We must eliminate hate crime laws

[beagle9]

. Ok I will try this one.. Just to be fair right... It's not that the crime of murder is any different all due to the various reasons that it was comitted, but what is different or an add to the penalty found in the law's pertaining to hate crimes is the message that it sends upon the sentencing phase................ Ok let's say you murdered someone, and you are charged for murdering someone, but then the phase of the sentencing determined next is to why you murdered someone right ?? So the message that is sent is that you are charged of course for murdering someone, and then you are charged with a hate crime that lays out exactly why you murdered the person if falls into the category (2 charges). This 2nd phase is meant to send the message to others that you best not bring harm to some one in the form of a hate crime, and if you do so being based on something as ridiculous as someone's skin color, then you are going to wish that you were not that stupid as to do such an ignorant thing as that. So you are charged with murder, and then the hate crime penalty phase if proven adds to the charge in which is meant to send a message from the justice system that you best not do something that idiotic in your life, and if you do the penalty is very high for it.

There is no evidence that extra time for 'hate crimes' acts as a deterrent any more than the regular sentences do, AFAIK.

. I disagree... If you killed someone, and you get 20 years for it, but because you cold bloodedly killed someone because of their skin color, and you get 10 more years for that, then the message sent if far more powerful in which was the intent.

That is SO wrong. It is not any worse to murder a person because of their skin color than it is because you "felt like it." The end results are the same, the families suffer just as much!

. Well remember these laws were created and enacted in a time where very bad things were going on... Now they just need to apply for all, and in either direction. No one needs a law that only protects them more so than any other, but the hate crimes laws are Ok, and they should remain but apply for all equally.

No. I hope they are done away with and we get tougher on CRIME. ALL crimes.

. What reason do you have to do away with them if they were to work in either direction ??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is this a question Ray ?

Yes it is. If we are to use our penalty system to act as a deterrent to crime, why do we penalize one person more than the other when they both did the same crime, because the victim fell under some political category?

 

[beagle9]

. Like someone else said here.. It is about the degree be it either racially driven, heinous, murder 1,2, manslaughter etc. and then the sentencing phases come next. Really what should be looked at is how such added laws are possibly being over used where as all depending on who is running things, it could be that the people could start using laws in ways in which they were not intended to be used. The peverting of any law is possible, and we should be honest enough to judge exactly when the laws are being abused or used in a wrongful way. The appointment of great common sense Supreme Court justices, and lower court justices should work to fix such things. The laws are A-ok even hate crime laws, but how the laws are applied, and by whom is very important every single time.

So what you are saying here is that you don't believe in equal protection of the law, is that it?

. Not at all... Where do you get that from ??

 

[ChrisL]

There is no evidence that extra time for 'hate crimes' acts as a deterrent any more than the regular sentences do, AFAIK.

. I disagree... If you killed someone, and you get 20 years for it, but because you cold bloodedly killed someone because of their skin color, and you get 10 more years for that, then the message sent if far more powerful in which was the intent.

That is SO wrong. It is not any worse to murder a person because of their skin color than it is because you "felt like it." The end results are the same, the families suffer just as much!

. Well remember these laws were created and enacted in a time where very bad things were going on... Now they just need to apply for all, and in either direction. No one needs a law that only protects them more so than any other, but the hate crimes laws are Ok, and they should remain but apply for all equally.

No. I hope they are done away with and we get tougher on CRIME. ALL crimes.

. What reason do you have to do away with them if they were to work in either direction ??

Because it makes no sense! Just increase the penalties for crime in general then!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. Well remember these laws were created and enacted in a time where very bad things were going on... Now they just need to apply for all, and in either direction. No one needs a law that only protects them more so than any other, but the hate crimes laws are Ok, and they should remain but apply for all equally.

That's the point.....they don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. Not at all... Where do you get that from ??

I got it from you. You claim that it's okay to give harsher penalties to criminals that offend those on the hate crime lists than those who are not.

 

[beagle9]

Is this a question Ray ?

Yes it is. If we are to use our penalty system to act as a deterrent to crime, why do we penalize one person more than the other when they both did the same crime, because the victim fell under some political category?

. We do use our penalty system as a deterrent to crime, and the penalties are supposed to fit the crimes committed. Politics should have no place in this, but I fear it is being dragged into it.

 

[beagle9]

. Not at all... Where do you get that from ??

I got it from you. You claim that it's okay to give harsher penalties to criminals that offend those on the hate crime lists than those who are not.

. Not at all what I said... You trying to put words in my mouth ?

 

[beagle9]

. Well remember these laws were created and enacted in a time where very bad things were going on... Now they just need to apply for all, and in either direction. No one needs a law that only protects them more so than any other, but the hate crimes laws are Ok, and they should remain but apply for all equally.

That's the point.....they don't.

. Well fix it then.

 

[ChrisL]

It's kind of like saying, well this person was more harmed by this particular crime because of their race/gender/whatever.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. Not at all what I said... You trying to put words in my mouth ?

I'm pretty sure that's what you said. I only had one beer so I'm not imagining things. Would you like me to quote it for you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. Well remember these laws were created and enacted in a time where very bad things were going on... Now they just need to apply for all, and in either direction. No one needs a law that only protects them more so than any other, but the hate crimes laws are Ok, and they should remain but apply for all equally.

That's the point.....they don't.

. Well fix it then.

And that's exactly what the thread is about--fixing it. Get rid of hate crime laws.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So...intent out the window?

 

[bodecea]

It'll happen. Hell depending on how many SC judges Trump is able to nominate, segregation may even be back on the table for you guys. Congratulations.

Why would you want a system in which the government can decide what was in your mind for you and for the people judging you?!?

So..intent out the window now?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. We do use our penalty system as a deterrent to crime, and the penalties are supposed to fit the crimes committed. Politics should have no place in this, but I fear it is being dragged into it.

With hate crimes, it's always been about politics. Like I posted in my earlier response, hate crimes are penalties given to offenders of likely Democrat voters.

 

[beagle9]

Like someone said here... Each crime has special circumstances involved. This is what determines the penalty phase of the case. Now like I said, if judges are doing things from the bench that are unconstitutional, then Houston we have a problem, because not only are a few laws being wrongfully interpreted, but possibly many laws are being wrongfully interpreted or abused by such a person. The whole purpose in defeating Hillary was to correct these things.

 

[beagle9]

. We do use our penalty system as a deterrent to crime, and the penalties are supposed to fit the crimes committed. Politics should have no place in this, but I fear it is being dragged into it.

With hate crimes, it's always been about politics. Like I posted in my earlier response, hate crimes are penalties given to offenders of likely Democrat voters.

. A practice that needs to end.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like someone said here... Each crime has special circumstances involved. This is what determines the penalty phase of the case. Now like I said, if judges are doing things from the bench that are unconstitutional, then Houston we have a problem, because not only are a few laws being wrongfully interpreted, but possibly many laws are being wrongfully interpreted or abused by such a person. The whole purpose in defeating Hillary was to correct these things.

Yes, there are different circumstances that determine the outcome, but they apply equally to all--not just one or two groups of people. That's the difference.

In other words, if you get drunk and run your car into a minivan killing five family members, it's not the same as stalking the family and then shooting them one by one. One was sort of an accident while the other was intentional and planned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. A practice that needs to end.

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying here. I mean, if the Republicans introduced a bill in the house that gave extra penalties for those who murder rich people, people of strong religion, and owners of big businesses, the Trump protests you see now would be nothing compared to how they would protest such a law that was introduced.

 

[beagle9]

Like someone said here... Each crime has special circumstances involved. This is what determines the penalty phase of the case. Now like I said, if judges are doing things from the bench that are unconstitutional, then Houston we have a problem, because not only are a few laws being wrongfully interpreted, but possibly many laws are being wrongfully interpreted or abused by such a person. The whole purpose in defeating Hillary was to correct these things.

Yes, there are different circumstances that determine the outcome, but they apply equally to all--not just one or two groups of people. That's the difference.

In other words, if you get drunk and run your car into a minivan killing five family members, it's not the same as stalking the family and then shooting them one by one. One was sort of an accident while the other was intentional and planned.

. Yes, but then special circumstances could arrise where as it is found that the mini-van wasn't just run into by the person on accident, but that it was actually a hit made by a black man who hated the white occupants in the van. Now should he be also found of committing a hate crime, in which would change the crime from an accident to a hate crime in which would bring a huge penalty (life in prison), as based upon the hate crime ruling ?? See it works both ways, and it should work both ways.