[ASAN] Call for Hate Crime Prosecution for Murder of Autist

Page 4 of 5 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,979

21 Jun 2013, 11:16 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Jaden wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Jaden wrote:
If it were about the effects of his condition, the mother would not have refused services from the state. Any sane person would've taken the help and called it a day, if it were really that bad.

If she is insane, can it be a hate crime? 1
Quote:
Honestly I don't know how anyone can stomach sympathising with a killer the way some on this thread have.

I have sympathy for everyone involved in this situation. I have never said that the killers shouldn't be punished.
2
Ann2011 wrote:
Fair enough. But I don't think you've got motive here.
Quote:
We've had motive since day one on this subject, even the crappy defense (that everyone believes no less) has stated the motive as being due to "desperation" because of alex's condition, which STILL makes it a hate crime by definition.

Exactly, the motive is not hatred of the disabled, but an inability to cope with a specific situation. 3


1. Does it matter? It's murder, she's guilty, we all know it, period.
It doesn't matter as to her guilt, but it does as to her punishment

2. Sympathy is one thing, but it sounds like people are looking more for an excuse for their actions than a reason for sympathy.
You brought it up. I don't think excuse is right; but rather explanation. Like I said, she's guilty, but of what?
3. You missed my point completely.

Quote:
People can skew it into whatever they want, but plain and simple, a murder took place and despite what the defense would have people believe, it was NOT because of "desperation", and even if it were, that is absolutely no excuse for their actions, and they should be convicted to the fullest extent of the law.

So where is the evidence for the hate element?
I don't think the circumstances of the murder are enough to prove this. It almost seems more like a domestic crime than a hate crime.


The sequence of events proves that.
Again I disagree


I've shown the evidence that was stated like 3 times, and like most people you just don't see it. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I personally will not state my point a fourth time because it's obviously falling on deaf ears.

Good day.


_________________
Inactive.


nostromo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,321
Location: At Festively Plump

22 Jun 2013, 1:19 am

KenG wrote:
..The law allows the federal government to prosecute as a hate crime acts of violence when "the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person." Alex's murder clearly fits within the intent and purpose of that law.

That is a very tenuous link, there doesn't seem to be evidence based on what I've read of the case to suggest this. Clearly he was disabled and it seems that in part they killed him due to reasons related to his disability, but that is not the same as killing him because of his disability, there is a big difference there.

KenG wrote:
In truth, Alex's murder is about a reprehensible and repulsive ideology all too common within our society that preaches that it is better to be dead than disabled. As long as our society treats the lives of disabled people as worth less than those of the general population, more disabled children and adults will be subject to acts of violence and murder. As a result, we call for the prosecution of Alex's killers to the fullest extent of the law.

I agree with this.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

22 Jun 2013, 10:57 am

I know exactly what premeditation and motive are, that's not what is at issue here.

Sir, you contended that hate crimes can only be premeditated, and I demonstrated why that position is false. And motive is at issue in any kind of crime. For instance, would you not agree that, say, a severely autistic child that is run over by somebody completely by accident is less serious than if that same child were run over by a drunk driver, and even more serious yet if malice is involved?


"The murder in question was because of the victim's condition, making it a textbook definition of a hate crime."

Question for you: Some "conditions" are very visible, such as those of a different race. Other "conditions" not so much, such as homosexuality or, yes, autism. So, if one of the protected classes are murdered and the murderer isn't aware of their "condition", is it still a "hate" crime?

"In either case, these two will likely end up receiving a lesser punishment for this murder than most, under the basis of desperation because the courts will only see them as victims."

The fact is that you don't know this, do you? I think you are showing a major difference between liberals and conservatives: Liberals invoke fear and suspicion by assuming, with no evidence whatsoever, that those around them are bad, while conservatives are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, I will withhold judgment on this case until there is a verdict. This is why prejudice is a bad thing.

Your case seems to be that you believe that the murderer of a black automatically receives a lesser sentence than the murderer of a white. Let's assume that's absolutely true for a moment. Is justice really served by the reverse, where the murderer of a black receives a stiffer sentence than the murderer of a white? This is what hate crimes are really all about, and why I am adamantly opposed to them. With hate crimes legislation, it's a matter of two wrongs making a right when in reality all that second wrong does is beget more wrongs.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,514
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jun 2013, 1:23 pm

nostromo wrote:
Clearly he was disabled and it seems that in part they killed him due to reasons related to his disability, but that is not the same as killing him because of his disability, there is a big difference there.

I agree.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,979

22 Jun 2013, 2:11 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
I know exactly what premeditation and motive are, that's not what is at issue here.

Sir, you contended that hate crimes can only be premeditated, and I demonstrated why that position is false. And motive is at issue in any kind of crime. For instance, would you not agree that, say, a severely autistic child that is run over by somebody completely by accident is less serious than if that same child were run over by a drunk driver, and even more serious yet if malice is involved?


"The murder in question was because of the victim's condition, making it a textbook definition of a hate crime."

Question for you: Some "conditions" are very visible, such as those of a different race. Other "conditions" not so much, such as homosexuality or, yes, autism. So, if one of the protected classes are murdered and the murderer isn't aware of their "condition", is it still a "hate" crime? 1

"In either case, these two will likely end up receiving a lesser punishment for this murder than most, under the basis of desperation because the courts will only see them as victims."

The fact is that you don't know this, do you? I think you are showing a major difference between liberals and conservatives: Liberals invoke fear and suspicion by assuming, with no evidence whatsoever, that those around them are bad, while conservatives are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, I will withhold judgment on this case until there is a verdict. This is why prejudice is a bad thing. 2

Your case seems to be that you believe that the murderer of a black automatically receives a lesser sentence than the murderer of a white. Let's assume that's absolutely true for a moment. Is justice really served by the reverse, where the murderer of a black receives a stiffer sentence than the murderer of a white? This is what hate crimes are really all about, and why I am adamantly opposed to them. With hate crimes legislation, it's a matter of two wrongs making a right when in reality all that second wrong does is beget more wrongs. 3



1. Once again, you've shown that you clearly don't know how something is considered a hate crime. I suggest you look it up before making any more scenarios, maybe if you did some research you'd actually get it.

2. We're not talking about sociopolitical views here, we're talking about a murder that we know these people committed against someone, if you believe it was due to "desperation" like so many others, it still constitutes a hate crime by definition because the victim was murdered because of a condition that the perps knew about, and it makes it premeditated because they tried before, to kill the victim, and failed.
Furthermore, you can reserve whatever judgement you want, but the fact is, the case has to be under judgement and high scrutiny just to get that verdict that you speak of, using nothing more than the evidence at hand and a jury.

3. The hate crime statute, doesn't over balance justice as you seem to think, it makes it to where people of the minority can get justice by making sure that the perp recieves at least as much of a sentence that most others do against the majority. Anything "stiffer" than that is determined entirely by a judge and jury, period.

I will state it again, please do some research on what hate crimes really are and what constitues a hate crime, then post your next "example" with links, otherwise you'll just be wasting your time replying to me because I won't continue this discussion any further without them. I have made my point 5 times and I'll not type it again, it's just a waste of time on my part that I could be using to do something that is actually constructive.


_________________
Inactive.


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

22 Jun 2013, 2:30 pm

Jaden wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
I know exactly what premeditation and motive are, that's not what is at issue here.

Sir, you contended that hate crimes can only be premeditated, and I demonstrated why that position is false. And motive is at issue in any kind of crime. For instance, would you not agree that, say, a severely autistic child that is run over by somebody completely by accident is less serious than if that same child were run over by a drunk driver, and even more serious yet if malice is involved?


"The murder in question was because of the victim's condition, making it a textbook definition of a hate crime."

Question for you: Some "conditions" are very visible, such as those of a different race. Other "conditions" not so much, such as homosexuality or, yes, autism. So, if one of the protected classes are murdered and the murderer isn't aware of their "condition", is it still a "hate" crime? 1

"In either case, these two will likely end up receiving a lesser punishment for this murder than most, under the basis of desperation because the courts will only see them as victims."

The fact is that you don't know this, do you? I think you are showing a major difference between liberals and conservatives: Liberals invoke fear and suspicion by assuming, with no evidence whatsoever, that those around them are bad, while conservatives are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, I will withhold judgment on this case until there is a verdict. This is why prejudice is a bad thing. 2

Your case seems to be that you believe that the murderer of a black automatically receives a lesser sentence than the murderer of a white. Let's assume that's absolutely true for a moment. Is justice really served by the reverse, where the murderer of a black receives a stiffer sentence than the murderer of a white? This is what hate crimes are really all about, and why I am adamantly opposed to them. With hate crimes legislation, it's a matter of two wrongs making a right when in reality all that second wrong does is beget more wrongs. 3



1. Once again, you've shown that you clearly don't know how something is considered a hate crime. I suggest you look it up before making any more scenarios, maybe if you did some research you'd actually get it.

Actually, I was referring to this:

"The murder in question was because of the victim's condition, making it a textbook definition of a hate crime."

"Question for you: Some "conditions" are very visible, such as those of a different race. Other "conditions" not so much, such as homosexuality or, yes, autism. So, if one of the protected classes are murdered and the murderer isn't aware of their "condition", is it still a "hate" crime?"

2. We're not talking about sociopolitical views here, we're talking about a murder that we know these people committed against someone, if you believe it was due to "desperation" like so many others, it still constitutes a hate crime by definition because the victim was murdered because of a condition that the perps knew about, and it makes it premeditated because they tried before, to kill the victim, and failed.

Furthermore, you can reserve whatever judgement you want, but the fact is, the case has to be under judgement and high scrutiny just to get that verdict that you speak of, using nothing more than the evidence at hand and a jury.

Again, how do you know this? Or is it an article of faith for you? If so, I would personally prefer a religion that assumes the best about people.

3. The hate crime statute, doesn't over balance justice as you seem to think, it makes it to where people of the minority can get justice by making sure that the perp recieves at least as much of a sentence that most others do against the majority. Anything "stiffer" than that is determined entirely by a judge and jury, period.

So, what you call "justice" is where penalties for harm to some groups are greater than for others? If so, I find that Orwellian.

As for crimes against blacks receiving lesser sentences than those against whites for similar offenses, you haven't shown that to be the case, and after I have repeatedly requested you do so. It sounds to me as if this is as much an article of faith for you as the Virgin Birth is for Christians, with both being beyond discussion or need of proof.

I will state it again, please do some research on what hate crimes really are and what constitues a hate crime, then post your next "example" with links, otherwise you'll just be wasting your time replying to me because I won't continue this discussion any further without them. I have made my point 5 times and I'll not type it again, it's just a waste of time on my part that I could be using to do something that is actually constructive.


[b]What I know about hate crimes is that they memorialize disparate treatment based upon "condition". That's enough for me the same as knowing that communism killed a hundred million people is enough for me to condemn that. Both hate crimes legislation and communism suffer from fatal moral flaws.

I do understand your reticence to continue this discussion as your position is indefensible both morally and factually.



nostromo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,321
Location: At Festively Plump

22 Jun 2013, 3:54 pm

Jaden wrote:
it still constitutes a hate crime by definition because the victim was murdered because of a condition that the perps knew about, and it makes it premeditated because they tried before, to kill the victim, and failed.

Then someone has their definitions wrong.
To re-iterate, did they kill him specifically because it's proven they hate Autistic people and the boy happened to be Autistic, or did they kill him because of reasons (however wrong, or irrational) related to his Autism?

Could it be proven that they hate Autistic people? I wonder. Even if they said "I hate Autism" (I bet there are numerous records of that) that is not the same thing as "I hate Autistic people".
Remember it's the prosecuting law that would need to prove all this.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,979

22 Jun 2013, 7:44 pm

I'm done, I will not sit here and continue this discussion with people who clearly don't know how courts work in the u.s. nor what constitutes a hate crime, dispite me adding links 3 times. You all can believe whatever you want, but I will no longer waste my time replying to people who frankly, seem to struggle with simple definitions.

Furthermore, my opinions on this case are based on facts that have been stated already, it has nothing to do with "faith".


_________________
Inactive.


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

22 Jun 2013, 7:53 pm

Jaden wrote:
I'm done, I will not sit here and continue this discussion with people who clearly don't know how courts work in the u.s. nor what constitutes a hate crime, dispite me adding links 3 times. You all can believe whatever you want, but I will no longer waste my time replying to people who frankly, seem to struggle with simple definitions.

Furthermore, my opinions on this case are based on facts that have been stated already, it has nothing to do with "faith".


Since your positions are based upon faith rather than reason or empirical evidence, I think that's a wise move since most of us appear not to share your faith. The difference is you are assuming on faith that an injustice will occur. The rest of us doubt that, and we also doubt the validity of hate crimes laws.

I want to thank you for not being insulting or engaging in name-calling, which is a tactic the left all too often resorts to in such discussions. I do think more of you for your courteous behavior, and wish you well. It's always good to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Dennis Prager is fond of saying that in some cases, it is too much to expect consensus; clarity is the most that can be expected. At least I walk away understanding your position, and hopefully you understand mind.



Last edited by Thelibrarian on 22 Jun 2013, 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,587
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

22 Jun 2013, 7:57 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
I think you've got this wrong. The murder wasn't because of his condition, it was because of a lack of support. There is no indication that they hate or discriminated against Alex because he was disabled; rather, it was the situation caused by his disability that brought about the crime.


This is just an excuse that people like to introduce every single time a disabled child is murdered by parents and caregivers. It's rarely - if ever - true, and propagating such excuses actually seems to encourage the practice of killing disabled children. There was a case in Canada where a man murdered his daughter who had cerebral palsy and was completely immobile. The press and the sympathetic public were quick to provide excuses for this man under the assumption that he did not have sufficient support to take care of his daughter. However, she was already being cared for, and he had an offer to move her to another institution where she would receive better education and treatment, and he turned that offer down. In the years following this murder, the number of such cases went up, and the press and public reliably repeated the same false line about "not having enough support" and "acted out of desperation" that they always do, because killing a disabled child is just so easy for people to relate to.

By contrast, parents who kill their abled (or assumed to be abled) children are publicly pilloried and people want them to receive the death penalty or other harshest sentence possible.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,587
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

22 Jun 2013, 8:00 pm

nostromo wrote:
KenG wrote:
In truth, Alex's murder is about a reprehensible and repulsive ideology all too common within our society that preaches that it is better to be dead than disabled. As long as our society treats the lives of disabled people as worth less than those of the general population, more disabled children and adults will be subject to acts of violence and murder. As a result, we call for the prosecution of Alex's killers to the fullest extent of the law.

I agree with this.


I wish I was able to untangle why it is so difficult for so many people to just say this. Agree that it is reprehensible and repulsive, and not make excuses for murder.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,514
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jun 2013, 8:39 pm

I think what's being missed here is that disabled people often are are a burden on their caregivers. And, if I recognize the case you are referring to Verdandi, his daughter was in severe incurable pain as well as being immobile. Which brings in the whole issue of mercy killing. Although I don't believe the case of Alex's murder was such.

Disability isn't roses and kittens. These are serious issues that people have to deal with. The care of the disabled can be a burden and it's effect on the murderers is one to be considered in their punishment.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

22 Jun 2013, 9:58 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
I think what's being missed here is that disabled people often are are a burden on their caregivers. And, if I recognize the case you are referring to Verdandi, his daughter was in severe incurable pain as well as being immobile. Which brings in the whole issue of mercy killing. Although I don't believe the case of Alex's murder was such.

Disability isn't roses and kittens. These are serious issues that people have to deal with. The care of the disabled can be a burden and it's effect on the murderers is one to be considered in their punishment.


I agree. Fundamental to the secular religion of Political Correctness is that certain people are beneath basic consideration as human beings. Apparently caregivers are now in this category Many caregivers give a good part of their life and money to caring for somebody who can do nothing for them in return. I'm guessing in many cases it can become traumatic after years of heavy responsibility and with never a word of thanks, especially after many years without a break.

I see liberals here who want to discount totally what the caregiver may have gone through while wanting to crucify the judicial system even before it has reached a verdict. Of course, even the most extreme cases don't excuse murder. But the fact that the liberals here refuse even to countenance this idea as a possible reason for leniency in punishment, while at the same time wanting to crucify the judiciary before they've even reached a decision, speaks volumes on the true nature of their beliefs. It's the same mentality that led to the lynching of innocent people in the past, as well as the perverse refusal to accept that the caregiver should be granted the same consideration and rights as everybody else.



LennytheWicked
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Posts: 562

24 Jun 2013, 8:41 pm

It is completely unacceptable to murder someone because they are a burden on you. There are other, less violent ways to lose that burden.

I do agree that they should be charged with a hate crime. It clearly states in the law that disabilities are included.



TeaForOne
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 2

09 Aug 2013, 1:03 am

Yes, his care was burdensome on them. Yes, disability can put stress on people and families and generally make life suck. This is not news to anyone here. But babies are burdensome and we don't put rat poison in their bottles because they prevent us from sleeping at night. Besides, if the burden was too much for them they could have put him back in the hospital instead of trying to kill him twice in cold blood. I don't care that they planned to commit suicide. Alex would have been better of if they had killed themselves and left him in the care of someone capable. But instead they killed an innocent human being, because they saw a "burden", an object less than a full person.

P.S. I don't know how he was treated in the hospital, and there may have been substandard treatment there, but being alive and abused is preferable to being killed in cold blood by your own family. Although there were probably other options if they had looked.