Are hate crime enhancements fair?

[TheoK]

If it was obvious that the motive of the crime was out of actual hatred, then possibly enhancements could be fair.

Take race for example. How do we consider what the person done is out of racial hatred or just saying words like "nigger" etc. without thinking? It's hard to consider their internal motives like that unless they put up grafitti stating "i hate black people" or something like that.

This also brings me to another thing, again using the same race example - some people will use the race card against someone. A white man assaults a black man, but the black man could easily use the race card to say the reason behind the assault was racially motivated, when in reality it probably wasn't.

How do you know?

Because many of those who can play the victim card do.

They show the card before they are jumped on?

Well, women, immigrants and gay people who actually are jumped on but not for being women, immigrants or gay, often like to pretend that it was a hate crime

And this you know because you saw their victim cards?

There have been cases where immigrants have been denied to have an education because they didn't fulfil the criteria. Then they went to the media and claimed that it was "racism". You know this very well. It happens often in Sweden.

[odeon]

I believe that the threat of punishment will deter some of the morons that wouldn't stop to think twice without it.

OTOH, the burglar might just as easily kill you in your sleep, THEN rape your loved ones and kill them. So easy to do when you don't risk anything more than weak and sleepy people.

Who says that he doesn't risk anything in an anarchy? The victims can still have relatives and friends, who might get even on him.

I think I just did.

How would the relatives and friends find out?

I'd do what I must to protect my family and then worry about the aftermath. I have far greater faith in the system than you do, at least in part because my personal experience tells me the system works. It's nowhere near perfect but it is preferable to a world where the strongest man and the biggest gun will always prevail, no matter what the issue.

You don't find it sick to the bone that you even have to consider going to jail for defending your loved ones from an unprovoked attack in your own home?

I accept that it might happen. I believe that my way would increase the chances for survival for both me and my loved ones, and I believe that it would produce fewer burglars. Yours, on the other hand, would only protect you and those close to you if you were bigger and meaner than the burglar, owned bigger guns and slept lightly.

And yeah, that worked really well for Pasolini.

Well, he got attention at least. He was 

I'm sure he is thrilled.

[Parts]

I have some victim cards for sale if anyone is interested 

[TheoK]

 

[odeon]

[TheoK]

Who else than PPP could have done this?

E allora mangia la merda! 

[Beardy McFuckface]

If it was obvious that the motive of the crime was out of actual hatred, then possibly enhancements could be fair.

Take race for example. How do we consider what the person done is out of racial hatred or just saying words like "nigger" etc. without thinking? It's hard to consider their internal motives like that unless they put up grafitti stating "i hate black people" or something like that.

This also brings me to another thing, again using the same race example - some people will use the race card against someone. A white man assaults a black man, but the black man could easily use the race card to say the reason behind the assault was racially motivated, when in reality it probably wasn't.

How do you know?

[odeon]

If it was obvious that the motive of the crime was out of actual hatred, then possibly enhancements could be fair.

Take race for example. How do we consider what the person done is out of racial hatred or just saying words like "nigger" etc. without thinking? It's hard to consider their internal motives like that unless they put up grafitti stating "i hate black people" or something like that.

This also brings me to another thing, again using the same race example - some people will use the race card against someone. A white man assaults a black man, but the black man could easily use the race card to say the reason behind the assault was racially motivated, when in reality it probably wasn't.

How do you know?

I guess you don't.

[TheoK]

I don't know what it's called in English, but in German it's called Weltwissen to know such things that if there is a victim card to draw, it is often drawn.

[TheoK]

And speaking of anarchy: it might exist courts in an anarchy, but as opposed to the state's courts, the law would have the consent of every adult citizen and there would be no victimless crimes, like 95% of the "crimes" in the state. You could read this, because I'm pretty sure that you never considered how things would work in an anarchy: Ordning och anarki

And about free guns for protection: Vermont en krigszon?

(Sorry you non-Swedish speaking people  )

[TheoK]

By the way, odeon, what do you think about the Quick/Bergwall case? Do you think it's an exception? High cops and prosecutors have fabricated most of it. And that's several murders, where the real murderer/s have gotten away with it, because it was so much easier to bust someone who already was a convicted lunatic.

And these swines, the cops and the prosecutors, won't be prosecuted for it either. Prosecutors themselves can't be prosecuted for false prosecution in Sweden, unless it is revealed in court while they are doing it, which will not happen outside the Millenium Trilogy.
 
Wake up to reality.

[Beardy McFuckface]

If it was obvious that the motive of the crime was out of actual hatred, then possibly enhancements could be fair.

Take race for example. How do we consider what the person done is out of racial hatred or just saying words like "nigger" etc. without thinking? It's hard to consider their internal motives like that unless they put up grafitti stating "i hate black people" or something like that.

This also brings me to another thing, again using the same race example - some people will use the race card against someone. A white man assaults a black man, but the black man could easily use the race card to say the reason behind the assault was racially motivated, when in reality it probably wasn't.

How do you know?

I guess you don't.

...

I don't know what you're trying to point out. I never stated I knew one's motives, it's a hypothetical example. The whole point is that it's hard to know one's motives unless they literally spell it out in various forms.

Want an example of the use of the "race card"? My uncle has experienced this, when the black neighbours above him claimed he said and did racist things in order to get him arrested. The thing is, he didn't, they only wanted to get him kicked out of his apartment for their own agenda. They admitted this afterwards after a lengthy court case. Obviously, he was not racist and in fact was in good relations with his neighbours beforehand. He let them use his laptop, gave them Christmas cards etc. and that was the thanks he got. :/

It's safe to assume that because of the example I pointed out above, people do use the "race card". Obviously not all people do it, but some would if it meant getting an advantage. Is it racist to point that out? I don't think so. If anything, it really shows racism can go both ways and should be stamped out regardless, something which people seem to forget. There's also nonsense "positive racism" motives such as affirmative action, but that's worth a thread alone in itself...

I'll fairly assume you'll try to split hairs over this.

[odeon]

I don't know what it's called in English, but in German it's called Weltwissen to know such things that if there is a victim card to draw, it is often drawn.

And that is supposed to prove something?

[TheoK]

I don't know what it's called in English, but in German it's called Weltwissen to know such things that if there is a victim card to draw, it is often drawn.

And that is supposed to prove something?

Yes, you question something that is obvious. You often do that with truths that you don't like. Look at schleeds response too.

[odeon]

By the way, odeon, what do you think about the Quick/Bergwall case? Do you think it's an exception? High cops and prosecutors have fabricated most of it. And that's several murders, where the real murderer/s have gotten away with it, because it was so much easier to bust someone who already was a convicted lunatic.

And these swines, the cops and the prosecutors, won't be prosecuted for it either. Prosecutors themselves can't be prosecuted for false prosecution in Sweden, unless it is revealed in court while they are doing it, which will not happen outside the Millenium Trilogy.
 
Wake up to reality.

Quick himself participated actively with the prosecutors. Hardly a good example for anything other than how liars frequently collaborate to create an even bigger lie. Wake up, mate. If he had not confessed, he would be a free man now because then they would actually have had to prove things.

You are using a highly publicised and highly unusual case to make a mostly unrelated point. It's OK. Just don't expect me or anyone else to accept the reasoning.