Hate Crime

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree. A school is set on fire. The community has a large population of Roma. It's not a simple arson. The school is covered anti-roma graffiti, "Get out Roma'. The perpetrators are caught. They admit they lit the fire to "cleanse" the aliens from their community.

It is not simple arson. It is motivated by hate, and it's purpose is to terrify a specific class of people.

Or, just as alternative, some young Roma decides he does not like being forced to go to school, so he burns the school to the ground and uses anti Roma graffiti to misdirect the police. The community, outraged by the hate crime, urge the police to protect the Roma and find the people responsible. They find a couple of kids who are getting off on the recognition, and confess to the crime. Innocent people in jail because somebody thinks a crime of hate is somehow different than a crime of anger, love, or even outright lunacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's not the same. On September 13, 2001, a man took a couple of gallons of gas to a mosque and burned it down to protest 9/11. No one at the Seattle mosque had anything to do with the terrorism on the East coast. This is an example of a hate crime.

This is NOT a simple arson.

Theo Van Gogh, made films critical of Islam. He was murdered by a Muslim because of his beliefs. This is a hate crime. It sends a message to an entire group. Terrorism is hate crime.

A Jewish cemetery is vandalized in Portland, Oregon. "Die Jew" and swastikas are painted on the cemetery gates. This is NOT simple vandalism.

Actually, under the law, one of those is not a hate crime.

In order for it to be a hate crime the motivation has to be directed against a person because of what he is. Theo van Gough was killed because the person who killed him was a Muslim. If we actually apply your logic properly that man should get a lessor sentence because he was defending himself from a hate crime because van Gough attacked Muslims.

 

[tonystewart1]

No, it's not the same. On September 13, 2001, a man took a couple of gallons of gas to a mosque and burned it down to protest 9/11. No one at the Seattle mosque had anything to do with the terrorism on the East coast. This is an example of a hate crime.

This is NOT a simple arson.

Theo Van Gogh, made films critical of Islam. He was murdered by a Muslim because of his beliefs. This is a hate crime. It sends a message to an entire group. Terrorism is hate crime.

A Jewish cemetery is vandalized in Portland, Oregon. "Die Jew" and swastikas are painted on the cemetery gates. This is NOT simple vandalism.

Actually, under the law, one of those is not a hate crime.

In order for it to be a hate crime the motivation has to be directed against a person because of what he is. Theo van Gough was killed because the person who killed him was a Muslim. If we actually apply your logic properly that man should get a lessor sentence because he was defending himself from a hate crime because van Gough attacked Muslims.

Your wasting your time she does not think logically.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am completely supportive of hate crime law. You're not going to change my mind…

Nor should you change your mind, as your position comports to Constitutional case law. Consequently you’re not compelled to defend your position.

Note also that Mitchell was unanimous – all nine justices agreed that hate crime legislation and sentencing were appropriate, that includes the likes of Scalia and Thomas; the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist – you can’t get any more conservative than those three.

 

[hortysir]

The murder of Mulugeta Seraw was one of the most shocking crimes in Portland history. In response, hundreds of people turned out for rallies against racism.

I have provided example, after example, after example of hate crime and still, you folks deny it exists, and that the law is needed.

The three skinheads who murdered Seraw have all been released from prison.

No one denies that hate exists. What we disagree with is that it should be a factor in sentencing. All victims deserve the same justice.

Get this: you are not special. A crime against you is no more and no less than a crime against me.

Again, laws based on emotion are never good laws.

Reminds me of Orwell's Thought Police

 

[Againsheila]

I will tell you what I think you guys can't stand. This uppity woman holding tall for hate crime law against ALL of you single handedly. That's right. This lesbian feminist woman doesn't know her place.

Yeah, that's why we disagree with you

 

[syrenn]

It's a stupid, irrational law.

Example:

Thug beats up some guy gets 2 years in prison

Thug beats up some gay guy gets 2 years + whatever for a 'hate' crime.

Is either victim less beaten up? No.

Is either victims 'special'? No.

The law is ridiculous and panders to 'special interest' groups. I disapprove of any pandering to any group.

I agree....

crime is crime...period. Motivation does not change the degree of the crime committed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am completely supportive of hate crime law. You're not going to change my mind…

Nor should you change your mind, as your position comports to Constitutional case law. Consequently you’re not compelled to defend your position.

Note also that Mitchell was unanimous – all nine justices agreed that hate crime legislation and sentencing were appropriate, that includes the likes of Scalia and Thomas; the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist – you can’t get any more conservative than those three.

In other words, you think that thinking is unnecessary if you just agree with 9 people who are often wrong.

FYI, the remarkable thing here is not that conservative leaning justices have no problem with the state being able to punish people based on their thoughts, it is that liberal leaning justices went along with it.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, yes, yes, we all know and the only victim who gets no consideration is the straight white male from the ages of 12 to 49. Everyone else claims special privileges.

Immie

If the straight white male is killed for no other reason than he is a straight white man that is a hate crime. It's amazing to me that people who consider themselves free of bias, have a problem with hate crime law.

But, he gets no special consideration, because he is a straight white male.

Only special people are entitled to special treatment.

Also, I have a problem whenever arrogant people think that they have more rights than everyone else.

Immie

Incorrect. Hate crimes can and have been committed against white people....and they have been prosecuted as such.

You just don't hear about it as much because it doesn't serve the agenda of those wishing to whine about "special rights" for minorities.

 

[bodecea]

In order for laws to be righteous, they must be applied equally and fairly to all people. Hate crimes have become a bargaining tool for the prosecuters when it comes to plea deals. The more crimes they can charge you with the less the prosecuter has to work.

Think about it...A white male walks into a 7-11 and holds up the store, he kills the clerk in the robbery, who happens to be gay. How many crimes do you figure the criminal is charged with?

1) Larceny 2) larceny with the use of a firearm 3) Hate crime because the clerk was gay 4) computer crime because the criminal looked up the location of the 7-11 on line 5) resisting arrest because he tried to escape from the police. So on and so on and so on.

Now the prosecuter says I'll drop everything but the hate crime if you plead guilty? The criminal is overwhelmed and agrees. Prosecuter get his conviction and does not have to actually do any work. The problem with this type of deal is that innocent people end up in prison because they don't want to risk a lengthy jail stay. This is not justice.

This post is an example of people not understanding the Hate Crime law. He would not be charged with a hate crime UNLESS there was witness or document evidence that he committed the crime BECAUSE the victim was gay. And it would still have to be proved as such in a court of law.

 

[bodecea]

hate crime stuff is just to make race card players feel good....

everyone is all about hate crimes..when it is whites on black....but not black on white....

look at the statistical use of the hate crime legislation and see what it says

when the black killers of newsome/christian were not charged with a hate crime....one must stop and realize its all sound and fury

Don't know this case...can you link it plz?

 

[Sky Dancer]

It's a stupid, irrational law.

Example:

Thug beats up some guy gets 2 years in prison

Thug beats up some gay guy gets 2 years + whatever for a 'hate' crime.

Is either victim less beaten up? No.

Is either victims 'special'? No.

The law is ridiculous and panders to 'special interest' groups. I disapprove of any pandering to any group.

I agree....

crime is crime...period. Motivation does not change the degree of the crime committed.

Yes, it does. When a black church is burned down in order to send a message to the black community that YOUR KIND are not wanted, it is not simple arson. It is a crime against the entire black community. It is domestic terrorism.

Motivation is important.

Luckily, Congress, the President and the courts are on our side, not yours. I will stand up for minorities for the rest of my life.

 

[driveby]

A British youth of Asian descent is attacked by a group of white youths. The next day, he and his friends go looking for "white boys". They find Kriss Donald, aged 15. They abduct him, drive him around for several hours, stab him 13 times, set him on fire and leave him to die.

This is not simple assault. Hate crime law sends a message that racially aggravated violence will not be tolerated.

You're right, it's not simple assualt, if he died it's premeditated murder, if he didn't it's attempted murder, no thought police necessary, thanks....

 

[Sky Dancer]

Without a hate crime law, hate crime will not be reported. Without rape law, rape is not reported, and even now, it is still underreported.

You guys don't get it. That's fine. I hope none of you are ever so "special" as to be singled out for a bias motivated crime.

I am thinking of the fear that is engendered by blacks when some black is "lynched". Hate crime is "message crime". The message is, "YOUR KIND IS NOT WANTED. GET THE FUCK OUT".

 

[driveby]

It's a stupid, irrational law.

Example:

Thug beats up some guy gets 2 years in prison

Thug beats up some gay guy gets 2 years + whatever for a 'hate' crime.

Is either victim less beaten up? No.

Is either victims 'special'? No.

The law is ridiculous and panders to 'special interest' groups. I disapprove of any pandering to any group.

I agree....

crime is crime...period. Motivation does not change the degree of the crime committed.

I will stand up for minorities for the rest of my life.

And there you have it, it's not about equal treatment under the law for you......

 

[Sky Dancer]

A British youth of Asian descent is attacked by a group of white youths. The next day, he and his friends go looking for "white boys". They find Kriss Donald, aged 15. They abduct him, drive him around for several hours, stab him 13 times, set him on fire and leave him to die.

This is not simple assault. Hate crime law sends a message that racially aggravated violence will not be tolerated.

You're right, it's not simple assualt, if he died it's premeditated murder, if he didn't it's attempted murder, no thought police necessary, thanks....

This is a message crime. "YOUR KIND" are not wanted in our community". It pits one group against another. It sends out shock waves and can lead to even more violence.

It is a far more serious crime to burn down a black church in order to get blacks to move out of the community than it is to burn down a hardware store for the heck of it, or for the insurance money.

Little black girls died in one church fire. Others were merely severely traumatized. If you don't have this hate crime law, hate crime will not be reported. Society sends a message that bias crime is not tolerated in our communities when we have laws to punish perpetrators of these crimes.

People do not report hate crimes without it being a law.

 

[Immanuel]

If the straight white male is killed for no other reason than he is a straight white man that is a hate crime. It's amazing to me that people who consider themselves free of bias, have a problem with hate crime law.

But, he gets no special consideration, because he is a straight white male.

Only special people are entitled to special treatment.

Also, I have a problem whenever arrogant people think that they have more rights than everyone else.

Immie

Incorrect. Hate crimes can and have been committed against white people....and they have been prosecuted as such.

You just don't hear about it as much because it doesn't serve the agenda of those wishing to whine about "special rights" for minorities.

All violent crimes are "hate crimes".

And as I said in a earlier post, a crime against a straight white male is relegated to a single two inch column on page 18 of Section C of the newspapers while a crime against a minority is front page news for a week.

Wrong in your last sentence. You hear about "hate crimes" when the press wants to further its agenda for hate crime laws.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

If you can't see a difference between someone vandalizing a synagogue with the words "John loves Mary" and swastikas with "GET THE FUCK OUT JEWS" I can't help you.

One is a less serious crime than the other. Both involve vandalism.

If the kind of world you want to live in involves being able to get away with intimidating minority groups, so be it. It's not mine, and luckily, the American public agree. It's the law now.

 

[Divine Wind]

Without a hate crime law, hate crime will not be reported. Without rape law, rape is not reported, and even now, it is still underreported.

You guys don't get it. That's fine. I hope none of you are ever so "special" as to be singled out for a bias motivated crime.

I am thinking of the fear that is engendered by blacks when some black is "lynched". Hate crime is "message crime". The message is, "YOUR KIND IS NOT WANTED. GET THE FUCK OUT".

I haven't been singled out for a "bias motivated crime" since high school, but no doubt people still hate. The difference here is that we shouldn't make laws that give special protections for some people based on race, gender, religion or some other "special difference". That violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.

If a person is lynched, shouldn't the criminals go to prison for premeditated murder of a human being? If a person is beat up or raped, shouldn't the perpetrators be tried and sentenced for that crime regardless of the specific person who was the victim?

It's biased for you to think that it's okay to let a criminal receive a lesser sentence because, even though I was beat up and required six months of recovery, since I wasn't gay or black, then it wasn't a "hate crime". Sorry, but all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. This "special rules for special people" crap has to stop.

 

[Divine Wind]

If you can't see a difference between someone vandalizing a synagogue with the words "John loves Mary" and swastikas with "GET THE FUCK OUT JEWS" I can't help you.

One is a less serious crime than the other. Both involve vandalism.

If the kind of world you want to live in involves being able to get away with intimidating minority groups, so be it. It's not mine, and luckily, the American public agree. It's the law now.

Isn't that why there is trial and a sentencing phase. Yes, both involve vandalism. One might get probation and 500 hours community service at the Synagogue. There other might be a year in prison with 5 years probation.