Another Texas Dragging

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You're steering all over the place now.

Motive does overshadow frequency when we're talking about hate crimes.

But crimes of violence remain overwhelmingly intraracial rather than interracial and perpetrated by people we know rather than strangers.

So you wouldn't win a debate there.

So what? My point is not that we should establish some sort of protection for white people (from minority inflicted crimes), rather that hate crime legislation doesn't serve the purpose of reducing crime. I value a reduction in frequency foremost. What, in your opinion, is the overriding purpose of hate crime legislation? Note, I'm not referring to charges like "ethnic intimidation," I think thats a whole other issue to tackle.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

My point is not that we should establish some sort of protection for white people (from minority inflicted crimes), rather that hate crime legislation doesn't serve the purpose of reducing crime.

Seriously? The data say white people need to be protected from each other.

But you aren't the only white person who believes that whites need protection from the big-bad black people who attack them in dark alleys (). That's why they let their guard down and end up attacked and killed by their white family, friends, or acquaintances.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I value a reduction in frequency foremost.

Hate crime legislation isn't about protecting anyone based on frequency but these crimes aren't uncommon enough to ignore them. Plus, we didn't wait for terrorist bombings on domestic soil to be a common occurance before we took a closer look at foreign terrorism (which has been argued to be a massive hate crime based on Nationalism, among other things). It was about infringement on rights and safety. Similar applies to domestic terrorism (of which hate crimes and hate groups are often labeled).

Originally Posted by shinerbock

What, in your opinion, is the overriding purpose of hate crime legislation? Note, I'm not referring to charges like "ethnic intimidation," I think thats a whole other issue to tackle.

So that people of whatever race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation can live their lives without being schemed on and targeted solely because of these demographics.

[shinerbock]

I agree they shouldn't be ignored. You said the purpose of the laws were:

"So that people of whatever race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation can live their lives without being schemed on and targeted solely because of these demographics."

If there is no evidence that hate crime laws reduce the frequency of hate crimes or generally act as a deterrent, how would they accomplish your stated purpose?

I think that purpose is a valid one, but I fail to see how hate crimes legislation furthers it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

If there is no evidence that hate crime laws reduce the frequency of hate crimes or generally act as a deterrent, how would they accomplish your stated purpose?

Again, if this is your metric, you're advocating a lawless society.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Again, if this is your metric, you're advocating a lawless society.

Why, because punishment doesn't deter crime? It most certainly does among the general population.

Again then, how do hate crime laws further the purpose you stated?

[DSTCHAOS]

Law and punishment don't deter crime among the general population.

There has been no evidence that it does either, so I don't know where you're getting this deterrence argument from.

[shinerbock]

It would be a pretty difficult study to do when you take out the recidivists don't you think? You really don't think laws and punishments deter the general population from crime? It deters me all the time. I'd love to think I'm just more morally corrupt than the average American, but I find that pretty unlikely.