Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[George Costanza]

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 am of the opinion that those who are opposed to hate crimes are racists who are trying to avoid the consequences of racist violence, either for themselves or for others who commit acts of racial violence.

Hate crime laws are racially biased? Yes, I suppose they are biased - against racists. Next question?

You see, hate crime laws operate on the premise that an assault committed for racial reasons is worse than an assault committed for non-racial reasons. I think only a racist would have a problem with that.

 

[George Costanza]

Using an asinine example, what is the difference between a guy who blows up a Taco Bell because he hates Tacos, and a guy who blows up a Taco bell because he hates mexicans?

If you can ask a question like that, then you obviously do not understand racism.

 

[Seawytch]

I would just elevate the punishment for all crimes, and make calling said crime a hate crime moot.

Murder is murder.

You are wrong . Motive is the base of almost all our crimes .

Murder is not murder . There's different degrees, and even justifiable homicide .

If you shoot a robber in your house , you get the death penalty ?? After all you murdered him.

How about drink driving death? Death penalty !?

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

 

[Timmy]

I would just elevate the punishment for all crimes, and make calling said crime a hate crime moot.

Murder is murder.

You are wrong . Motive is the base of almost all our crimes .

Murder is not murder . There's different degrees, and even justifiable homicide .

If you shoot a robber in your house , you get the death penalty ?? After all you murdered him.

How about drink driving death? Death penalty !?

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Hell, let's just dump pedophile laws . Sex is sex right ? And while we are at it, no such thing as rape! Sex is sex !

 

[Iceweasel]

I am of the opinion that those who are opposed to hate crimes are racists wh

Didn't make it past that. Opinions from airheads aren't worth reading.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Wrong. Cop killing is an attack on the law enforcement system. They are doing their jobs and killing them puts undo pressure on the whole system. It has zip to do with hate.

 

[Iceweasel]

You see, hate crime laws operate on the premise that an assault committed for racial reasons is worse than an assault committed for non-racial reasons. I think only a racist would have a problem with that.

I think you have a problem with thinking so you project your shortcomings onto others and hope no one notices.

 

[Rustic]

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 am of the opinion that those who are opposed to hate crimes are racists who are trying to avoid the consequences of racist violence, either for themselves or for others who commit acts of racial violence.

Hate crime laws are racially biased? Yes, I suppose they are biased - against racists. Next question?

You see, hate crime laws operate on the premise that an assault committed for racial reasons is worse than an assault committed for non-racial reasons. I think only a racist would have a problem with that.

The problem is so-called hate crimes in this country are under the full authority of political correctness. Meaning they change from situation to situation, under the guise of selective outrage.

 

[Rustic]

I would just elevate the punishment for all crimes, and make calling said crime a hate crime moot.

Murder is murder.

You are wrong . Motive is the base of almost all our crimes .

Murder is not murder . There's different degrees, and even justifiable homicide .

If you shoot a robber in your house , you get the death penalty ?? After all you murdered him.

How about drink driving death? Death penalty !?

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Hell, let's just dump pedophile laws . Sex is sex right ? And while we are at it, no such thing as rape! Sex is sex !

Bill Clinton would love that

 

[sealybobo]

I would just elevate the punishment for all crimes, and make calling said crime a hate crime moot.

Murder is murder.

You are wrong . Motive is the base of almost all our crimes .

Murder is not murder . There's different degrees, and even justifiable homicide .

If you shoot a robber in your house , you get the death penalty ?? After all you murdered him.

How about drink driving death? Death penalty !?

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Or seniors. We have special penalties for people who prey on old people. Anyone not understand why we do that?

 

[Iceweasel]

Or seniors. We have special penalties for people who prey on old people. Anyone not understand why we do that?

What's the connection? Are you talking about ageists?

 

[Seawytch]

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Wrong. Cop killing is an attack on the law enforcement system. They are doing their jobs and killing them puts undo pressure on the whole system. It has zip to do with hate.

It's additional penalties based on the nature of the crime. Murder is murder, right?

People who commit hate crimes are not attacking the individual, their intent is to terrorize that minority group and they get additional penalties as a result.

Either you support additional penalties based on the nature of the crime or you don't.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Wrong. Cop killing is an attack on the law enforcement system. They are doing their jobs and killing them puts undo pressure on the whole system. It has zip to do with hate.

It's additional penalties based on the nature of the crime. Murder is murder, right?

People who commit hate crimes are not attacking the individual, their intent is to terrorize that minority group and they get additional penalties as a result.

Either you support additional penalties based on the nature of the crime or you don't.

I made it clear I don't. You're assuming the mind of another though, which is my point. If a guy hates Jews and beats up a Jew he isn't necessarily seeking to intimidate the race.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Wrong. Cop killing is an attack on the law enforcement system. They are doing their jobs and killing them puts undo pressure on the whole system. It has zip to do with hate.

It's additional penalties based on the nature of the crime. Murder is murder, right?

People who commit hate crimes are not attacking the individual, their intent is to terrorize that minority group and they get additional penalties as a result.

Either you support additional penalties based on the nature of the crime or you don't.

I certainly don't. If somebody murders a member of my family, what difference does it make why he did it? My family member is still gone and I want the attacker to be tortured as much as possible and put to death as quickly as possible.

Hate crimes are nothing more than additional punishment for those attacking likely Democrat voters (gays, minorities, women......)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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 am of the opinion that those who are opposed to hate crimes are racists who are trying to avoid the consequences of racist violence, either for themselves or for others who commit acts of racial violence.

Hate crime laws are racially biased? Yes, I suppose they are biased - against racists. Next question?

You see, hate crime laws operate on the premise that an assault committed for racial reasons is worse than an assault committed for non-racial reasons. I think only a racist would have a problem with that.

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

 

[sealybobo]

Or seniors. We have special penalties for people who prey on old people. Anyone not understand why we do that?

What's the connection? Are you talking about ageists?

Why treat seniors different? Why is it a harsher sentence if someone mugs a senior? Probably because you're a sick prick if you are purposely preying on old people.

Same if you purposely target minorities because they are minorities.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or seniors. We have special penalties for people who prey on old people. Anyone not understand why we do that?

What's the connection? Are you talking about ageists?

Why treat seniors different? Why is it a harsher sentence if someone mugs a senior? Probably because you're a sick prick if you are purposely preying on old people.

Same if you purposely target minorities because they are minorities.

Having different penalties for different victims places value on them. We shouldn't be pricing people. A minority or gay can defend themselves from an attacker. They may not win, but they can give them a hell of a fight. Not so for Senior citizens or children. They are virtually defenseless and can't protect themselves.

As far as I know, there are no separate penalties for attacking Senior Citizens, but I'm sure most judges who have elderly parents or grandparents of their own take such attacks on the defenseless personally and dish out harsher sentences.

 

[Iceweasel]

Or seniors. We have special penalties for people who prey on old people. Anyone not understand why we do that?

What's the connection? Are you talking about ageists?

Why treat seniors different? Why is it a harsher sentence if someone mugs a senior? Probably because you're a sick prick if you are purposely preying on old people.

Same if you purposely target minorities because they are minorities.

It couldn't be because the elderly or children or handicapped can't fight back?

 

[Timmy]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

 

[Redfish]

Hate crime legislation is an attempt to punish thoughts. It is unconstitutional and very dangerous to a free society.

If someone kills you because of your race or kills you to steal your money, the crime is murder, it doesn't matter what the criminal was thinking when he committed the crime.