Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.

That's easy: potential Democrat voters.

 

[ChrisL]

The government gets to pick and choose what it is going to consider "Hate crimes." A lot of it is federal legislation. I don't like it at all. It is wrong to try to punish people MORE because of what they MAY have been thinking at the time of a murder. It is ridiculous considering you cannot read someone's mind. It's going to be nothing but "circumstantial" evidence that can never really be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems we have in this country is treating everybody differently. Thanks to liberals who divide people into groups, and then pick who they like and who they hate, this problem will never find a resolution, therefore we will always be a divided country.

If you are rich, you should be taxed at a higher rate than those Democrats who work manual labor jobs.

If you smoke cigarettes, you should pay extreme taxes to deter you from smoking, but keep pushing to make pot legal in more states.

If you commit murder, it's inhuman to take the life of the murderer, but it's okay to take the life of unborn babies.

Big evil corporations should not be able to make political contributions, but unions and trial lawyers should be able to make as many as they desire.

If you kill a person because they belong to certain favored Democrat groups, you should get a more stringent penalty for that murder than if you murder somebody else's mother because she had money.

I get so sick of this liberal favoritism that I think Democrats would drive off of a cliff if we decided to treat everybody the exact same way regardless who they are.

 

[SwimExpert]

Examining motive in a crime arose because if there is scant evidence, finding a motive could point investigators in the right direction and help solve the crime. That's as far as it should go.

Erm, no. Establishing motive is a necessary element of the crime which must be demonstrated in order to meet the state's burden of proof.

 

[SwimExpert]

Maybe, but that's what we have judges for; to determine the sincerity of the accused.

Thank you for admitting that our court system explores the hearts and minds of perpetrators.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe, but that's what we have judges for; to determine the sincerity of the accused.

Thank you for admitting that our court system explores the hearts and minds of perpetrators.

Yes they do, but our legislatures should not.

 

[jillian]

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.

That's easy: potential Democrat voters.

i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.

That's easy: potential Democrat voters.

i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.

Really? Then why are most of our prisons full of Democrats?

Now when you find some credible evidence that Republicans are those who commit the most hate crimes, do get back to us, won't you?

 

[Tilly]

Examining motive in a crime arose because if there is scant evidence, finding a motive could point investigators in the right direction and help solve the crime. That's as far as it should go.

Erm, no. Establishing motive is a necessary element of the crime which must be demonstrated in order to meet the state's burden of proof.

What I said - without sounding like a pompous ass. Lol.

 

[Tilly]

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.

That's easy: potential Democrat voters.

i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.

'Generally' the 'potential' right wing voters? What's a 'potential' right wing voter and why are you assigning crimes to people based on their 'potential' voting intentions? Is this another example of libtardy ESP?

 

[SwimExpert]

Examining motive in a crime arose because if there is scant evidence, finding a motive could point investigators in the right direction and help solve the crime. That's as far as it should go.

Erm, no. Establishing motive is a necessary element of the crime which must be demonstrated in order to meet the state's burden of proof.

What I said - without sounding like a pompous ass. Lol.

You're partially correct. You just sound like a dumb ass.

 

[SwimExpert]

Maybe, but that's what we have judges for; to determine the sincerity of the accused.

Thank you for admitting that our court system explores the hearts and minds of perpetrators.

Yes they do, but our legislatures should not.

So you want to strip murder statutes of phrases like "malice aforethought" or "deliberately with intent to cause harm"?

 

[Tilly]

Examining motive in a crime arose because if there is scant evidence, finding a motive could point investigators in the right direction and help solve the crime. That's as far as it should go.

Erm, no. Establishing motive is a necessary element of the crime which must be demonstrated in order to meet the state's burden of proof.

What I said - without sounding like a pompous ass. Lol.

You're partially correct. You just sound like a dumb ass.

Oh well. Better than actually being one

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

Why does it matter if I plan out my attack on a gay or black? What if I just run into one and spontaneously kill them because I hate gays or blacks?

 

[sealybobo]

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

I'm still interested to see evidence that hate being made a crime has acted as an effective deterrent.

Do you have the internet? Look it up.

I haven't heard any hate crimes happening lately.

Last one was a gang of black detroiters beat up a black gay who was going to a gay pride event in the summer

With all due respect, Sealybobo, you are claiming the addition of an extra crime called 'hate' has acted as a deterrent. I'm just asking you to prove it because I suspect that is untrue.

Nope

No what? Put your money where your mouth is. It's a most important element in this discussion.

Same way its a given Isis is using trump to recruit. You don't need proof.

 

[sealybobo]

Things that should be considered more important are whether or not the murder was premeditated

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?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

Once the court and government get involved with labeling citizens as "racists" or "homophobes" then we have issues. That is NOT the role of the government. Punish the crime, not the thought behind it.

The law can charge or "label" someone a hater its the jury's job to decide if it's true.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's say you are carjacked and murdered for your car. The penalty is whatever it it. Doesn't matter. Not the point. Point is that's not a hate crime. I get your point but if a white racist shoots up a black church, that's a hate crime.

Not all murders are equal. Circumstances matter.

So Ray is worth less.
Nah.

You aren't worth less. It's about the two different murderers. Them not you

It is about everyone involved. Victims family members are most certainly considered during trial and sentencing. That is why there are victim impact statements. Anyway, if a woman was murdered because some guy wanted to rape her, and a black man was murdered because he was black. Why is one deserving of a more harsh sentence than the other, under the "hate crime" legislation?

Who said more? I think that rapist murderer should never see freedom again or should be executed. He's just not guilty of a hate crime.

Really? Maybe he 'hates' women? Or maybe he has an all consuming hatred of short women? Or fat women? Or tall women? Or women of a certain age? Or women with blonde hair? Or women with blue eyes? ....

Do we have a problem in our society where women need hate crime protection? Ok

 

[sealybobo]

The government gets to pick and choose what it is going to consider "Hate crimes." A lot of it is federal legislation. I don't like it at all. It is wrong to try to punish people MORE because of what they MAY have been thinking at the time of a murder. It is ridiculous considering you cannot read someone's mind. It's going to be nothing but "circumstantial" evidence that can never really be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

If I have a swastica tatoo and I kill a black is there really any doubt?

That couple in San Bernardino. How do you KNOW they were terrorists? How can you know what they were thinking?

How about the Boston bombers? They weren't terrorists! How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they were terrorists? It's not the governments job. Just convict him of pre meditated murder and move on. You can never know what was in his heart or mind.

 

[sealybobo]

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.

That's easy: potential Democrat voters.

i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.

If it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.

Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.

And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.

That's easy: potential Democrat voters.

i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.

If it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.

Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.

And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.

That's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.

And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.