Hate crime haters

[Xenophon]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

The concept to me is foolish.

A crime is a crime, why is it worse if the motivation was racial?

Either the original act is punishable or it isn't.

 

[garyd]

They are still pointless and stupid, Pyrite. You have variable sentencing already to take such things into account.

 

[Ravi]

There is an old saying by some of narrow mind that when it comes to law, if you didn't do the crime then why worry about the law. You know what they say, no need for me to repeat it. But enter hate crimes and suddenly they take on a different complexion, or are oriented differently - words are such fun. But I'm not going to go there, instead I think this piece summarizes the issue well. This is one time as I look at the screen I am on the right.

Hate crime legislation: Ethics and civil rights concerns

It's reasoning like this:

Protecting a group under hate crimes legislation will make the public aware that the group is vulnerable

That is precisely why the legislation is bad. It will drive wedges and create a perception that some groups are protected while others are not as important. Rightly or wrongly, this mentality will grow up. It is a grossly destabilizing influence in society. So, if your intent is destabilization, rock on....you got a bead on it.

That is a good point, BUT the way the law is written all groups are protected.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not sure I understand your point about terrorism.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

It seems to me this isn't much different in meaning than a hate crime law, though (ii) may be difficult to prove...but it could be difficult to prove in any case.

I see a definition of "domestic terrorism" but I don't see elements of the crime of terrorism. Or, domestic terrorism if that's the charge. Do you have that? I'm not sure what to do with the definition only.

It's from the US Code, I'll look tomorrow.

 

[driveby]

You can tell "hate crimes" are definitely a liberal dem thing.


Protect a pedophile, fuck a veteran ? ........

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3F80r3h7Y"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3F80r3h7Y[/ame]

 

[Immanuel]

I think violent crime should be punished severely. I do not think it should be punished any more or less severely depending on the motivation of the crime. Does it matter to Mr. David Jackson (color not necessary) if the man that beat the hell out of him did it because he was of a different color than the attacker or not?

Immie

 

[JohnStOnge]

The point of the "hate crimes" concept is thought control. That's the problem.

Well, there's another thing: It's also a move to assert Federal jurisdiction where the Constitution doesn't really authorize Federal jurisdiction.

 

[Gunny]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

It's that "hate crime" is exclusive and gives some groups more rights than others. Doesn't matter who the groups are. It's the inequality in justice that does.

 

[xotoxi]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

It does protect white people too.

I'm pretty sure that Reginald Denny would have been a perfect example.

 

[xotoxi]

There is an old saying by some of narrow mind that when it comes to law, if you didn't do the crime then why worry about the law. You know what they say, no need for me to repeat it. But enter hate crimes and suddenly they take on a different complexion, or are oriented differently - words are such fun. But I'm not going to go there, instead I think this piece summarizes the issue well. This is one time as I look at the screen I am on the right.

Hate crime legislation: Ethics and civil rights concerns

Great point.

I imagine the majority of the posters here that hate blacks, gays, and muslims are not planning on going out any killing a bunch of black gay muslims...therefore, they shouldn't have to worry about the law.

 

[Valerie]

The purpose of committing a "hate crime" is to do more than simply cause harm to the person involved, but to create a threatening atmosphere to those who share the characteristic on which the crime is based. So essentially a hate crime is, as has been mentioned, an act of intimidation, threat, and terrorism.

And most of these laws protect a white man from a black woman who wants to harm him for being white, just as much as they protect a black woman from a white man who wants to harm her because she is black.

This is what I was getting at with the church arson example. The crime is arson but the loss is not only a burned down piece of property. The same goes for a temple or a mosque or whatever group of individuals that could be targeted as a group. The intimidation is damaging and measurable, so why shouldn't it count for something?

The other issues are technical and, IMHO, irresolvable if one wishes to maintain some semblance of legal neutrality in the courtroom: How does one set about the task of determining worthiness of the "who", who makes that decision, is it permanent, what specifically should be altered from a legal statute standpoint, and what should those alterations be. Focusing on the "what" avoids this tar pit. And again, I do not think it is even feasible to head down the who road.

The "who" does matter because the crime is not only against the owner of the church, but the intimidation of every other church of it's kind. The prosecution of the crime should be a true reflection of the "what" which would still be blind to the specifics of "who" as long as it is applied equally to all potential target groups. Sort of like "what" and "what else"? Two crimes...A crime within a crime.

 

[Valerie]

U.S. jurisprudence is centered around the crime itself. Sentencing guidelines should be, and largely are, guided by the severity of the crime under the applicable statute(s). Focusing on the who of the crime so to speak, in addition to the crime itself, is redundant, little more than an accommodation to a political cause, and serves no useful purpose to society as a whole when compared in benefit to the current construct.

It just seems to me this is another of those issues where some people have a knee jerk reaction to be adamantly against it, thus successfully creating another wedge issue.

Since it is based on reasoning that already exists within the law -- "Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable" -- Although in some cases it might be redundant, the notion that it is some sort of slippery slope seems rather far fetched.

The central issue in my mind, besides needlessly complicating the application of criminal law, is losing resistance to politicizing (further) the adjudication of criminal cases. If our legal institution, as flawed as it is, comes to be seen by the public as a political arena or one which favors one group over another a priori, we will indeed be headed down the slippery slope of social disorder.

The other issues are technical and, IMHO, irresolvable if one wishes to maintain some semblance of legal neutrality in the courtroom: How does one set about the task of determining worthiness of the "who", who makes that decision, is it permanent, what specifically should be altered from a legal statute standpoint, and what should those alterations be. Focusing on the "what" avoids this tar pit. And again, I do not think it is even feasible to head down the who road.

You make a good point about the dangers of politicizing the legal process, but as long as we don't favor one group over another, I think it makes sense to give prosecutors a vehicle to try the crime within the crime, so to speak.

 

[JBeukema]

it's called 'aggravating factors' .... not a different crime, but a consideration during sentencing

unless you disagree with legal equality?

 

[Nationalismus]

No, there should be no "hate crime" legislation.

People should be free to target anyone they so chose and be subject to the same laws as anyone else.

 

[xotoxi]

No, there should be no "hate crime" legislation.

People should be free to target anyone they so chose and be subject to the same laws as anyone else.

It's important to allow murderers the freedom to choose who they murder.

 

[Nationalismus]

No, there should be no "hate crime" legislation.

People should be free to target anyone they so chose and be subject to the same laws as anyone else.

It's important to allow murderers the freedom to choose who they murder.

If X kills a black guy, it's murder. If X kills a white guy, it's murder.

Let's say he murdered him for racial reasons. OK, he's going to be tried.

Or perhaps he murdered him because he was white and slept with his wife. He's still going to be tried.

Murder is murder, regardless of racial reasons. They should be treated the same way and special laws should not apply just because a person who is a victim of a crime happens to be a particular color. That's the way it should be.

 

[Ravi]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

It does protect white people too.

I'm pretty sure that Reginald Denny would have been a perfect example.

I know it does, you know it does...but the perception is out there that it doesn't for whatever reason. So does the problem lay with the talking heads of the world for pretending it doesn't and aren't they actually trying to cause strife by pretending it doesn't and convincing their listeners that it doesn't?

 

[Immanuel]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

It does protect white people too.

I'm pretty sure that Reginald Denny would have been a perfect example.

Are you sure about that?

Are you certain that those who attacked Reginald Denny were charged with a hate crime?

I don't know either way for sure. I have not looked it up.

Immie

 

[editec]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

Hate crime laws are dangerous to the society because it becomes so easy for those in power to abuse them for political purposes

Basically they create a class of thought crimes.

There ARE hate crimes, and I do understand why hate crime is essantially different and more pathological than those other crimes which it takes to accuse somebody of a hate crime, too.

But the fact is that this hate crime law is enormously dangerous to the commonweal.

Hate crimes laws are a slippery slope that I personally cannot imagine we won't find ourselves sliding down.

I offer no alternative solution to this issue because frankly, I can't think of any way to do so that doesn't make motive THE crime.

 

[Nationalismus]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

Hate crime laws are dangerous to the society because it becomes so easy for those in power to abuse them for political purposes

Basically they create a class of thought crimes.

There ARE hate crimes, and I do understand why hate crime is essantially different and more pathological than those other crimes which it takes to accuse somebody of a hate crime, too.

But the fact is that this hate crime law is enormously dangerous to the commonweal.

Hate crimes laws are a slippery slope that I personally cannot imagine we won't find ourselves sliding down.

I offer no alternative solution to this issue because frankly, I can't think of any way to do so that doesn't make motive THE crime.

"Essantially" is not a word, and "hate crime" is a made-up concept generally used by leftists and morons in another stupid attempt to make society equal.

You are a dummy.