Hate Crime Bill Set to Pass?

[Yurt]

Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend. A work associate and I have a wager to settle.

let me in

 

[del]

i refuse to answer on the grounds that i may incriminate myself.

Didn't you hear? Bush et. al. eliminated that particular right from the Bill of Rights, dude, back in 2006. Sorry you missed it.

*shrug*

i don't get out much.

 

[Nik]

Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend. A work associate and I have a wager to settle.

Umm, no.

 

[Yurt]

i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...

 

[catzmeow]

Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend. A work associate and I have a wager to settle.

Umm, no.

Dude, I don't have any intention of stalking you, and there are probably hundreds of students in your particular school. I just want to know who to credit with producing such a distinctive student.

 

[catzmeow]

Hahaha. Way to take the quote completely out of context. I didn't ask what you knew, I asked you what you knew about something you know jack shit about. Because its IMPOSSIBLE to know what I asked you about.
.

Actually, it's entirely possible to know what you're asking about. You're asking about a perceived deterrance effect of putting new statutes into place on the books.

And the fact of the matter is that we know a great deal about that particular issue. We know that passing new laws doesn't really HAVE a deterrance effect. We know this because gang enhancements have not particularly had an effect of limiting gang crime in California and a number of other states. And, that's the closest parellel that you are going to find to hate crimes enhancements, because it speaks to motive and lengthens a perpetrator's sentence.

All you have to do is look at California and ask yourself: Have gang crimes gone up or down since the STEP Act was passed? (up, way up).

Then, you look at the rest of the U.S., and you ask yourself (or you look at SPLC stats): Have hate crimes gone down since hate crimes legislation passed in 1995? (again, the answer is up...because hate crime tends to fluctuate most closely with the economy--when the economy is in the shitter, hate crimes go up).

You think these questions are unanswerable because you've only looked at law in the most general sense. But there is a whole world out there that you know literally NOTHING about. And, there are almost 80 years of research on offending patterns, and why criminals commit crimes, and why they recidivate, and the like.

Furthermore, you asked those questions snidely, thinking that they were unanswerable, and that you'd show the stupid old woman non-law student a thing or two.

All you showed is how much you still have to learn.

 

[catzmeow]

p.s. Nik has been thoroughly pwned on this thread.

 

[catzmeow]

i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...

I think he's a secretary for someone who goes to law school.

 

[Nik]

i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...

Oh noes. Yurt doesn't believe me. My life is all in shambles now ;(

 

[catzmeow]

i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...

Oh noes. Yurt doesn't believe me. My life is all in shambles now ;(

Don't blame Yurt, you were a moron before he ever encountered you.

 

[Nik]

Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend. A work associate and I have a wager to settle.

Umm, no.

Dude, I don't have any intention of stalking you, and there are probably hundreds of students in your particular school. I just want to know who to credit with producing such a distinctive student.

Sure you aren't. You've only been discussing my credentials for the past 10 pages.

 

[Nik]

Hahaha. Way to take the quote completely out of context. I didn't ask what you knew, I asked you what you knew about something you know jack shit about. Because its IMPOSSIBLE to know what I asked you about.
.

Actually, it's entirely possible to know what you're asking about. You're asking about a perceived deterrance effect of putting new statutes into place on the books.

And the fact of the matter is that we know a great deal about that particular issue. We know that passing new laws doesn't really HAVE a deterrance effect. We know this because gang enhancements have not particularly had an effect of limiting gang crime in California and a number of other states. And, that's the closest parellel that you are going to find to hate crimes enhancements, because it speaks to motive and lengthens a perpetrator's sentence.

All you have to do is look at California and ask yourself: Have gang crimes gone up or down since the STEP Act was passed? (up, way up).

Then, you look at the rest of the U.S., and you ask yourself (or you look at SPLC stats): Have hate crimes gone down since hate crimes legislation passed in 1995? (again, the answer is up...because hate crime tends to fluctuate most closely with the economy--when the economy is in the shitter, hate crimes go up).

You think these questions are unanswerable because you've only looked at law in the most general sense. But there is a whole world out there that you know literally NOTHING about. And, there are almost 80 years of research on offending patterns, and why criminals commit crimes, and why they recidivate, and the like.

Furthermore, you asked those questions snidely, thinking that they were unanswerable, and that you'd show the stupid old woman non-law student a thing or two.

All you showed is how much you still have to learn.

Lets see. So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.

Yeah. Like I said, you know jack shit.

 

[catzmeow]

Lets see. So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.

Yeah. Like I said, you know jack shit.

Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them. Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.

I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics. Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.

 

[del]

Hahaha. Way to take the quote completely out of context. I didn't ask what you knew, I asked you what you knew about something you know jack shit about. Because its IMPOSSIBLE to know what I asked you about.
.

Actually, it's entirely possible to know what you're asking about. You're asking about a perceived deterrance effect of putting new statutes into place on the books.

And the fact of the matter is that we know a great deal about that particular issue. We know that passing new laws doesn't really HAVE a deterrance effect. We know this because gang enhancements have not particularly had an effect of limiting gang crime in California and a number of other states. And, that's the closest parellel that you are going to find to hate crimes enhancements, because it speaks to motive and lengthens a perpetrator's sentence.

All you have to do is look at California and ask yourself: Have gang crimes gone up or down since the STEP Act was passed? (up, way up).

Then, you look at the rest of the U.S., and you ask yourself (or you look at SPLC stats): Have hate crimes gone down since hate crimes legislation passed in 1995? (again, the answer is up...because hate crime tends to fluctuate most closely with the economy--when the economy is in the shitter, hate crimes go up).

You think these questions are unanswerable because you've only looked at law in the most general sense. But there is a whole world out there that you know literally NOTHING about. And, there are almost 80 years of research on offending patterns, and why criminals commit crimes, and why they recidivate, and the like.

Furthermore, you asked those questions snidely, thinking that they were unanswerable, and that you'd show the stupid old woman non-law student a thing or two.

All you showed is how much you still have to learn.

Lets see. So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.

Yeah. Like I said, you know jack shit.

snappy comeback but a fail.

 

[Nik]

p.s. Nik has been thoroughly pwned on this thread.

Of course. Between your appeals to authority, your repeated lies, and your continued misunderstanding of basic facts, you sure have owned me. I feel positively humbled by your moves such as declaring yourself the winner because you have so much experience (which you don't detail...while inquiring as to my personal details).

 

[catzmeow]

snappy comeback but a fail.

Some might even call it an epic fail, with Davidesque flair.

 

[catzmeow]

(which you don't detail...while inquiring as to my personal details).

19 years working in the field of gangs, and I live in Florida. I'd say that's an equivalent level of detail.

Also, I graduated from William Jewell College.

Feel safer now?

 

[Ravi]

This thread is a hate crime.

 

[catzmeow]

This thread is a hate crime.

I would call it a humor crime, personally.

 

[del]

This thread is a hate crime.

it's pretty ugly, i'll give you that.

i blame bush.