purpose is total government control. Politicians
motivation is the same as that of royalty - living off
of others is so much easier than working for a living.
And we have a newly established tradition that the
ruling party is above all laws, which makes the
purpose of these laws even more obvious. They are just
a more civilized form of terror than any previously
seen.
A side effect is that of marginalizing white male
heterosexuals (who contrary to your bland assertion
are not the majority) - since absolutely everybody
else is considered a minority. The fact that this is
an unintended consequence is simply proof that
lawmakers don't care what they are doing beyond
feathering their own nests, and they shouldn't be
allowed out without adult supervision.
>if there's any plot here it's to stir up paranoia
>within the racist sectors of society, perhaps even to
>increase therir numbers, in order to divide & conquer
>for the future when the corporations plan on
>reinstituting slavery in the lower socio-economic
>classes through destruction of education leading to
>prison/factory complexes.
If there's any plot, it's a collusion between the
right and left to get what they both want. The left
loves to police thoughts and pigeon-hole everyone as a
member of some predetermined group. The right loves
to toss somebody, anybody, in prison for a very long
time.
As an aside, it is you who is being paranoid. The
government is already doing quite nicely at
reinstituting slavery - I wouldn't be too worried
about the corporations.
(Authoritarian leftist bigoted hate rant deleted.)
>hate crime legislation is about adding an extra
>dimension to those absolutely disgusting crimes out
>there.
No, it is about basing punishment on the identity of
the victim - just as the Hammurabic code depended on
who the victim was, and just as early English law
emphasized the status of the victim's family. Under
the Code of Hammurabi, a member of the landed gentry
who broke the bone of his equal would have his own
bone broken, but breaking the bone of a commoner
required payment of only one mina of silver. If a
member of the landed gentry struck the daughter of a
member of his class, causing a miscarriage, he was
obliged to pay 10 shekels; a similar incident
involving a commoner's daughter would cost him only
five shekels.
Eye for Eye and tooth for tooth, while rather harsh by
today's standards, was an attempt to equalize all
people in terms of law, and English Common Law was a
move toward a more egalitarian application of
punishment. The 14th amendment was also a step in
that direction. Hate crime laws turn the calendar
back by centuries and erase these advances.
>to answer a question in the article - yes, i'd say
>that committing a crime due to racism is at LEAST 20%
>worse than due to greed and i'm convinced the polls
>would agree with me on this. the system is
>COMPLETELY, almost SOLELY, based on.......INTENT!!!!!
I was able to find only one poll
http://crime.about.com/newsissues/crime/gi/polls/pollre
sults.htm?ptype=0&id=91019174112&linkback=%3C%25%3DsLin
kBack%25%3E&COB=%3C%25%3DCOBRANDER_DIR%25%3E&PID=%3C%25
%3DCURRENT_PID%25%3E&poll=2
- at the time of my visit, 57% did not agree with you
on this. But this is irrelevant - only idiots and
streetwalker-politicians think we should govern by
polls.
>the system already says certain types of murder
>are worse than others: 1st is worse than 2nd is worse
>than 3rd.... therefore, the system ALREADY says that
>some types of murder are "less wrong" than others and
>"they" are ALREADY the ones trying to figure
> out which title the murderer gets stuck with. the
>PURPOSE of a judge/jury system is to DETERMINE
>INTENT.
Yes - some types of _murder_ NOT some types of
_victim_. The promise of the civil rights movement
was of equal treatment for everyone. The introduction
of a special category of crime in which the punishment
varies based on characteristics of the victim turns
the vision of equal protection of the laws on its
head. It gives official sanction to the notion that
one person's life is worth more than that of another.
If Billy Bob (whom you are so fond of slandering) robs
you and beats you within an inch of your life because
you're a sonofabitch (so he thinks), and a block away
Jamal does the same to me because he thinks I'm a
lesbian, do you suffer less than I? (I realize one
must be a biological entity to suffer, but I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt there). Or suppose it's
your kid who gets maimed. Your attacker gets off with
2 years' probation and some community service (first
offense, no aggravating factors), while mine goes to
prison for 5 years - are you going to be happy with
these sentences? Say yes, and I'll call you a liar.
>your INTENT determines your SENTENCE. according to
>you should all murder be treated as 1st?
Absolutely not. It is reasonable to penalize a crime
that has a bad motive, therefore murder (bad motive)
is punished more harshly than manslaughter(no motive
at all). But it is not reasonable to punish a crime
with a bad motive more heavily than the same crime
with a different bad motive, just because the first is
a racial motive and the second is a financial one; but
this is what hate crime laws accomplish.
(Red herring reference to the bible deleted.)
>should rape be treated as badly as murder? should
>theft? larson? drug possession? i mean.....we can't
>treat one as worse, because then that says that it's
>ok to do the other! if drug possession has a lower
>sentence than murder, than we're saying it's ok to do
>drugs! so, should all crimes be treated as equal?
Sorry bub, I don't fight straw men - especially ones
as obvious as the above.
>that's the conclusion i'm getting from the "logic"
>you're spouting...
Then you have a problem with your ability to draw
logical conclusions.
>well? defend your lunacy!
> (supposing the lunacy isn't just ignorance.)
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, said
it best - "..hate crime legislation is one of those
areas in which conservatives are liberal and liberals
are just plain out of their minds."
--
Now the anti-semites and all the other hate mongers are crawling out from under their
rocks, and Academia does not have the amm
unition to argue against them. Academia cannot argue the rational principle that
hatred of any group does not make sense; they
dumped that when they dumped logic (as a "male" perversion).
The argument between left and right now consists only of debating which are the
correct groups to hate. - Robert Anton Wilson
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
