Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[sealybobo]

Don't you get t

Another far left fail!

Show why shop lifting should be a felony..

Shop lift a candy bar and it is only a misdemeanor, Now shop lift a Diamond ring and it is a felony.

Here is a great example. This kid murders his father because his dad murdered other people. The kid should have called authorities so its murder. I say let him out in 20.

I would have also let George Zimmerman out after 20 years. That wasn't a hate crime. It was murder though

Another far left drone horrid analogy!

Comparing murder to theft!

You gotta be the most annoying usmb member

Another irony impaired far left drone post!

I guess to the far left having their religious narratives debunked all the time could be annoying to them!

Don't you get tired of saying the same thing? Maybe once you can add something? You are worse than unkotare and he offers virtually nothing.

 

[Kosh]

Don't you get t

Shop lift a candy bar and it is only a misdemeanor, Now shop lift a Diamond ring and it is a felony.

Here is a great example. This kid murders his father because his dad murdered other people. The kid should have called authorities so its murder. I say let him out in 20.

I would have also let George Zimmerman out after 20 years. That wasn't a hate crime. It was murder though

Another far left drone horrid analogy!

Comparing murder to theft!

You gotta be the most annoying usmb member

Another irony impaired far left drone post!

I guess to the far left having their religious narratives debunked all the time could be annoying to them!

Don't you get tired of saying the same thing? Maybe once you can add something? You are worse than unkotare and he offers virtually nothing.

See the far left drones run the same old debunked religious narratives over and over and then they make comments like this!

 

[SwimExpert]

[QUOTE="Iceweasel, post: 13166295, member: 46539"But yeah, of course the law elevates the crime in the case of some individuals. That's what the law is. That's not in question.

What do you mean by that, exactly? "In the case of some individuals" is ambiguous. In regards to some criminals, or in regards to some victims? Elevating assault of police officers elevates the crime in the latter sense. And that's the same way that hate crimes work as well.

If the escalation of the crime were to be applied in the former sense, i.e. in the case of some defendants, then there would be an equal protection problem. The latter sense does not create an equal protection problem, as you yourself acknowledge by supporting laws that make assaults against police more serious crimes than assaults against non-police.

What's in question is why if a guy killed a black man because he hated everybody should get a lighter sentence than a man that hated black people.

That has been discussed. But my comment was addressing a question of constitutionality. There is no constitutional defect in a law making a crime a higher degree of severity based on the identity of the victim. Whether doing so is appropriate is a separate question.

IMO, yes, there are times when doing so is appropriate. Specifically in terms of hate crimes, I am generally fine with these laws. These laws came into existence in the face of a sad history in our country of certain groups of individuals being effectively terrorized though criminal attacks. Our laws have always recognized that the malice (or lack thereof) in a person's heart tends to compound or mitigate the reprehensibility of many criminal actions, particularly violent behaviors, and I agree that engaging in violence based on hatred of a race, religion, gender, etc, are inherently more repugnant than engaging in violence for most other reasons.

That doesn't mean that such laws are perfect. Far from it. A perfect set of laws has yet to be found in human history.

Or why killing a white man wouldn't be as bad.

Killing a white man because you hate white people is just as much of a hate crime as when it happens regarding any other race. Nothing in the law or the jurisprudence of the courts suggests otherwise.

That calls for the operation of someone's mind by people that only know a little about him and judging his soul instead of just the actions.

Judging the mind and soul of accused criminals has been the business of criminal justice from the beginning of time. That any crime is treated as more severe than others proves that fact. Why are some crimes treated more severe than others? On what basis can anyone judge one crime worse than the other, if not to judge the soul of the person committing the crime? Repeat offenders are given more severe punishments. A child rapist is treated as a greater monster than the person who rapes an adult. An assault that leaves a victim bruised and bloody is punished more severely than an assault that consists of a slap on the face.

Those who are deemed to have acted under mental defect are held not criminally responsible for their actions. Killing a person in a violent outburst without intent to kill is a lesser crime than killing with intent. Possession of drugs with intent is a greater crime than possession for personal use. Self defense is a defense to otherwise criminal behavior, requiring juries to decide whether they believe a defendant was afraid for his life or acted with some other thought. Our criminal justice system judges the thoughts and souls of people every single day, and that has been the way of human civilizations probably since before our own species walked the Earth.

 

[SwimExpert]

true, and the emotion of hate can be present in a murder of any degree. Why does that emotion matter?

Why does any emotion matter? The trying and punishing of criminal behavior involves explorations of emotion all the time. A man kills his wife in a fit of rage after walking in on her cheating on him. A woman kills her husband in fear because she mistook him for an intruder. Emotions define many actions as criminal or not criminal, and they define the severity of many crimes. The absence of hate, or other malice, can determine whether an action is manslaughter or murder. It can determine whether an action is child neglect or child abuse. It can determine whether a crime is arson or terrorism.

We can look to the emotions of an actor in those situations, so I see nothing wrong with exploring whether hate toward a given race, religion, gender, etc, is a factor in a crime in order to determine if it warrants a more severe treatment. There is nothing about hate crime legislation that is inconsistent with all of history's treatment of crime and punishment.

 

[Redfish]

Yeah, Ok fine. Now explain how blacks and Asians and Caucasians can be jews. Most jews are of Arabic decent, just as most muslims are of Arabic decent.

I don't understand why we want to call every demographic a race. Hispanic is not a race, muslim is not a race, Christian is not a race.

Not quite correct. There are two separate groups. There is the group of people who follow a religion. Then there is a group of people who are of a certain ethnic origin. The Jewish race overlaps considerably with the Jewish religion. It is not necessary for a person to belong to one in order to belong to another and you are quite correct to point out that one can practice the Jewish faith without being a member of the ethnic group. However the cultural aspects of each tend to result in full assimilation, given successive generations. It is equally a mistake to not recognize that there is a distinct ethnic Jewish ethnic group, having mutual common origins.

Jewish ethnicity is unique in modern times, in that the group has successfully preserved the cultural identifications of being generally aligned to a specific religion over thousands of years. While this may seem incomprehensible in comparison to modern day standards, it was very much the norm in ancient times.

In ancient times the identity of a nation tended to encompassed ethnic, religious, cultural, language, and geographic aspects. A nation of people included those that shared commonalities in these categories. The ancient Greeks had a specific religion. Even though the Greek city-states were independently sovereign, at times even warring with each other, they still were a single nation; their inner feuds were often set aside easily to face off external invasions of mother Greece. The history of ancient conquest often involved attempts to impress the conquering nation's culture upon the conquered, with the free exercise of religion being a means by which to do so. Of course, the degree to which this occurred, or was effective, was often influenced by characteristic traits of the culture, as well as a ruler's strategic attempts to maintain control of an empire through the exercise of power balanced with concessions to placate locals. For example, Darius the Great demonstrated great tolerance for conquered peoples to practice their native religions, and in doing so tended to win over the support of his conquered subjects; Darius (following the example of his dynastic predecessors) essentially traded religious freedom for the people's acquiescence to the many other policies that he implemented which united the Persian Empire (such as establishing Aramaic as the official language of the empire).

It is from this world that the Israelite nation arose. National Israelite identity pre-dated political identity. The primary cultural ties that bound were enforced through religious prescribements. With time the Israelite nation grew and rose to prominence, even without the existence of a formal state. This fact is remembered even today as the "Twelve tribes of Israel." From tribal chiefdoms may have arose the single unified Kingdom of Israel, though some scholars are skeptical if a unified kingdom ever actually existed. At the very least, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah did seem to eventually coalesce, constituting the Jewish nation must like the ancient and independent Greek city-states constituted the Greek nation.

The several conquests of the Levant might have spelled the elimination of Jewish national identity if not for the fact that that identity was deeply embedded in the people, and was also uniquely suited for survival even when immersed in foreign influences. Jewish culture was inherently tribal, genealogical, and nomadic, seeped in strong convictions to adhere to tradition, all guided by religious instruction. This has proven to be a recipe that allowed the Jewish race to persist throughout thousands of years of diaspora. Practice of the Jewish faith has gone hand-in-hand with preservation of Jewish ethnicity during this time. The result in the 21st century is a remarkable example of a religion (the Jewish faith) that has a high degree of positive correlation with a racial identity (the Jewish race) which has been long lost to ancient history among every other society in the world.

much ado about nothing, ethnicity is not race. Jewish is not a race, it may be an ethnicity, but its mostly a religion. Arab is an ethnicity and arabs can be any religion.

 

[Redfish]

true, and the emotion of hate can be present in a murder of any degree. Why does that emotion matter?

Why does any emotion matter? The trying and punishing of criminal behavior involves explorations of emotion all the time. A man kills his wife in a fit of rage after walking in on her cheating on him. A woman kills her husband in fear because she mistook him for an intruder. Emotions define many actions as criminal or not criminal, and they define the severity of many crimes. The absence of hate, or other malice, can determine whether an action is manslaughter or murder. It can determine whether an action is child neglect or child abuse. It can determine whether a crime is arson or terrorism.

We can look to the emotions of an actor in those situations, so I see nothing wrong with exploring whether hate toward a given race, religion, gender, etc, is a factor in a crime in order to determine if it warrants a more severe treatment. There is nothing about hate crime legislation that is inconsistent with all of history's treatment of crime and punishment.

emotion matters because hate is an emotion. you want to punish people for their emotions. That is simply wrong.

 

[SwimExpert]

true, and the emotion of hate can be present in a murder of any degree. Why does that emotion matter?

Why does any emotion matter? The trying and punishing of criminal behavior involves explorations of emotion all the time. A man kills his wife in a fit of rage after walking in on her cheating on him. A woman kills her husband in fear because she mistook him for an intruder. Emotions define many actions as criminal or not criminal, and they define the severity of many crimes. The absence of hate, or other malice, can determine whether an action is manslaughter or murder. It can determine whether an action is child neglect or child abuse. It can determine whether a crime is arson or terrorism.

We can look to the emotions of an actor in those situations, so I see nothing wrong with exploring whether hate toward a given race, religion, gender, etc, is a factor in a crime in order to determine if it warrants a more severe treatment. There is nothing about hate crime legislation that is inconsistent with all of history's treatment of crime and punishment.

emotion matters because hate is an emotion. you want to punish people for their emotions. That is simply wrong.

You're talking in circles.

Our system of laws and criminal justice punishes people for emotions all the time. Where is your objection to those instances? Do you think that all distinctions that draw on emotions should be erased?

 

[SwimExpert]

much ado about nothing, ethnicity is not race. Jewish is not a race, it may be an ethnicity, but its mostly a religion. Arab is an ethnicity and arabs can be any religion.

In other words, you want to just ignore facts and history so that you can make up whatever reality you choose to imagine.

 

[Redfish]

true, and the emotion of hate can be present in a murder of any degree. Why does that emotion matter?

Why does any emotion matter? The trying and punishing of criminal behavior involves explorations of emotion all the time. A man kills his wife in a fit of rage after walking in on her cheating on him. A woman kills her husband in fear because she mistook him for an intruder. Emotions define many actions as criminal or not criminal, and they define the severity of many crimes. The absence of hate, or other malice, can determine whether an action is manslaughter or murder. It can determine whether an action is child neglect or child abuse. It can determine whether a crime is arson or terrorism.

We can look to the emotions of an actor in those situations, so I see nothing wrong with exploring whether hate toward a given race, religion, gender, etc, is a factor in a crime in order to determine if it warrants a more severe treatment. There is nothing about hate crime legislation that is inconsistent with all of history's treatment of crime and punishment.

emotion matters because hate is an emotion. you want to punish people for their emotions. That is simply wrong.

You're talking in circles.

Our system of laws and criminal justice punishes people for emotions all the time. Where is your objection to those instances? Do you think that all distinctions that draw on emotions should be erased?

bullshit, we punish crimes, not emotions.

 

[Redfish]

much ado about nothing, ethnicity is not race. Jewish is not a race, it may be an ethnicity, but its mostly a religion. Arab is an ethnicity and arabs can be any religion.

In other words, you want to just ignore facts and history so that you can make up whatever reality you choose to imagine.

Do you really think that jewish is a race? If so, I am wasting my time with you.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you really think that jewish is a race? If so, I am wasting my time with you.

Homonym - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, you are wasting your time trying to enforce your ignorance on the educated. Here's a hint for you: I am Jewish, ethnically. I do not practice the Jewish religion.

Your problem is that you think that "Jewish" is one word applied to two groups. The Jewish ethnicity is a separate category from the Jewish religion. Kinda like the Church of England is separate from the English people.

 

[eagle7_31]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?

I agree totally. Our justice system should punish physical crimes, not motives. Race etc. can be a motive in a crime and prosecutors can and should present it as such. But as additional 'politically correct' punishment, no way.

 

[SwimExpert]

I agree totally. Our justice system should punish physical crimes, not motives. Race etc. can be a motive in a crime and prosecutors can and should present it as such.

If motive cannot be punished, it cannot be presented as evidence. In fact, the only way to eliminate the punishment of motives would be to eliminate it as an element of crimes and to restrict the right of a jury trial such that defendants no longer have the right to have a sentence determined by a jury, replacing sentencing practices to simple, specific, statutory dictates.

Self defense would no longer be a defense, as that involves motive. The distinction between first, second, and third degree murder would be erased, because they hinge on motivations. A person who goes to slap a woman in the face, and accidentally hits her breast when she tries to dodge would be guilty of sexual assault, because motive is not a considerable factor.

Congratulations. You've just proposed the least sophisticated justice system since the hunter-gatherer days.

 

[Timmy]

All sex is now rape. Since motive or "what people are thinking " is eliminated .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think we're all getting caught up on semantics here. We all know that some crimes are more heinous than others and so do you mean something a hate crime is just pointing out that the crime is a little more heinous than just a random act of violence. It's a way of adding a few years to somebody's sentence you shouldn't be let out of jail anytime soon

Hate Crimes places greater value on one group of people over another. That's not the way our government is supposed to look at citizens.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes because its a hate crime.

Do shop lifters go to prison like Bernie Madoff?

you are really struggling with this aren't you? shop lifting is a misdemeanor, Madoff committed a felony.

in my question, in both cases you are a murderer and the victim is dead. The crime is the same and should get the same penalty.

In both cases someone's goods/money were stolen. We should treat all theft the same. If not why not?

Another far left fail!

Show why shop lifting should be a felony..

Shop lift a candy bar and it is only a misdemeanor, Now shop lift a Diamond ring and it is a felony.

Here is a great example. This kid murders his father because his dad murdered other people. The kid should have called authorities so its murder. I say let him out in 20.

I would have also let George Zimmerman out after 20 years. That wasn't a hate crime. It was murder though

No, that was self-defense and Zimmerman had the injuries to prove it. Murder is when you make it your objective to kill somebody.

 

[SwimExpert]

Hate Crimes places greater value on one group of people over another. That's not the way our government is supposed to look at citizens.

But they don't. If hate crime legislation applied specifically to crimes against only some races, religions, etc, then what you say would be true. However, that's not the case. As was pointed out much earlier in the thread, the Supreme Court case that found hate crime legislation to be constitutional was a case with a black defendant and a white victim.

Now, I know that you have no objection to laws that make violence against police officers a special category of crime. Such laws are no less guilty of placing "greater value on one group of people over another" than hate crime legislation. In fact, those laws that apply to police officer victims are alot closer to constituting such. Everyone has some type of identifying trait regarding race, religion, or gender (well, for some it's a little confusing, but whatever). But being a police officer is a special category that applies to only a very select few people.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, that was self-defense and Zimmerman had the injuries to prove it. Murder is when you make it your objective to kill somebody.

Which goes into identifying motives, emotions, and thoughts of the accused.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or somebody that believes in our US Constitution where all citizens are supposed be treated equally under the law.

Hate crime legislation does not violate equal protection. If I was subject to prosecution for hate crimes, but you were not, based on the same actions, that would be a violation of equal protection. Or, if I were required to produce a burden of proof in defense of a hate crimes charge, while your own defense required the state to prove a hate crime beyond reasonable doubt, then that would be a violation of equal protection. Hate crime legislation makes it a greater crime to commit a criminal deed because of the victim's race, religion, gender, etc. There are no specifics, so each religion, race, gender, etc is included. It's just as much of a hate crime to assault a person because he is black as it is to do so because he's white. If a white person assaults a white person out of hatred for white people, that's a hate crime too.

If somebody murders another person(s) hate is behind the motive. Who murders somebody without hate being involved, that is with the exception of self-defense?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that was self-defense and Zimmerman had the injuries to prove it. Murder is when you make it your objective to kill somebody.

Which goes into identifying motives, emotions, and thoughts of the accused.

No, it doesn't. If a person is attacked, they are within their legal rights to use deadly force. It doesn't matter what they were thinking at the time.