Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[ChrisL]

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.

I have often wondered why killing a cop is worse than killing a random citizen.

Because it shows lack of respect for authority of the government?

I know but I use to think, "are our lives worth less"?

I get it, I'm just saying.

I get why we have hate crimes. It lets American Nazis know they'll be punished to the fullest.

Maybe you'll think twice before beating up a black guy in a mostly white bar just because you don't like blacks.

Maybe you misunderstood, I am against punishing people for "hate."

 

[Centinel]

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?

When examining Congress' enumerated powers, I can find no power that would allow the creation of hate crime laws. Can anyone point to the the relevant text in article I, section 8?

 

[SwimExpert]

No, because if you thought that your life was on the line, and investigations show it wasn't, your thoughts about what you were doing doesn't matter, it's what you did that matters.

That's where the whole "reasonable fear of danger" comes in. So now we've got thoughts and feelings.

But even if I were wrong, you're still admitting that a jury ends up having to explore the thoughts of a defendant.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because you can be thinking "I really want to kill this guy" while at the same time, defending yourself from an attack. It doesn't matter what you were thinking, it matters what you did and evidence to back up your story.

I shot him. So, was it in self defense or was it murder?

Listen, I know you're trying really hard, but you're talking yourself in circles, and everything you're saying comes back to the law searching my thoughts and feelings to identify my intentions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, because if you thought that your life was on the line, and investigations show it wasn't, your thoughts about what you were doing doesn't matter, it's what you did that matters.

That's where the whole "reasonable fear of danger" comes in. So now we've got thoughts and feelings.

But even if I were wrong, you're still admitting that a jury ends up having to explore the thoughts of a defendant.

Sure, if the defendant is using his or her thoughts as defense.

The difference is that what you thought CAUSED you to act a certain way. In hate crimes, race, sexual preference or anything else didn't cause you to do anything. It's what made you want to cause harm or death. It was optional.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because you can be thinking "I really want to kill this guy" while at the same time, defending yourself from an attack. It doesn't matter what you were thinking, it matters what you did and evidence to back up your story.

I shot him. So, was it in self defense or was it murder?

Again, it's all based on what you tell police and what their investigation into the death reveals.

You can say you thought you were defending yourself, but if they see the body fell a certain way, or the angle of the bullet was not consistent with an attack, or even a video if it's outside, it doesn't matter what you thought, you committed a murder.

The police don't determine that you committed murder, but let you go because of what you thought.

 

[Tilly]

should they be charged with a hate crime since the victim was white? or just first degree murder which carries the death penalty in MS? Should the state kill him twice? burn him to death? What exactly do you want done to hate crime perpatrators?

To make sure they don't get out early. We all see the justice system is messed up. Rapists and killers get out and repeat offend. With hate crimes you assure someone will never get out.

A perfect example is that white kid who shot up that black church. I could see in the past a guy like that may be getting out after 20 or so years for good behavior. Maybe with a hate crime law slapped on him that I was sure he never ever gets out.

Why do you have a problem slapping a hate crime law on someone?

So you far left drones do not believe people can change!

Another example why the far left should not be in charge of anything!

If you commit a hate crime I don't care if you've changed. Oh fuck off stupid. Obama should let every murderer off based on your position.

See the far left just want hate crimes to label someone and actually not really do anything!

Another far left religious narrative shot down!

Then why do you care?

The purpose of hate crimes is to deter people from commuting them. Stop preying on old black gay Jews.

Does it work?

 

[jillian]

Holy fuck.
It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Huh? All three were acts, not thoughts. Are you on LSD?

Sounds as though he'd like laws against thoughts.

no laws against actually hating someone... laws against acting on that hate.

 

[sealybobo]

We have hate crime laws to deal with people who commit them. If it's found you beat him up because he's black Jewish or gay you'll be in big trouble.

Yes the protected classes of the far left and they want to punish anyone that dares to speak out against them as a "hate crime"..

Yes we know the far left hates freedom of speech!

I think you should be able to use the N word. Just don't touch them.

 

[MaryL]

Give me a break. There is good hate, and bad love. Love crimes? Keep it simple. Hate crime? Based on what standard? Contrived non sense. I ask you people: is Good or bad based on popularity? Or is there a standard apart? And what standard IS the supreme one , the guiding light? I am lost here.

 

[sealybobo]

To make sure they don't get out early. We all see the justice system is messed up. Rapists and killers get out and repeat offend. With hate crimes you assure someone will never get out.

A perfect example is that white kid who shot up that black church. I could see in the past a guy like that may be getting out after 20 or so years for good behavior. Maybe with a hate crime law slapped on him that I was sure he never ever gets out.

Why do you have a problem slapping a hate crime law on someone?

So you far left drones do not believe people can change!

Another example why the far left should not be in charge of anything!

If you commit a hate crime I don't care if you've changed. Oh fuck off stupid. Obama should let every murderer off based on your position.

See the far left just want hate crimes to label someone and actually not really do anything!

Another far left religious narrative shot down!

Then why do you care?

The purpose of hate crimes is to deter people from commuting them. Stop preying on old black gay Jews.

Does it work?

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

 

[sealybobo]

Give me a break. There is good hate, and bad love. Love crimes? Keep it simple. Hate crime? Based on what standard? Contrived non sense. I ask you people: is Good or bad based on popularity? Or is there a standard apart? And what standard IS the supreme one , the guiding light? I am lost here.

So are we after reading your post

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you far left drones do not believe people can change!

Another example why the far left should not be in charge of anything!

If you commit a hate crime I don't care if you've changed. Oh fuck off stupid. Obama should let every murderer off based on your position.

See the far left just want hate crimes to label someone and actually not really do anything!

Another far left religious narrative shot down!

Then why do you care?

The purpose of hate crimes is to deter people from commuting them. Stop preying on old black gay Jews.

Does it work?

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Well if that's the purpose, then why not do that for all citizens?

Your claim here is that harsher sentences are for added protection. Okay, there we can agree. But why only added protection for victims of crime based on race or sexual preference?

 

[Care4all]

Fair? Like the rich kid who killed 4 and got probation for affluenza? Then violated probation and went to Mexico and still won't do serious time

Or Hillary Clinton violating federal classified data protection laws and getting away with it. No one should be above the law-----------------including your beloved Clintons.

Ovey!

Regurgitating bull crud again I see.....

She broke no law.

actually she did. Patreaus was found guilty of basically the same thing on a smaller scale.

Patreus was found guilty of sharing classified information with his biographer. Who he was also fucking.

At issue are "black books" — eight notebooks in which Petraeus kept highly classified information that the government says included "the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant David Howell Petraeus's discussions with the President of the United States of America."

Petraeus Sentenced To 2 Years' Probation, Fine For Sharing Classified Info

The emails were merely evidence of the above.

Again, which has nothing to do with this thread.

disclosure of classified data is a crime, the circumstances of the disclosure don't lessen the crime.

will HRC be prosecuted? probably not, we all know that the Clintons are special people who are above the law.

CORRECTION: Delivering of known SECRET and TOP SECRET classified info to someone without clearance is against the law.

only SECRET and TOP SECRET Classified material contains National security secrets...

 

[Tilly]

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Huh? All three were acts, not thoughts. Are you on LSD?

Sounds as though he'd like laws against thoughts.

no laws against actually hating someone... laws against acting on that hate.

Unless you're psychic or a person admits to it, you often can't prove someone acted on hate, yet endless time and money is spent on attempting just that. It's stupid and it isn't what justice should be about.

 

[Tilly]

So you far left drones do not believe people can change!

Another example why the far left should not be in charge of anything!

If you commit a hate crime I don't care if you've changed. Oh fuck off stupid. Obama should let every murderer off based on your position.

See the far left just want hate crimes to label someone and actually not really do anything!

Another far left religious narrative shot down!

Then why do you care?

The purpose of hate crimes is to deter people from commuting them. Stop preying on old black gay Jews.

Does it work?

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

 

[jillian]

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Huh? All three were acts, not thoughts. Are you on LSD?

Sounds as though he'd like laws against thoughts.

no laws against actually hating someone... laws against acting on that hate.

Unless you're psychic or a person admits to it, you can't prove someone acted on hate, yet endless time and money is spent on attempting just that. It's stupid and it isn't what justice should be about.

uh... they go by the WORDS you use when you're committing the attack. i know that doesn't begin to get all of the hate crimes but it's what they use as a threshold.

i hope that helps.

 

[MaryL]

Hate crimes are just pretenses. Hysterical pretenses, like the Salem witch trials . People didn't need proof. Allegations and popular opinion, can you POOVE someone is a "racist" any more than you can they are a witch? Really? You have PROOF? DO IT! Prove it. Just alleging, not enough. Besides, people that commit any statutory crime have to fulfill their punishment period. Whatever makes a hate crime, is so arbitrary as to be superfluous .Unneeded and phony, for you illiterates.

 

[sealybobo]

If you commit a hate crime I don't care if you've changed. Oh fuck off stupid. Obama should let every murderer off based on your position.

See the far left just want hate crimes to label someone and actually not really do anything!

Another far left religious narrative shot down!

Then why do you care?

The purpose of hate crimes is to deter people from commuting them. Stop preying on old black gay Jews.

Does it work?

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Well if that's the purpose, then why not do that for all citizens?

Your claim here is that harsher sentences are for added protection. Okay, there we can agree. But why only added protection for victims of crime based on race or sexual preference?

Because those protections are there to solve a societal problem we are having.

It's a deterant. Social engineering. A lot of ignorant folk out there. Why you want to defend their ignorance?

Who you trying to protect?

 

[sealybobo]

Hate crimes are just pretenses. Hysterical pretenses, like the Salem witch trials . People didn't need proof. Allegations and popular opinion, can you POOVE someone is a "racist" any more than you can they are a witch? Really? You have PROOF? DO IT! Prove it. Just alleging, not enough. Besides, people that commit any statutory crime have to fulfill their punishment period. Whatever makes a hate crime, is so arbitrary as to be superfluous .Unneeded and phony, for you illiterates.

You can see what they download and say on Facebook so one day if you find out they beat up a black or gay, hate crime.

Why defend so.eone who has committed a hate crime? We still have to prove it was a hate crime. But if a jury agrees, why not add 5 years for hate crimes? Stop committing them.

And I hope they don't charge someone for one just for using the N word.