|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jun 21, 2011 22:18:54 GMT -5
 Well, I guess Sylvan Beach is having major problems with kids fighting all the time. It's so bad that the residents got together and are demanding the beach be patrolled better. The residents say these kids are so uncontrollable that they are afraid to come out of their own homes.  I had a camp at Sylvan for 22 yrs and we never had such bad problems like this. Today I talked to my friends who live at the beach and they say it's city kids coming there and going wild all the time. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2011 5:38:02 GMT -5
Well, I guess Sylvan Beach is having major problems with kids fighting all the time. It's so bad that the residents got together and are demanding the beach be patrolled better. The residents say these kids are so uncontrollable that they are afraid to come out of their own homes. I had a camp at Sylvan for 22 yrs and we never had such bad problems like this. Today I talked to my friends who live at the beach and they say it's city kids coming there and going wild all the time. Yep Bobbie. I remember during the late 70's when S.B. had all kinds of trouble with biker gangs starting trouble. S.B. was a dump & you could buy a camp there for a song, people were giving them away. Now it's street punks from Syracuse. Too bad. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 22, 2011 8:06:18 GMT -5
Well, that's just it, CB. You don't get to define it. It's done for you. I've been wondering what our Founding Fathers would have said about the concept of Hate Crimes. I'm sure they would have lamented hate in general, maybe more so hate of a race or class of people. But I don't think they would have agreed to differing punishments as "a means to protect people of a specific group or demographic." (Not to cherry pick FA's statement.) Didn't we have this discussion before? My post earlier was merely to point out the legal definition of a hate crime. Keep in mind at the time of the Founding Fathers, blacks weren't even counted as people. They didn't have rights, they were property. The concept of a hate crime in those days, in the way it is defined today, never would have crossed their minds. There are certain groups that I feel it is necessary to protect via law with harsher penalties when crimes are committed against them. People like children, the elderly, the sick and infirm. People like that who are mostly unable to defend themselves. I think pregnant women is another group that should be considered as well. Hate crimes statutes came about hoping to prevent people from targetting others because of a specific demographic. Certain groups have been targetted more than others. Gays, minorities and the homeless for instance. While at the time these laws were proposed and passed, many people were outraged at the Matthew Shepard case and what was done to him because he was gay. Then there was another case in Texas, I think the victim's name was Byrd, who was dragged behind a pickup truck to his death because he was black. Hate crimes statutes was an attempt to stop crimes like lynchings and the like. But at what point do we stop and say, can't people in some of those demographics defend themselves like anybody else? And then there is a point I've opined time and again, laws don't protect us. Sure, you can say that laws are guidelines that our society needs to follow in order to be safe. But they don't protect us. People still break the law and hurt other people. We've got millions of people in jails and prisons all across this country. THAT is overwhelming proof that laws did not protect their victims. Murder is a crime. Did it protect any of John Wayne Gacy's victims? No, it was the means to be able to punish him after the fact. Sure we need laws to help maintain civility. But don't have a false sense of security that you are safe because something is illegal. Can't assume everyone else is going to abide by the law. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 22, 2011 8:16:35 GMT -5
Well, I guess Sylvan Beach is having major problems with kids fighting all the time. It's so bad that the residents got together and are demanding the beach be patrolled better. The residents say these kids are so uncontrollable that they are afraid to come out of their own homes. I had a camp at Sylvan for 22 yrs and we never had such bad problems like this. Today I talked to my friends who live at the beach and they say it's city kids coming there and going wild all the time. Sign of the times, I'm afraid. I understand the concept of the whole "boys will be boys" thing. But I can honestly say, my brothers and I didn't get into these kinds of troubles growing up. Sure we fought with each other. But these other behaviors didn't happen we were brought up with respect. We knew we would get punished twice, once by whoever we offended and again by our parents. See, when we were growing up, we had to take responsibility for our actions and not blame it on everyone else. And if we were in the wrong our parents made sure we had consequences. They defended us if we were in the right but punished us if we were not. We weren't saints but we weren't murderers either and they knew that. Nowadays, I see people who can't even keep their kids in line in Walmart for crying out loud. |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 22, 2011 9:10:27 GMT -5
Discipline is non existent in some families. Way too many times I hear kids disobeying and speaking to their parents with disrespect. Too many times I see mothers turn their brats loose in the toy department while shopping at Walmart. While they shop, the monsters either are throwing a football, riding a skateboard, or a bicycle, or breaking plastic toys, while mom leisurely shops in the woman's clothing department.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 22, 2011 9:37:09 GMT -5
I meant it sarcastically, of course.
Yes, I agree with your insights, FA. But I still have trouble with allowing the Legislature to tinker with various punishments, adjusting them according to social values. While you and I would agree it's more terrible to kill someone because of their race, that is a social value because it SHOULD be equally terrible to kill anyone of any race. And anyway, I thought that was the original purpose of judges, to adjust punishments to fit the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 22, 2011 11:41:14 GMT -5
Then I would surmize you would be against laws making it harsher crimes to kill police and judges? Legislature tinkers as a form of pandering. Recently tougher legislation was passed for crimes against medical staff such as nurses in hospitals. It is no secret that NYSNA the nurses' union is a strong presence here. See where I'm going with this?
I have to agree with your point, it should be up to the sentencing judges what a just punishment is. Murder is murder no matter who is killed or why. Let the facts of each case be weighed separately in each case. In some regards, hate crime laws and such could be viewed as providing an extra level of protection for select groups not given to others. Would that not be constitutional? I think somewhere in the 14th Amendment is the equal protection clause...
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 22, 2011 12:52:11 GMT -5
In addition to the great points FirstAmendment addresses, before these "hate crimes" statutes existed, it was up to the judges to fix sentences (and still is to an extent), however, studies showed that in cases where the victim is a minority or gay, the defendant often received a less harsh penalty as opposed to where the victim is straight or white. Studies also showed that where the defendant is a minority and the victim is white, the minority received a much harsher punishment. Certainly, I would agree that such statutes should be unnecessary, however, it is human nature to be discriminatory and unsympathetic. So, the "hate crimes" statutes were an attempt to "level the playing field," sotospeak.
And to answer your question, Dave, you are correct in that there is no statute address hate as an issue of hate rather than crimes committed against a set of people based upon demographic features. I disagree with upping the ante merely because the victim is gay or a minority, there needs to be something more to it than that. So, you will find that many "hate crimes" statutes have a provision that the victim's demographics was the motivator, and not something else. So it would not be a hate crime to bludgen and murder a gay guy if it was because he earns more money than you.
In federal courts, the judges have no say in determining sentences, it is up to an agency that sets policies and guidelines. Some states are adopting this set up. In New York, the Department of Corrections/Probation determines what the appropriate sentence will be. Often times, they will recommend the same sentence as offered in the plea bargain. Rarely is it less. And in some instances, the recommended sentence is more than that agreed upon in the plea bargain. In those cases, the judges offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw their guilty plea and proceed to trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 22, 2011 13:33:23 GMT -5
Then I would surmize you would be against laws making it harsher crimes to kill police and judges? ... (and) ... crimes against medical staff such as nurses in hospitals. Yes, that was my point. I'm against the laws.Good point. But what bothers me is politicians/legislatures making these determinations. What happens if in the future the social value of Irishmen increases (hardly likely) and those idiots in Albany pass a law making it a capital offense to pop an O'Brien or McTigue. OK, maybe a more likely scenario is for the politicians to edict by law that verbally insulting them will draw jail time. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 22, 2011 18:06:33 GMT -5
Yes, its called a presentencing investigation. And it is a good tool to better gauge the defendant in each case.
such disparity in sentencing has been prevalent. Unfortunately. It is something that needs to be addressed and perhaps the presentencing investigations is a better tool in making sentence recommendations rather than solely leaving it for a judge or even jury to ponder. Judges are human, too, and we'd hope prejudice is not part of their decision-making process in a court of law, but history may prove otherwise.
Something to ponder. A level playing field is moot point if someone's skull is bashed in because they were targetted for a certain reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 23, 2011 6:40:44 GMT -5
By level playing field, I meant equal treatment of all defendants, more or less. From that perspective, I do not think it is moot when a white defendant receives probation for murdering a black man or gay guy but a black defendant receives life for the same crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 23, 2011 8:52:00 GMT -5
Yes, and FA's point was that you couldn't trust that wouldn't happen without legislating it.
So I'm getting an answer to why we needed to legislate it, even though I don't care for so many laws that can eventually be used as they were not intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 23, 2011 9:14:23 GMT -5
By level playing field, I meant equal treatment of all defendants, more or less. From that perspective, I do not think it is moot when a white defendant receives probation for murdering a black man or gay guy but a black defendant receives life for the same crime. From that perspect yes. Sentencing needed to fit the crime without racial or other demographic prejudice. The unfortunate reality is that legislation was needed to help ensure equal justice. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 23, 2011 10:07:53 GMT -5
aws that can eventually be used as they were not intended. I agree, Dave, we should not need such laws. And they will probably be twisted beyond their intent to apply to a whole set of circumstances they were not intended for. But they are necessary because humans are a despicable race. In theory, we should never have to have any laws prescribing our behavior, but we do. And they say man was created in God's image... I truly hope not because what does that say about God?! We all know it is wrong to murder someone and you should not murder people, yet in America alone, 45 people are murdered daily. It is wrong to rape someone and therefore people should not rape other people. Yet, in America, some poor soul is raped every six minutes! So, we need these laws, unless you wish to allow for the "eye for an eye" routine. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 23, 2011 11:19:55 GMT -5
aws that can eventually be used as they were not intended. But they are necessary because humans are a despicable race. In theory, we should never have to have any laws prescribing our behavior, but we do. Which is why I refer to Ideal and Reality as two different planets. |
|
Well, I guess Sylvan Beach is having major problems with kids fighting all the time. It's so bad that the residents got together and are demanding the beach be patrolled better. The residents say these kids are so uncontrollable that they are afraid to come out of their own homes. 
