Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I'm unaware of any special punishment for those that attack or kill a police officer. That doesn't mean the judge won't throw the book at the subject; chances are he or she will.

If somebody kills me because I'm a big tall guy, and somebody kills another person because they are black, what you're saying is that it's proper to place a lower value on my life over the black person. Where is the equity in that?

 

[ChrisL]

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

That is just really dumb. However, it brings me to something I've asked before, why isn't rape a hate crime?

 

[ChrisL]

Okay, what if you are in a bar fight, and you are angry and while fighting with this other person, you yell out some "slurs." Perhaps the person you are fighting with is a black person or a gay person . . . . That does not necessarily mean that you HATE black people or gay people generally speaking. You hate this particular black or gay person perhaps, and you are trying to lash out at this person and hurt him or her by calling this person derogatory names (which we see happening all the time around on this forum). This is where enforcing laws based on what a person is "feeling" or "thinking" is just not right. Your actions or words can totally be misinterpreted to mean something that you didn't intend, only because you were angry. So, you kick this person's butt and get charged with a "hate crime" because you may have used a racial or gender type slur or cuss while angry at this particular person.

 

[Kosh]

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.

No Jewish is not being a "race", but then again many Jews are atheists..

Just like people being born in a Christian home, that means now being Christian is being a race and being a Muslim is being a race..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, what if you are in a bar fight, and you are angry and while fighting with this other person, you yell out some "slurs." Perhaps the person you are fighting with is a black person or a gay person . . . . That does not necessarily mean that you HATE black people or gay people generally speaking. You hate this particular black or gay person perhaps, and you are trying to lash out at this person and hurt him or her by calling this person derogatory names (which we see happening all the time around on this forum). This is where enforcing laws based on what a person is "feeling" or "thinking" is just not right. Your actions or words can totally be misinterpreted to mean something that you didn't intend, only because you were angry. So, you kick this person's butt and get charged with a "hate crime" because you may have used a racial or gender type slur or cuss while angry at this particular person.

Or maybe the black guy had some friends that falsely stated the white guy used racial slurs in the battle.

 

[SwimExpert]

This thread in a nutshell:

Crimes are actions. However, defining an action is done by an analysis of multiple things, and people tend to disagree on the criteria. In this thread most people are merely debating age old philosophical questions, and are coming up with relatively simplistic answers. Many people are attempting to employ a one dimensional approach, or a limited multi dimensional approach, seemingly in hopes of achieving a nearly mathematical formula that produces definitive results. They seem to think that doing so will simply the question, but in reality they are complicating the results when their limited approach is held against the full diversity of human behavior and timeless social practices. Ultimately, the greatest failing is to attempt to pursue a definitive model that would allege to yield easy results that don't require thoughtfulness and leave no room or need for interpretation. Instead, actions should be defined with a robust analysis taking into account as many approaches as possible, and leaving ample room for flexibility as may be appropriate to a particular situation. While society may not always find perfect agreement with how to treat the criminality of every action, the best solution is for an informed and educated society to democratically make the decision together.

One school of thought is that actions can be defined based on the outcome. In this thread this the 'murder is murder' school of thought. If the outcome is someone dying, then the action is murder. Also known as consequentialism.

Another school of thought is that actions can be defined based on the intentions of the actor. This thread sees this expressed as the 'motives' school of thought. Also known as deontological ethics.

Another school of thought is that actions can be defined based on how well the serve the well being of society. In this thread this is expressed as the 'crimes against police officer/self defense' school of thought. This is known as utilitarianism.

There are some light elements of other forms of ethical study that can also be found, but from my reading these are the main points that are present. The most important lesson to be had in all of this is that no one method of evaluation is sufficient to define the value of an action; each of these methods when taken alone can and have yielded terrible results in the course of human history. We should consider all of these when weighing determining the how a criminal action should be treated. Most importantly, we should value living in a society that will not be limited to singular modes of ethical evaluation.

 

[Redfish]

summary. Liberals want the government to be the thought police, and to punish anyone who does not practice approved thinking.

 

[ChrisL]

If you want to charge someone with "terrorism" then do that. "Hate crime" legislation is stupid and useless. It clogs up our system, and we already have appropriate punishments when it comes to murder, 1st degree, 2nd degree and manslaughter.

You cannot punish people for "hating." I am not in support of the government doling out extra punishment for "hate."

 

[SwimExpert]

Or maybe the black guy had some friends that falsely stated the white guy used racial slurs in the battle.

That comes down to questions of sufficiency of evidence and due process of law. In order to be consistent with due process, those facts that elevate the crime to a hate crime must be able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. As long as due process is in place, the potential for a dishonest witness to lend evidence to a hate crimes conviction is no greater a travesty than the potential for a wrongfully convicted person being executed for murder.

Which leads to a point I made earlier in this thread, which is that our laws and our system are not perfect, and never will be. That they are not perfect does not invalidate the appropriateness of doing the best we can.

 

[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.

No Jewish is not being a "race", but then again many Jews are atheists..

Just like people being born in a Christian home, that means now being Christian is being a race and being a Muslim is being a race..

*yawn*

I already explained it. If you can't understand the difference between a religion and an ethnicity that happen to have homonym names, then you should wait until next year to comment, after you've had the chance to complete the first grade.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No Jewish is not being a "race", but then again many Jews are atheists..

Just like people being born in a Christian home, that means now being Christian is being a race and being a Muslim is being a race..

*yawn*

I already explained it. If you can't understand the difference between a religion and an ethnicity that happen to have homonym names, then you should wait until next year to comment, after you've had the chance to complete the first grade.

It's not an ethnicity. If it was an "ethnicity" then people could not CONVERT to Judaism.

 

[Kosh]

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.

No Jewish is not being a "race", but then again many Jews are atheists..

Just like people being born in a Christian home, that means now being Christian is being a race and being a Muslim is being a race..

*yawn*

I already explained it. If you can't understand the difference between a religion and an ethnicity that happen to have homonym names, then you should wait until next year to comment, after you've had the chance to complete the first grade.

No you didn't you just showed that a religion is a race..

You used a horrid example, but the truth being "Jewish" is being a part of religion, even you choose not to practice it.

You can not be Asian and then choose not be Asian, it does not work like that!

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm unaware of any special punishment for those that attack or kill a police officer. That doesn't mean the judge won't throw the book at the subject; chances are he or she will.

Oh, come the fuck on. Aren't you a cop? In most states assaulting a police office is a more serious crime than regular assault. For example, in Texas it is a third degree felony whereas assault would be a misdemeanor.

If somebody kills me because I'm a big tall guy, and somebody kills another person because they are black, what you're saying is that it's proper to place a lower value on my life over the black person. Where is the equity in that?

Nobody has said that, and you have to be deliberately dishonest to extrapolate that. Hate crimes do not automatically attach to a crime based on the race of a victim. Hate crimes apply when the motivation for the crime was hatred of a particular group based on race, religion, etc.

Once again, I point you to the fact that the Supreme Court case that found hate crime legislation to be constitutional involved a white victim.

 

[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.

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.

False!

Tell you what, I'll give you a shot at this. Ray, I'd like to hire you as my lawyer. Let me tell you what happened:

This guy named Larry broke into my house. When he saw me swung his crowbar at me and hit me in the arm. I happened to have my pistol on me, so I quickly ducked around the dining room table and pointed it straight at him. That seemed to turn the tides. All of a sudden Larry froze and became afraid. He dropped the crowbar and begged me not to shoot, saying that he had been on hard times and was trying to make money to support his family. "Please don't kill me, I'll leave right now. Or call the police if you want and they can arrest me. Just please don't kill me." I told Larry to leave, and he slowly backed up in compliance toward the open door. Just before he got to the door I told him to stop, which he did. And just for shits and giggles, I shot him five times in the chest, killing him.

Here's your challenge Ray....without invoking what my motivations, thoughts, or emotions may have been, make the case for whether or not this was self defense. Prove that I either shot him in cold blood, or that I was defending myself.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

False!

Tell you what, I'll give you a shot at this. Ray, I'd like to hire you as my lawyer. Let me tell you what happened:

This guy named Larry broke into my house. When he saw me swung his crowbar at me and hit me in the arm. I happened to have my pistol on me, so I quickly ducked around the dining room table and pointed it straight at him. That seemed to turn the tides. All of a sudden Larry froze and became afraid. He dropped the crowbar and begged me not to shoot, saying that he had been on hard times and was trying to make money to support his family. "Please don't kill me, I'll leave right now. Or call the police if you want and they can arrest me. Just please don't kill me." I told Larry to leave, and he slowly backed up in compliance toward the open door. Just before he got to the door I told him to stop, which he did. And just for shits and giggles, I shot him five times in the chest, killing him.

Here's your challenge Ray....without invoking what my motivations, thoughts, or emotions may have been, make the case for whether or not this was self defense. Prove that I either shot him in cold blood, or that I was defending myself.

Too fucking bad. Don't break into people's homes and you won't die. If someone breaks into your home, there you go.

 

[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.

That's an appeal to what the perpetrator is thinking.

 

[SwimExpert]

No you didn't you just showed that a religion is a race.

No, I showed that there is a Jewish religion, and a Jewish ethnicity, and that one existing does not preclude the other also existing separately, even if deeply intertwined.

 

[Timmy]

Okay, what if you are in a bar fight, and you are angry and while fighting with this other person, you yell out some "slurs." Perhaps the person you are fighting with is a black person or a gay person . . . . That does not necessarily mean that you HATE black people or gay people generally speaking. You hate this particular black or gay person perhaps, and you are trying to lash out at this person and hurt him or her by calling this person derogatory names (which we see happening all the time around on this forum). This is where enforcing laws based on what a person is "feeling" or "thinking" is just not right. Your actions or words can totally be misinterpreted to mean something that you didn't intend, only because you were angry. So, you kick this person's butt and get charged with a "hate crime" because you may have used a racial or gender type slur or cuss while angry at this particular person.

You realize that using slurs doesn't make it a hate crime .

 

[Kosh]

No you didn't you just showed that a religion is a race.

No, I showed that there is a Jewish religion, and a Jewish ethnicity, and that one existing does not preclude the other also existing separately, even if deeply intertwined.

Exactly there is no such in reality, but many will believe it!

Just like if you live in the hood right? You can take the person out of the hood,m but you can not take the hood out of the person!

So now living in the hood is be a race or in this case an ethnicity..

That argument was bunk before you started it!

 

[Kosh]

Okay, what if you are in a bar fight, and you are angry and while fighting with this other person, you yell out some "slurs." Perhaps the person you are fighting with is a black person or a gay person . . . . That does not necessarily mean that you HATE black people or gay people generally speaking. You hate this particular black or gay person perhaps, and you are trying to lash out at this person and hurt him or her by calling this person derogatory names (which we see happening all the time around on this forum). This is where enforcing laws based on what a person is "feeling" or "thinking" is just not right. Your actions or words can totally be misinterpreted to mean something that you didn't intend, only because you were angry. So, you kick this person's butt and get charged with a "hate crime" because you may have used a racial or gender type slur or cuss while angry at this particular person.

You realize that using slurs doesn't make it a hate crime .

According to you far left drones, it does!