We must eliminate hate crime laws

[Timmy]

Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.

Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.

And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.

Before hate crime laws, motive never had to be proven. It's impossible and a guess at best. Prosecutors always tried to find one because it sounded more convincing if they could say a person was killed for a specific reason.

Now they make assumptions, usually to fit the current political narrative. And the laws don't apply equally to all. Face it, the laws are aimed mostly at whites. We've seen videos where gangs of blacks scream 'kill the cracker' as they commence with beating and yet those are never pegged as hate crimes.

You're right that it's time to do away with these bogus laws.

. No it's time to get judges and prosecutors who will apply the laws equally and fairly. No one race should have special outcomes in these cases where the intent that turned into actions were ruled differently upon by race. All laws should apply equally, and should be inclusive for all if the crimes are the same.

I agree and that is why I'm against hate crime laws. I am no less affected by a crime than a person of another race/gender/whatever.

How about an example of one of these awful hate crime prosecutions?

 

[P@triot]

So since my pal TheOldSchool is (understandably) paralyzed by fear right now, I'm going to bury his pitiful "example" since he was obliterated by the murder example and that upset him.

Under his example - a muslim restaurant is burned down by an individual who hates muslims. It should be labeled a "hate crime" by the state and prosecuted as such by the state. And it should carry with it a harsher crime than if the restaurant was burned down because of competition from another restaurant looking to eliminate a competitor. It's now a 10 year crime instead of a 5 year crime. TheOldSchool says this is necessary to act as a deterrent. Got all of that?

Now, ignoring for the moment the obvious - the double jeopardy laws which makes this completely illegal and which the progressives on this board refused to address (because.....well.....they can't), here's where the beat down begins:

Why does the muslim deserve more of a deterrent under the law for his restaurant than I deserve under the law for mine? And even if you could come up with some irrational excuse for why that muslims deserves more of a deterrent to protect his property than I do, how do you propose doing that since everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law? It is discriminatory (ie illegal) for the law to give that muslim extra protections not afforded to me.

View attachment 98968

Hate crime laws cover everyone . Whites too.

If I spray paint my naMe on the side of a church , that's vandalism . Probably get a fine as punishment . If I spray paint , "Christians are all scum who should be burned alive " . That's a hate crime . And should get a harsher punishment because of the affect on all the church goers .

Again....using the scenario that your side made up in this thread....why do I deserve less deterrent from my competitors burning down my restaurant than the muslim has from someone who hates muslims burning down his restaurant?

Answer the question. Oh....and while you're at it....feel free to touch on that whole double jeopardy problem!

 

[beagle9]

The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

Um....isn't that the point of the punishment in the first place?

The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent. That's why someone goes to prison for 25 years for murder instead of 10. It's a deterrent.

. Don't you want to know why the person killed your family member, and is it something that happens a lot ?? You may want to become an activist who seeks out other victims family members in order to join up with them to make a difference in getting the message out that there is something going on that people need to be notified about.

 

[Timmy]

So since my pal TheOldSchool is (understandably) paralyzed by fear right now, I'm going to bury his pitiful "example" since he was obliterated by the murder example and that upset him.

Under his example - a muslim restaurant is burned down by an individual who hates muslims. It should be labeled a "hate crime" by the state and prosecuted as such by the state. And it should carry with it a harsher crime than if the restaurant was burned down because of competition from another restaurant looking to eliminate a competitor. It's now a 10 year crime instead of a 5 year crime. TheOldSchool says this is necessary to act as a deterrent. Got all of that?

Now, ignoring for the moment the obvious - the double jeopardy laws which makes this completely illegal and which the progressives on this board refused to address (because.....well.....they can't), here's where the beat down begins:

Why does the muslim deserve more of a deterrent under the law for his restaurant than I deserve under the law for mine? And even if you could come up with some irrational excuse for why that muslims deserves more of a deterrent to protect his property than I do, how do you propose doing that since everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law? It is discriminatory (ie illegal) for the law to give that muslim extra protections not afforded to me.

View attachment 98968

Hate crime laws cover everyone . Whites too.

If I spray paint my naMe on the side of a church , that's vandalism . Probably get a fine as punishment . If I spray paint , "Christians are all scum who should be burned alive " . That's a hate crime . And should get a harsher punishment because of the affect on all the church goers .

And rape has the effect of putting fear into ALL women in the area, regardless of the motive, but that is not a hate crime.

Right . But it's treated harsher than just some other physical assault . rightfully so . In a sense , it is a hate crime .

 

[P@triot]

Hate crime laws cover everyone . Whites too. If I spray paint my naMe on the side of a church , that's vandalism . Probably get a fine as punishment . If I spray paint , "Christians are all scum who should be burned alive " . That's a hate crime . And should get a harsher punishment because of the affect on all the church goers .

And rape has the effect of putting fear into ALL women in the area, regardless of the motive, but that is not a hate crime.

Boom! And ChrisL delivers a knockout blow to Timmy! Down goes Timmy! Down goes Timmy!

 

[ChrisL]

The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

Um....isn't that the point of the punishment in the first place?

The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent. That's why someone goes to prison for 25 years for murder instead of 10. It's a deterrent.

. Don't you want to know why the person killed your family member, and is it something that happens a lot ?? You may want to become an activist who seeks out other victims family members in order to join up with them to make a difference in getting the message out that there is something going on that people need to be notified about.

That is what the news is for.

 

[ChrisL]

So since my pal TheOldSchool is (understandably) paralyzed by fear right now, I'm going to bury his pitiful "example" since he was obliterated by the murder example and that upset him.

Under his example - a muslim restaurant is burned down by an individual who hates muslims. It should be labeled a "hate crime" by the state and prosecuted as such by the state. And it should carry with it a harsher crime than if the restaurant was burned down because of competition from another restaurant looking to eliminate a competitor. It's now a 10 year crime instead of a 5 year crime. TheOldSchool says this is necessary to act as a deterrent. Got all of that?

Now, ignoring for the moment the obvious - the double jeopardy laws which makes this completely illegal and which the progressives on this board refused to address (because.....well.....they can't), here's where the beat down begins:

Why does the muslim deserve more of a deterrent under the law for his restaurant than I deserve under the law for mine? And even if you could come up with some irrational excuse for why that muslims deserves more of a deterrent to protect his property than I do, how do you propose doing that since everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law? It is discriminatory (ie illegal) for the law to give that muslim extra protections not afforded to me.

View attachment 98968

Hate crime laws cover everyone . Whites too.

If I spray paint my naMe on the side of a church , that's vandalism . Probably get a fine as punishment . If I spray paint , "Christians are all scum who should be burned alive " . That's a hate crime . And should get a harsher punishment because of the affect on all the church goers .

And rape has the effect of putting fear into ALL women in the area, regardless of the motive, but that is not a hate crime.

Right . But it's treated harsher than just some other physical assault . rightfully so . In a sense , it is a hate crime .

It's still NOT considered a hate crime. So . . . no.

 

[P@triot]

Right . But it's treated harsher than just some other physical assault . rightfully so . In a sense , it is a hate crime .

And Timmy gets caught lying again. Rape doesn't receive harsher sentences because anyone considers it a "hate crime". It receives harsher sentences because it's a harsher crime than a physical assault (as you stated).

This is like saying robbing a bank with a gun is a "hate crime" because it receives harsher sentences than stealing money from a bank. Armed robbery gets harsher sentences because it's a harsher crime than theft.

 

[Timmy]

Using your logic there would be no such crime as terrorism . Because that's all about motive .

 

[Timmy]

Right . But it's treated harsher than just some other physical assault . rightfully so . In a sense , it is a hate crime .

And Timmy gets caught lying again. Rape doesn't receive harsher sentences because anyone considers it a "hate crime". It receives harsher sentences because it's a harsher crime than a physical assault (as you stated).

This is like saying robbing a bank with a gun is a "hate crime" because it receives harsher sentences than stealing money from a bank. Armed robbery gets harsher sentences because it's a harsher crime than theft.

But physical assualt is physical assualt !!! Right ?

 

[beagle9]

A guy burning down a Muslim owned restaurant, after years of posts on social media about how Muslims are a danger to the country.

There let's discuss that.

Ok. And hypothetically speaking - what should the sentence be for that crime for the purposes of this discussion and then what additional sentence should there be for the "hate crime" on top of that? You don't have to have something realistic here. We just need numbers so we have something for the sake of the discussion.

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Well burning down the restaurant is not ok. So why the person did it is irrelevant (especially when it can't be proven unless the defendant confesses).

Now, do you want to pick the numbers so we can discuss or should I? I'd prefer you did it so you have nothing to cry about when I prove you wrong but I'm happy to do it if necessary. Let me know.

. The reason the why might be relevant, could rely on how much that kind of stuff might be happening, and then it gives investigator's clues in what to maybe look for next if being pro-active instead of reactive in a case. If the case already being prosecuted is charged with a hate crime that gives certain details about the results, then it is hoped for that the practice would end if a pattern is found.

 

[P@triot]

Right . But it's treated harsher than just some other physical assault . rightfully so . In a sense , it is a hate crime .

And Timmy gets caught lying again. Rape doesn't receive harsher sentences because anyone considers it a "hate crime". It receives harsher sentences because it's a harsher crime than a physical assault (as you stated).

This is like saying robbing a bank with a gun is a "hate crime" because it receives harsher sentences than stealing money from a bank. Armed robbery gets harsher sentences because it's a harsher crime than theft.

But physical assualt is physical assualt !!! Right ?

No, stupid. Sexual assault and physical assault are two distinctly different actions.

 

[beagle9]

And btw P@triot you probably shouldn't commit any crimes against minorities for a while since your posts are readily available on here.

Well for starters, I don't commit any crimes at all. I'm a law abiding citizen genius.

Are you brown? If so that doesn't mean anything in Trump's new Amerika.

I'm not. And Trump employs many "brown" people so you can stop playing the victim and stop the tired "racist" screams of anyone who is conservative.

Oh you're not brown? Then you probably aren't at risk of being put on a registry or having your rights stolen away in Trump's new Amerika. Sorry your job won't be coming back. I hope you can afford the price hikes at Wal-Mart.

. I disagree with your fears of a Trump presidency.

 

[beagle9]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

. That's what the courts and laws are for.

 

[P@triot]

The reason the why might be relevant, could rely on how much that kind of stuff might be happening, and then it gives investigator's clues in what to maybe look for next if being pro-active instead of reactive in a case. If the case already being prosecuted is charged with a hate crime that gives certain details about the results, then it is hoped for that the practice would end if a pattern is found.

None of that has anything to do with prosecution or sentencing chief. Have no problem if law enforcement wishes to look at criminal data in their jurisdiction and use it to determine patterns and a possible crime prevention program.

What you're discussing here is a far cry from giving government the power to assume what was in your mind and enter it into a hearing as "evidence".

 

[P@triot]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

. That's what the courts and laws are for.

And how exactly does a court know what people are thinking?

 

[beagle9]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare Americans

The point is, smartass, is that hate crimes laws are overly presumptive. I get into a fight with a black guy and I curb stomp his ass, was it a hate crime on my part, or a foolish decision on his part? Did I pound him into the ground because he was black? Or was it because he chose to pick a fight with me?

. So what your saying in affect, is that to many times the black (Al Sharpton) screams hate crime in such a case, and due to the liberal run justice system, you might find yourself indicted for a hate crime just because you were in a fight with the black guy, and then due to media bias etc. it wasn't investigated properly where as the system became biased against you ?? Otherwise people's fears are based upon this notion that there has been to much advantage taken by a rigged system that began favoring in many cases one race over another ?

 

[beagle9]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

. That's what the courts and laws are for.

And how exactly does a court know what people are thinking?

. By reviewing the evidence in a case right ?

 

[beagle9]

The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

Um....isn't that the point of the punishment in the first place?

The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent. That's why someone goes to prison for 25 years for murder instead of 10. It's a deterrent.

. Don't you want to know why the person killed your family member, and is it something that happens a lot ?? You may want to become an activist who seeks out other victims family members in order to join up with them to make a difference in getting the message out that there is something going on that people need to be notified about.

That is what the news is for.

. You trust the news/media ??

 

[ChrisL]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

. That's what the courts and laws are for.

And how exactly does a court know what people are thinking?

They don't. The best they can do is guess.