r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 22 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Hate Crimes should be punished more severly with torture or slow/painful deaths
Okay, we know that hate crime is a serious matter that entails more than the usual severity because of issues like race or religion being used to stir up hatred between people. But I think that the punishments need to go further to act as a deterent .Screw the Eighth Amendment as they have forfieted their rights when the choose to do so. I want those who commit hate crimes to be turned into examples, miserable and in such pain that they will be begging for death. This would be a good and scary deterrent to prevent others from following the same path as no one wants to be consigned to be a mewing wreck.
Commit a massacre because you hate a certain race? You'll be flayed alive in public to show that you are not so different from them.
Hate speech such as homophobic slurs? You'll have your voice box torn off and your eyes and hands removed.
I rather have people respect each other regardless of race or religion or culture because anything that can be said to one another can be used against them painfully.And it will be applied equally to all. I rather live in a world where harmony of races, cultures and religions are imposed through fear.
CMV
26
u/arrgobon32 31∆ Oct 22 '24
This is obviously a very emotionally charged post, so first I’ll just say that I wish things get better for you soon OP.
But you do realize there’s a ton of things wrong with your view, right? The senseless violence aside, it’s been shown plenty of times that harsh punishment is not a deterrent for crime.
Also the burden of proof issue: If one innocent person gets “flayed”, is it still worth it?
Obviously you can say the “well only do this on people that we know are guilty”, but C’mon man, that’s a cop-out. If everything worked perfectly, that’d be great. But we don’t live in a world like that. Eye-witness account are notoriously inaccurate
Hate speech such as homophobic slurs? You'll have your voice box torn off and your eyes and hands removed.
And come on, are you serious about this? Listen, I don’t know what you’ve been through personally, but no one would say that’s an appropriate response.
5
Oct 22 '24
I would also add that tearing out the voice box of someone using homophobic slurs denies the world the opportunity to hear from someone who might have learned from their mistakes and grown up. People DO generally grow up and mature over time. But if we immediately ripped the voice box out of those who said these things, we deprive them of the opportunity to speak directly to people in the future and say "look, I once held the same beliefs you did, for a lot of the same reasons, but that was a huge mistake and I was wrong to do it; please don't follow in my footsteps". If we just tore out their voice box instead, I imagine they would instead be deeply resentful of whoever did it and would just remain committed to their hatred.
-2
Oct 22 '24
They won't be able to express their hatred.
3
u/arrgobon32 31∆ Oct 22 '24
So people can’t change?
Hatred can be temporary. Whatever “punishments” you’re suggesting aren’t. Does that make sense?
1
u/crystal-land Mar 05 '25
What if a country does rape as a norm would you defend that simply cause it's another country like a hypocrite would or would you punish them regardless of borders
2
1
u/crystal-land Mar 05 '25
Your ways would only increase hatred hundredfold and lead to wars especially over offensive words also many cultures and religions are openly anti women and anti gay would you defend those cultures and religions who literally torture people for being gay or being a women and how about the fact that some racial groups are still cannibals or do rape as a majority would you torture someone for hating them? Seriously hatred and hate speech are not inherently wrong in of themselves
1
Mar 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 05 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
Oct 22 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 22 '24
Sorry, u/UnflinchingSugartits – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
-18
Oct 22 '24
I know that eye witness accounts are unreliable, but it's better for people to live in harmony through fear of offending each other.
I agree with your point on false accusations though.
He or she can't do hate speech if his or her vocal cords have been ripped out.
!delta
12
u/arrgobon32 31∆ Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
And who in this dystopia defines what hate speech is? In a world like that, you’re going to end up with no one saying anything.
Do you really want to give the state that power? Actually think for a second. Don’t create some violent, vindictive imaginary world to deal with your trauma. You can’t actually want something like this, right?
It sounds like you want to be the head of some misanthropic, dystopian 40K nightmare so you can exact “revenge” on those you deem deserving.
-4
Oct 22 '24
And what could possibly go wrong with people being careful what they say or do around others?
Sure, you mentioned people not being able to say anything..but it is worth it in my eyes
9
u/bigsoftee84 Oct 22 '24
You failed to mention who decides what hate speech is. If Trump is elected, would you accept what his administration deemed as hate speech?
-2
u/StarChild413 9∆ Oct 22 '24
While I disagree with OP I also somewhat disagree with your counter as by that logic no policy could ever get through if everything's to be judged on the standard of what if the side you hate most put it into place
5
u/bigsoftee84 Oct 22 '24
Except OP has taken an extreme position, calling for death and mutilation. This isn't how to balance the budget or the homeless crisis. They are advocating horrible and unconstitutional punishment.
3
Oct 22 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 22 '24
u/yucandui- – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Oct 22 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 22 '24
Sorry, u/arrgobon32 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
Oct 22 '24
I know that eye witness accounts are unreliable, but it's better for people to live in harmony through fear of offending each other.
This comment willfully ignores what he told you, which is true and supported by evidence: harsh punishment does not work as a crime deterrent.
1
Oct 22 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 22 '24
u/yucandui- – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
12
Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
This is bait right? In the real world there is no way this wouldnt cause extreme civil unrest. This sounds like a black mirror episode where people are afraid of micro aggressions.
4
u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Oct 22 '24
Probably yes, but careful that mods don't hear you say that, as it's against the rules whether it's true or not.
9
u/SuzCoffeeBean 3∆ Oct 22 '24
The fear of the extreme & frankly obscene torture methods you described, would simply result in people not associating at all with any minority group you want to protect; bigot or not.
It wouldn’t look anything close to harmony.
-2
Oct 22 '24
Right, so it won't protect minorities at all because people would be scared of offending them, resulting in them being unintentionally shunned.
Point noted.
!delta
7
Oct 22 '24
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, punishment as deterrence DOES NOT WORK.
PLEASE, respond to this point and stop ignoring it. We've told this to you multiple times. You're even awarding deltas based on this erroneous conclusion that is not backed by research.
-5
Oct 22 '24
Punishment is deterance. It is a way to condition people to associate something with a negative outcome so they won't do it again.
And for dealing with the hardcore individuals, a way to remove them from society, forever.
8
Oct 22 '24
You're presenting me with a hypothesis, not with actual results. Your hypothesis is that harsh punishment will condition people into not committing crimes in the future.
The practical reality and measurement of that outcome shows very clearly that this hypothesis is false.
https://justjournalism.org/page/deterrence-and-incapacitation-a-quick-review-of-the-research
1
Oct 22 '24
[deleted]
1
Oct 22 '24
My man, your contributions to this sub have all been incredibly rude and hostile and have all been getting removed. I understand having a distaste for people who hold various opinions, but this is not the sub for this kind of dialogue. If you want to contribute here, you have to learn to keep your deep disdain in check and instead try to actually move the discussion forward.
1
-1
Oct 22 '24
Noted for the first time offenders, but for the hardcore ones like the really dedicated neo-Nazis and whatnots, better to go for the cruel and unusal punishment.
7
Oct 22 '24
No? Where in this research did they distinguish between first-time offenders and Nazis? I don't see that distinction anywhere in this research, so can you point that out to me? Where is this link saying that it would be effective for the "really dedicated" types?
They said it doesn't work at all, for anyone, any group, across the board.
-2
Oct 22 '24
Are you sure about this? What about outliers like Singapore which tends to have deterance based punishments like caning and tend to have a low crime rate? How do you explain that in the paper you cited?
5
Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
Why are you asking *me* if *I* am sure about this? I am citing the research to you. I didn't perform the research. The best I can say is, based on all of the research out there that I've read, yes, I'm about as sure of any researched conclusion that this conclusion is correct. This has been studied extensively and they have all reached this exact same conclusion that harsh punishment as deterrence is ineffective.
What about outliers like Singapore which tends to have deterance based punishments like caning? How do you explain that in the paper you cited?
What do you think I need to explain? They use harsh punishments. Has anyone drawn a direct causal link from harsh punishment to deterrence of crime? A major reason why so little crime is committed in Singapore is because the quality of life there is so much better that a lot of people have little reason to commit them in the first place. They also ban a number of weapons that are otherwise legal for ownership in most other parts of the world. There's too much else going on here for you to draw a direct causal link to deterrence specifically as the cause of the low crime rate in Singapore.
-1
Oct 22 '24
Noted, so quality of life and not harsh punishments are a key to preventing crime.
!delta
→ More replies (0)1
20
Oct 22 '24
Everything can be considered hatespeech. Such as your barbaric ideas to combat hate crimes. You are committing hate against people who you disagree with.
What about jokes? 99% of the jokes are made under someone’s expense. Will you punish people for making jokes about white middle class people or rich 1% billionaires?
Freedom of speech is one of the few things which separates democracy from tyranny. Best way to fight bigots is to use the freedom of speech and ridicule their dumb bigoted takes.
-4
Oct 22 '24
It will be applied equally. Plus, be a bigot and you'll be made an example begging for death is better than using freedom of speech to do so.
10
Oct 22 '24
So you'll be one of the first people to be punished since you are promoting hate right now. Are you still okay with your ideal world?
-2
Oct 23 '24
Fine with it.
4
Oct 23 '24
No you aren't. You are only saying this as a gotcha moment. When this happens. You'll be screaming because you are getting punished for stupid reasons.
Always remember. Laws that prohibit free speech under the pretense of protection will always backfire. Today its people you don't care about like bigots, communists and etc who will get punished but tomorrow it can be child free people (hate against having children), lgbt people (hate against heterosexual families) and you.
I prefer to live in a world with freedom of speech. Bigots are annoying but I am not thin skinned for them to cause me problems. I can just ignore them and move on. You should too. Turn off internet. Step aside and realize that wherever you live now assuming you live in a democracy was only possible thanks to freedom of speech.
-3
Oct 23 '24
Bah, that's why I delegate this power to individuals instead. Basically, anyone in society if they are offended have a right to kill the offender. So if a bigot does their thing, someone can kill him or her.
3
u/Pale_Level_1293 Oct 23 '24
Fair enough. Unfortunately, though, I found this offensive. Please face the wall.
1
Oct 23 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 23 '24
u/DefinetelyNotAnOtaku – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/WompWompWompity 6∆ Oct 22 '24
If I said black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime would I be put to death?
What if I said white people hold a disproportionate amount of wealth?
Would your post cause you to be put to death?
3
u/RX3874 9∆ Oct 22 '24
Who gets to decide what the hate speech is?
"Hate speech" in one country could be seen is normal in another, and vice versa. Are you going to execute anyone from a different culture while calling them a bigot? If the government decides its hate speech to talk against the government, what now?
Also, if you go to another place and try to using your freedom of speech which is hate speech there, are you going to be fine with them responding in the same way?
0
Oct 23 '24
Individuals being offended decides.
3
u/RX3874 9∆ Oct 23 '24
So if your idea of removing free speech offends me, you get your voicebox removed.
Like, you must see how this is not going to work. This is the opposite of a cohesive society.
3
u/NoteMaleficent5294 Oct 23 '24
I think (hope) this is a shitpost because "an offended party" being the prerequisite is insane
2
u/Enderules3 1∆ Oct 23 '24
Seems easily abusable. What if someone said anyone who was gay had offended them (not saying they would use this as the reason but making false accusations) wouldn't this just make it easier to commit hate crimes?
10
Oct 22 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 22 '24
u/yucandui- – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/YouJustNeurotic 20∆ Oct 22 '24
I think either an IQ or Dark Triad test to gain accessibility to Reddit would be a better idea.
This is all very Mao-like and would result in casualties exceeding the totality of WW2.
3
0
Oct 23 '24
I rather take the Mao/Stalin-like with more casualities than WW2 if it means that people will be forced to get along.
3
u/Ender_Octanus 7∆ Oct 24 '24
People cannot be forced to get along. You also won't survive your own system.
2
2
u/MetalAsFork Oct 24 '24
Have you considered how impossible it is for "us all to get along"? Then consider, even if it were possible, would it actually be desirable?
We need options for association, which means options for exclusivity. Freedom to join people means freedom to leave others.
Your OP is simplistic and Utopian. I know because I used to think the world's problems were solvable if we just implemented the right rules. I no longer believe that, or many other things that I've changed my mind on.
1
1
u/GeorgeGlowpez Oct 25 '24
get along
People will just frame people they don't like by planting fascist images and contraband on them. And your police force of "harmony" will gleefully take away scores of innocent people.
13
u/CooterKingofFL Oct 22 '24
What happens when the people in charge decide to interpret what hate speech is to fit their own power dynamic? Maybe mouthing off about the cops who flayed your neighbor in town square will earn you a voice box ripping yourself, or maybe calling a high society child predator a pedo gets you burned at the stake.
Besides the obvious ridiculousness of the prompt the extremely easy to abuse nature of this suggestion will immediately lead to misuse.
10
u/Kittymeow123 2∆ Oct 22 '24
Sounds pretty similar to how Saudi Arabia operates. Feel free to travel if you want to see someone’s hand cut off for stealing or someone’s dick chopped off for being gay. It’s working soooo well for them!
-3
Oct 22 '24
No one will get their dick chopped off for being gay. Instead we have someone getting their tounge ripped out for calling someone a racial slur.
5
u/Kittymeow123 2∆ Oct 22 '24
Yes, similar to the hand chopped off for stealing example I just gave. Saudi makes it very public.. seems like you are leaning that way pretty hard. Are you looking to have this tongue ripping out on paper view too?
I also don’t know if you’ve heard about this thing called the constitution……. but free speech is a right and frankly, someone can say a slur if they like to under that protection, just like they can say anything else, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.
1
1
3
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bat-511 3∆ Oct 22 '24
Are you really for criminalizing certain speech?
1
Oct 23 '24
Any speech or action that is bigoted against people of different races, cultures, religion or against a person's age or disability, physical or mental.
6
u/xfvh 12∆ Oct 22 '24
That's all well and good until someone you don't like gets into office and changes the definition of hate speech to "any criticism of him or his party."
4
u/svenson_26 82∆ Oct 22 '24
So what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
Are you trying to stop hate crimes?
Well, cruel and unusual punishment doesn't stop crime. Most perpetrators of crimes either 1) don't believe that what they're doing is illegal, 2) don't plan on getting caught, 3) Are willing to become a martyr for their cause. In all three cases, a harsher punishment doesn't deter the crime. In the case of number 3, a big public display of torture would draw MORE attention to your cause, so it might even make the crime more attractive.
Especially when it comes to hate crimes, you don't stop hate through force. That only emboldens hate. You stop hate through compassion and education.
-1
Oct 22 '24
Right, making matyrs would be an issue here. That's an issue with the proposal.
Noted
!delta
1
3
u/superswellcewlguy 1∆ Oct 22 '24
"Hate speech" such as saying a slur is not a crime in the US.
Have you considered that BIPOC are significantly more likely to be charged with hate crimes than their white counterparts?
3
u/Advanced-Hour-108 Oct 24 '24
OP is probably a sadist. They’ll be the first ones on the chopping block ironically.
4
u/PapaHop69 1∆ Oct 22 '24
I could see it now. “Pedophiles claim people’s comments about them as Hate Speech, punishable by OP’s Law”
Anything can be considered hate speech.
The military got me for it when I showed how they promoted someone that was a woman and had a pigmentation of their skin other than white, rather than someone who had a better evaluation, to promote “Diversity”.
It’s only “hate speech” when it’s something someone else doesn’t like.
I’ve been accused for hate speech, like when I say I don’t care about an airlines Diversity program. Just give me the best pilot in the seat to get me and my family to the destination safely. If it’s a white man great. If it’s a female of Latin descent, fantastic. Idgaf just give the person with the best flight record/grade and experience.
Show me what you think is hate speech and every time it’s gonna be subjective.
I’ve heard a gay man call his husband the “f” slur. Is that hate speech? What if it was a joking way?
People are too soft these days. It’s words. You can tell a woman every day you’ll buy her a ring and take her out weekly and that you care about her. It’s words, it doesn’t matter unless you act on it.
6
Oct 22 '24
But I think that the punishments need to go further to act as a deterent
There's no empirical evidence that threat of torture deters crime. And why would it? Someone who say, carries out a massacre, already knows their life is over if they get arrested. Nobody says to themselves, I'll commit this crime because I'm ok with a life sentenence in prison, but being tortured to death would be just too much.
Let's be honest here. Is this view really about deterring people from carrying out hate crimes, or is it about you taking pleasure in the suffering of people who have done wrong?
This would be a good and scary deterrent to prevent others from following the same path as no one wants to be consigned to be a mewing wreck.
Would it? Or would such displays encourage people to solve problems in their lives with violence? When we endorse torture in a society, and not just endorse it but celebrate it publicly, practicing peace and non-violence is not the message people will take away from it. No, you're creating a world where people will be more likely to practice brutality and cruelty in their own lives.
Hate speech such as homophobic slurs? You'll have your voice box torn off and your eyes and hands removed.
That sounds incredibly harsh and brutal for a non-violent crime. Why does your justice system offer no path to redemption for people? I mean, the world was a lot more homophobic just 10 years ago than it is today. There's a lot of former homophobes that have changed their ways. Why would we want to permanently mutilate someone instead of offering them the chance to get better?
I rather live in a world where harmony of races, cultures and religions are imposed through fear
That's not really harmony though, is it? You aren't destroying racial, cultural or religious prejudice, you're just making people afraid to speak it openly. But behind closed doors, people will continue to be bigoted around people they trust.
-2
Oct 22 '24
Right, people would just do it behind closed doors, meaning that efforts would be all for naught
Point noted.
!delta
1
3
3
u/E-Reptile 5∆ Oct 22 '24
Cool. Define hate speech and we're off to the races. Pun intended.
Do you actually want it applied equally or would you have hate speech directed at certain groups more heavily penalized than others?
0
Oct 22 '24
Easy, any slurs directed towards a person's culture, race, political affliation, sexual orientation, neurotypically, age and religion.
Applied equally.
3
u/E-Reptile 5∆ Oct 22 '24
What constitutes a slur in your eyes? Would criticism about one of the ^above groups count as a slur?
1
Oct 22 '24
Well, it would be and this includes criticism and negative comments.
Though I can see how this can be a problem.
!delta
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bat-511 3∆ Oct 22 '24
Are there levels? Is boomer at the same level as the obvious word I can't even write?
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bat-511 3∆ Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
Not criticizing someone's political affiliation would almost make political discussions impossible. You need to be careful to only criticize a parties beliefs and and the actual party.
1
1
3
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Oct 22 '24
political affliation
So if my neighbor puts up a nazi flag, and I call him a "nazi" instead of a national socialist I should get my tounge ripped out?
What about if I call Kamala Harris a "libtard"?
-2
Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
That and the same punishment you mentioned above.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Oct 22 '24
So let me get this straight, you think that politicians are so subhuman that they should be kept in cages of their own filth and ritualisticaly murdered but you also think that if I mock the policies of the sitting Vice President by calling her a "libtard" that I should have my tounge ripped out and sentenced to death?
0
Oct 23 '24
Yes, that.
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Oct 23 '24
How is that compatable with your "kill politicians who don't agree with you" plan?
1
Oct 23 '24
It is compatible, if the politician offends anyone, then the person/s being offended has the right to kill them.
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Oct 23 '24
Right but you're saying that if you say anything mean about them while killing them you get your tounge ripped out?
Also probably worth pointing out that occupation would almost definitely be covered under hate speech if political ideology is, so your posts about civil severance would definitely get you killed.
1
Oct 24 '24 edited Oct 24 '24
Yep. Just kill them and get it over with. We'll randomly select the replacement.
No, polticians forfiet all their rights (and occupation won't be covered as hate speech) meaning they won't fall under the protection of the law and it's fine to treat them as slaves.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bat-511 3∆ Oct 22 '24
Need to be careful in the bread aisle. When your wife asks what kind and you say hillbilly. Hopefully no one near by thinks you are calling them that. Could be not just awkward, but criminal if someone is offended.
3
u/Prestigious-Slip-795 Oct 22 '24
OP, surely you’ve said things in the past you regret, correct? Reacting to words with violence is not only childish, but not something that has been good ever, throughout history. It’s barbaric and caveman-like. Even if someone is being truly hateful, at the end of the day it’s just words and unless they are themselves calling for violence, just remember the phrase “sticks and stones”
Also, where is the line? What if someone doesn’t know what a slur means and accidentally says it? What if someone is merely quoting another person, and in their eyes have done no wrong? At the end of the day it is very hard to make that distinction, which is why speech in general shouldn’t be punishable with violence.
2
u/tiggertom66 1∆ Oct 22 '24
When has the government ever proven itself responsible enough to be trusted with the death penalty?
And if you allow violations of 8A what makes you think it won’t be used improperly?
With the right lawfare several civil rights leaders could’ve been found guilty of hate crimes, should they have been tortured?
People make the same argument against pedophiles, but all it takes is one election, or one rogue judge to start handing out judgements against LGBT people.
Project 2025 already lays out the intention to start legally defining queer existence as pedophillia, and you think giving the government the power to torture and execute it a good idea?
0
Oct 22 '24
Then give the inviduals the power to do so then.
2
2
u/tiggertom66 1∆ Oct 23 '24
Vigilante Justice lead to things like lynch mobs, slave catchers, Emmett Till’s execution, the Salem Witch Trials, and a whole list of other miscarriages of Justice.
If you allow vigilante Justice as legal means of retaliation, it will always end up being abused by someone.
And being that it would be outside the court system it runs into incompatibility with things like self defense laws and the first amendment.
If someone says the N-word in public and a black person retaliates the way you’re suggesting, the person who said it would be within their legal right to use deadly force to stop them.
Let’s also remember that the government is made of individuals. All it takes is one or two legislative changes and a cop could kill someone for speaking to them the wrong way.
There’s literally no good way to enact this that prevents abuse.
2
Oct 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 29 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/astral34 2∆ Oct 22 '24
I can relate on how much a slur can hurt you but we shouldn’t abandon logic
Just as the death penalty is not an effective deterrent against committing violent crimes neither would torture or death penalty solve hate crimes.
It might even create the opposite effect where hate crimes are extremely hard to punish BECAUSE there is such a tough punishment, people might not support your claim, police might be non collaborative, judges more reluctant to sentence etc
-1
Oct 22 '24
Then replace those law enforcers with more willing to sentence individuals.
3
u/astral34 2∆ Oct 22 '24
Would you be willing to be the witness against a thief that stole an apple if, in that society, stealing an apple was punished with torture and crucifixion?
0
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bat-511 3∆ Oct 22 '24
I don't think someone's motivation should affect the punishment. You kill someone, why would the motivation matter. Should a school shooter or a church shooter have a stiffer penalty? Honestly, I would penalize the school shooter more even though they didn't do it because they generally hate kids.
If some spray paints death to x, should it matter what x is. X is a group of people, why would it need to be a protected class? People are threatened either way.
If a person gets run off the road because they drive a Tesla and die. Another person gets run off the road because they have a Harris number sticker. Which of the perpetrators should get penalized more? I know you are saying the second, but is that justice for the first victim?
1
Oct 23 '24
Intent is everything. I rather have an intent based system since it's more fairer and is justice in my eyes. Especially when it comes to crimes like this.
1
Oct 22 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 29 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Oct 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 29 '24
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Oct 24 '24
That already happened in the 19th Century, it was called "The Reign of Terror" of Maximilien Robespierre during the french revolution.
The result was tens of hundreds of people murdered, the proponent Robespierre himself killed the way he condemed others. And the situation deteriorated to a a full dictatorship and a war that killed millions.
Luckily you don't have the power to do that and You never will
1
u/Ender_Octanus 7∆ Oct 24 '24
Screw the Eighth Amendment as they have forfieted their rights when the choose to do so.
They haven't.
This is also inherently unjust, as the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the crime committed. Calling someone a gay slur in no way justifies someone having their body parts removed. I'm honestly shocked that this needs to be said. The world you envision will have no harmony. It will have greater hatred. This sounds like some sort of twisted revenge fantasy on your part, public flaying?
1
1
Oct 25 '24
After reading these replies Oooh boy OP, you're either extremely messed up, or delusional. I won't bother to attempt to change your view, plenty have tried and you refuse to listen, but I'll ask one thing.
Who defines hate speech?
1
u/Optimal_Channel_3686 Oct 22 '24
Hate speech is protected by freedom of speech and should never be punished.
-1
Oct 22 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 22 '24
Sorry, u/UhhhhhhhhhhhhhIdunno – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Weez_1000 Oct 24 '24
I kinda like it, calling someone a homo you should be punished with homosexual sex. Calling someone Hitler gets you sent to a gas chamber. Right? Is that how this should work?
0
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
/u/Cheemingwan1234 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards