Hate crime or stupid and thoughtless prank?
Should he be deported after he does his time?
Discuss.
Should he be deported after he does his time?
Discuss.
Dharun Ravi
- Thread starter johnbryanpeters
- Start date
I'm not sure about that.
One interpretation of his decision to go to trial is that it was a point of honor - that he might believe that his behavior was stupid or ignorant but not biased.
I think he should do his time but I do not think that deportation is appropriate.
One interpretation of his decision to go to trial is that it was a point of honor - that he might believe that his behavior was stupid or ignorant but not biased.
I think he should do his time but I do not think that deportation is appropriate.
honor is a b!tch.
Wull, it is.
It can be a shield for a rogue or for self deception, or it can be genuine.
I don't know the person or the circumstances, so I'm not in a position to make a fine judgment in this case.
It can be a shield for a rogue or for self deception, or it can be genuine.
I don't know the person or the circumstances, so I'm not in a position to make a fine judgment in this case.
throw the fvcker out.
looking at pics of him, he's gonna be quite the town bike b*tch in prison
Sounds like something Bunk would say after finishing off a bottle...
Hate crime unless he can prove he would have been spying on a straight roommate too. Then he would just be a creepy pervert.
also, not a prank. multiple incidences = pattern of behavior. not an isolated instance.
sadly "giving a fvck when it isn't your turn" does not apply.
There is a "good moral character" requirement that has been breached. AFAIK, although it's for citizenship, if you breach it as an LPR, they can pull your green card as it's a precursor to citizenship, whether you choose to act on that or not. (Silver?)
There's also ineligibility for crimes involving moral turpitude to be considered.
Of course, if he can hold out until President Santorum pardons him and puts him in charge of Homeland Security, he's golden.
There's also ineligibility for crimes involving moral turpitude to be considered.
Of course, if he can hold out until President Santorum pardons him and puts him in charge of Homeland Security, he's golden.
Last edited:
They'd both lose their titles after being caught in an airport bathroom.
Guilty of a "hate crime." That'll certainly be considered "moral turpitude."
And as much as I like seeing him convicted, I cannot abide the idea of specific hate crime laws.
A crime is a crime, and making motive part of a criminal statute is punishing people for thoughts, not actions. The designation of a hate crime is not about intent, it's about motive. It's about thought. It's about government control of thought, and it's a slippery slope.
I certainly agree that hate crime, especially assault/murder, can be more heinous than other types of violence. (Dragging someone behind a car to his death because he's black is different and worse than shooting your wife's lover, etc. etc.) But that should factor in during sentencing for whatever crime was committed, not lay the base for a separate statute.
And as much as I like seeing him convicted, I cannot abide the idea of specific hate crime laws.
A crime is a crime, and making motive part of a criminal statute is punishing people for thoughts, not actions. The designation of a hate crime is not about intent, it's about motive. It's about thought. It's about government control of thought, and it's a slippery slope.
I certainly agree that hate crime, especially assault/murder, can be more heinous than other types of violence. (Dragging someone behind a car to his death because he's black is different and worse than shooting your wife's lover, etc. etc.) But that should factor in during sentencing for whatever crime was committed, not lay the base for a separate statute.
Last edited:
isn't establishing/displaying a motive an indicator of a premeditated & deliberate act though?
Can be. But that has nothing to do with making a separate law regarding thought-crime.
Premeditation, etc. has to do (for example) with what degree of murder you'd be charged. This is right and proper.