Hate Crime Laws

[comhcinc]

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

I have to say, while I find understand and appreciate the thought behind the laws, I disagree with them.

In my mind a person should be prosecuted on what they did, not why they did it. That is too close to making certain thoughts illegal for my book.

You thoughts?

[phatlip12]

In my mind a person should be prosecuted on what they did, not why they did it.


Not necessarily.

Joe accidentally runs over a man walking down the road.

Joe purposely runs over a man walking down the road.

In both scenarios the same thing occurs. Should he get more jail time for doing it on accident or for doing so on purpose? Intent has everything to do with it. It makes a huge difference. The same applies to this in my eyes.

[comhcinc]

Not necessarily.

Joe accidentally runs over a man walking down the road.

Joe purposely runs over a man walking down the road.

In both scenarios the same thing occurs. Should he get more jail time for doing it on accident or for doing so on purpose? Intent has everything to do with it. It makes a huge difference. The same applies to this in my eyes.

Joe beats up a guy because he doesn't like his shirt

Joe beats up a guy because he doesn't like black people.

the intent is the same. to cause harm to some one.

in your scenario it is a question as to whether harm was intended or not. that should matter, why the harm was intended should not matter.

besides how are we to know why a Joe beat the guy up? how can we be in Joe's head?


*on a side note you so really do something about your sig*

[phatlip12]

besides how are we to know why a Joe beat the guy up? how can we be in Joe's head?


*on a side note you so really do something about your sig*

Thats why we have trials.

Not sure what you're trying to tell me about my sig.

[comhcinc]

Thats why we have trials.

Not sure what you're trying to tell me about my sig.

we have trials to prove whether a person committed a crime or not, not what they were thinking when they committed a crime.

lets say you get in to a fight with a gay man. you can be charge with a hate crime just because he is gay. whether that had anything to do with it or not.


you sig is way over the size limit that has be quoted to me.

[phatlip12]

we have trials to prove whether a person committed a crime or not, not what they were thinking when they committed a crime.

lets say you get in to a fight with a gay man. you can be charge with a hate crime just because he is gay. whether that had anything to do with it or not.


you sig is way over the size limit that has be quoted to me.

When I mentioned trials I was speaking of evidence. I believe evidence should be presented to conclude that the crimes intent was based on hate. If not then the individual shouldn't be charged with a hate crime. Simply beating up a gay man isn't enough proof IMO.

[comhcinc]

what evidence can be presented to show what you were thinking at the time?

[phatlip12]

what evidence can be presented to show what you were thinking at the time?

Was it premeditated? Such evidence can lead to the intent.

[comhcinc]

whether it was premeditated shouldn't have anything to do with it.

[phatlip12]

whether it was premeditated shouldn't have anything to do with it.

It makes it a whole lot worse if it was. I'd be pissed if someone destroyed my property for example and would want them to be punished. If I found out they actually planned it out months ahead I'd be even more angry and would want them to be punished more severely.

[comhcinc]

so you feel that you can judge what type of thought is better than the other.

[ariastar]

Hell's freezing over because I agree with Com twice in one day.

Whatever the reason, intent to cause harm is intent to cause harm. Where is the line drawn? If someone beats up, say, his brother's girlfriend, is it a hate crime because she's a woman? If he beats up an academic, is it a hate crime against intellectuals? You can argue "yes" to both of these people. Every person in this world belongs to some "group" that we do not individually belong to. Whether the motivation was someone's skin color or because the attacker felt he had a score to settle, the ultimate intent is the same.

[ariastar]

whether it was premeditated shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Premeditated is actually worse because it shows the person put thought into it and could have decided not to. When there is more thought put into it, a longer period, that person is more dangerous and should have a longer sentence.

[phatlip12]

so you feel that you can judge what type of thought is better than the other.

Planning to cause harm ahead of time is worse then spontaneously doing it in my opinion. Both acts warrant a punishment but if the individual plotted it and planned it for days and days before the act occurred then yes- I believe that individuals punishment should be worse.

[phatlip12]

Premeditated is actually worse because it shows the person put thought into it and could have decided not to. When there is more thought put into it, a longer period, that person is more dangerous and should have a longer sentence.

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. You worded it better.

I mentioned premeditated though because such evidence can link to the persons intent which I think sort of goes hand and hand with premeditation. I just think the proof has to be there. You can't call it a hate crime all because the person is...whatever.

[esophagus]

Personally, I agree with them. Laws are all moral judgements. Things we have deemed illegal are illegally because we find them morally wrong. Hating people of minorities is another thing we've deemed morally wrong, so why not make it illegal?

This is a fairly shaky argument, but it holds up well enough for me.

[mikec]

Umm, I can hate or like anyone I want. It's just that some people think one should be punished more IF one hits/injures/yells at a member of a protected group.

BTW, last I checked I am a minority, you are a minority we all are minorities. Each human is unique, like it or hate it.

If one wants to allow a person's views as extenuating circumstances in a court case, that is a little less negative to me but it still is not a great idea.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

I have to say, while I find understand and appreciate the thought behind the laws, I disagree with them.

In my mind a person should be prosecuted on what they did, not why they did it. That is too close to making certain thoughts illegal for my book.

You thoughts?OMG, I actually agree with you here. "Thought" laws are bullshit. There is no such thing as "hate crime." Punish them for what they did, not what they "thought."

[masherscf]

What if I'm "thinking" of blowing up a preschool...?

[tokenuser]

What if I'm "thinking" of blowing up a preschool...?That's premeditation.

It becomes a hate crime if you have a demonstratable history of hate towards preschoolers. If you have ever flown with toddlers, then it become justifiable homicide.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

What if I'm "thinking" of blowing up a preschool...?If you've committed no action, what are you being punished for?

To punish someone for a "hate crime" is to punish them for the thought processes they had at the time they committed the crime. You can't escape the fact that what we're really talking about here is "thought crime" laws. You're punishing the thought process, not the action.

Unless you're Magnito, some sort of action will have to take place before you can blow up that school.

[rabidbadger]

wow. so many concepts in so few posts. Don't know where to start...

OK. first... aria agrees with com who agrees with crumbles, who agrees with all of them. Head explodes.

WORSE YET. I agree with them! Universe explodes


as a "protected" minority myself, I have a vested interest in this. Couple of incindiery events happened locally here, that made me think about this more seriously. Generally, I agree. A crime is a crime. If I murder someone cause I don't like his shirt, his race, what he said about my Mama, his stereo blaring at 2 am... all the same thing.

I killed someone, and should be punished.

But when this subject is brought up I always think of Mathew Sheapard. the crime was NOT premeditated, (and premed does legally count, that's why we have homicide/Murder1/murder2/etc) but it was because of "who he was". a horny drunk gay kid. Who got a ride from homophobes and was crucified for it.

NOW. Say your a horny drunk dude at a bar. Too drunk to drive, friendly girl gives you a ride home. You hit on her. She says no. So you kill her. Did you kill her cause she didn't put out, or cause she is Hetero and didn't put out?

complicated issue.

[comhcinc]

the guys that attacked matthew sheapard are serving two life sentences a piece. neither were charged with a hate crime. how much worst punishment could they get?

[rabidbadger]

death?

but yea. that's why I'm in a quandry. Crime is crime. A sentence is a sentence. So yeah, head explodes. I got "laid off" cause I was gay, not a crime, but still a punishment for something I couldn't control. He did it in slow, deliberate, insidious ways that i could never prove in court, but it was there. He knew it, I knew it, my work buddies knew it. Union knew it. But no evidence. Premeditated.


Luckily the a-hole got fired two days later. Karma is a be-othch.

[comhcinc]

well i am not for the state sanctioned murder but i do know one of the guys pledge guilty to avoid the death penalty.

what happen to you if very different.

[rabidbadger]

yeah. similar but different ... Just know what it's like. To be hated for something I can't control... that's all. and semi-relevant to the conversation, cause the whole "hate crime" thing is based on such. Right or wrong. It is an issue cause of being "hated" I was just giving an example of what happens when hated. That is what "hate crime" law is about. Like I said. Still in a quandry about this...

[comhcinc]

i have been fired before because i wasn't like by one person and they went out of they way to get me fired. ( someone not liking me, i know hard to believe). that occurs alot in the work place.

if you could have put the pieces together you could have sued the company (which i agree with ) unlike you i didn't have that option. advantage you.


but this is different very different. there is a vast valley between not liking gays and getting their jobs took and kidnapping and killing a person.

[rabidbadger]

i have been fired before because i wasn't like by one person and they went out of they way to get me fired. ( someone not liking me, i know hard to believe). that occurs alot in the work place.

if you could have put the pieces together you could have sued the company (which i agree with ) unlike you i didn't have that option. advantage you.


but this is different very different. there is a vast valley between not liking gays and getting their jobs took and kidnapping and killing a person.

Oh yeah. totally agree. like i said. In a quandry about this one... Killed cause I'm gay is very different. One of the local issues I mentioned earlier was concerning cops, and the victims where arrested, NOT the perpetrators... so. yeah. grey area.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

wow. so many concepts in so few posts. Don't know where to start...

OK. first... aria agrees with com who agrees with crumbles, who agrees with all of them. Head explodes.

WORSE YET. I agree with them! Universe explodesLOL

NOW. Say your a horny drunk dude at a bar. Too drunk to drive, friendly girl gives you a ride home. You hit on her. She says no. So you kill her. Did you kill her cause she didn't put out, or cause she is Hetero and didn't put out?

complicated issue.How about because you're some fucked up dude who needs help because you have no problem committing murder?

Do Dem's believe in the death penalty? (I'm being serious, I don't feel like looking that issue up as I'm about to go to bed.)

Obviously since I carry a firearm, I have to believe in it, otherwise there's no reason to carry. I think if you take someone's life, your life should get ended. QUICKLY. Now, I don't mean the next day. I mean, you should have a trial, and the punishment should be executed very soon after the trial. On the radio this morning I heard that someone in GA (the state I live in) was finally getting executed soon after ONE LAST TRIAL. When was he jailed for murder? 1972. So, enjoy all those tax dollars we paid keeping that asshole alive. I wonder what other stuff we could have done with that money.

[tokenuser]

Do Dem's believe in the death penalty? (I'm being serious, I don't feel like looking that issue up as I'm about to go to bed.)If you ask Rush or Bill, they dont believe in the death penalty if there is a tree or a baby fur seal involved.

As for everyone else - who knows.

Since dems are generally pro-choice, that allows for abortion ... so if you can take a (supposed) life at that stage of development, I guess its only fair to take it much later as well.

Difffernce is personal choice vs legal punishment.

Personally - I am pro-choice, and pro-death penalty. Death is the ultimate loss of personal liberty. Without that threat the justice system losses its teeth.

[rabidbadger]

see, once again I agree with crumble. I need a new head. and a new universe. Oh, wait. That is what the rapture is all about! ;)

(and for the most part Dems don't agree with the death penalty, and mostly cause of race/financial issues)

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Death is the ultimate loss of personal liberty. Without that threat the justice system losses its teeth.So then would you want to protect that loss of personal liberty?

Just sayin (http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/pix/glock26.jpg)' :D

[rabidbadger]

token, yeah always confused about "Life is sacred" abortion issue with repubs, and they're "kill 'em all" death penalty stance, (not to mention the war fetish they have) but should be a new thread, I think.

[comhcinc]

Personally .......... pro-death penalty. Death is the ultimate loss of personal liberty. Without that threat the justice system losses its teeth.

that assumes that the death plenty works as a deterrent, but this not the place. if we really want to get in to the death penalty lets start a new thread.

[rabidbadger]

I wanna shoot a gun someday, just to know what it's like. Not the pellet gun my dad got me as a kid, and which horrified my mom. haha. but a real gun. Only had one in my hand once. My dad's, naturally.

[rabidbadger]

...if we really want to get in to the death penalty lets start a new thread.

Dittos. (did I just say that?) :D

[comhcinc]

I wanna shoot a gun someday, just to know what it's like. Not the pellet gun my dad got me as a kid, and which horrified my mom. haha. but a real gun. Only had one in my hand once. My dad's, naturally.
damn you badger i was totally not thinking about firearms while reading that.

[rabidbadger]

so back on topic. ... take back my "pink" card. but seriously. I don't think I beleive in "hate crimes". I really don't think i do. this is a bit of a revelation to me, so er, talk, amongst yourselves, getting verklempmt, "the Union troops where overwhelmed at appomattax. discuss."

Bar'bra!!

[rabidbadger]

damn you badger i was totally not thinking about firearms while reading that.

sorry, shouda quoted crumbles link on that post. sorry for the confusion.

[straylightrise]

Oh yeah. totally agree. like i said. In a quandry about this one... Killed cause I'm gay is very different. One of the local issues I mentioned earlier was concerning cops, and the victims where arrested, NOT the perpetrators... so. yeah. grey area.

Trying to get this back on track...

Hate crime laws have the unfortunate burden of having to determine intent to commit a crime or intimidate a party based on one of those criteria (race,gender,sex orientation,religion,etc.)

I mean its pretty easy if there's a long history of bigotry or conflict between two parties but when its spontaneous its tougher to prove.

as a pretty independent guy I feel that hate crime speech laws are effective as long as they don't infringe on speech that isn't presenting a 'clear and present danger'. Ditto on speech that isn't 'chilling'.

However once thats breached there needs to be penalties to protect not just the victim but society from the 'hate' from the attacker/perp presents.

Opinion:
And when it comes to sentencing hate crimes that can be proved to be partially motivated by 'minority status' the sentencing guidelines should be much stronger than that of a random killing or a non-hate crime.

mods: I'd split off the death penalty debate as there's some good stuff in there im sure....maybe

[tokenuser]

So then would you want to protect that loss of personal liberty?

Just sayin (http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/pix/glock26.jpg)' :DDerail ...

Only if I was part of the justice system or a member of the well regulated militia.

[rabidbadger]

oooh, Mods derail good! :D

[burkhartmj]

Being of the most unprotected group [white heterosexual male], I might be biased, but I don't think thought should play any kind of part in penalty. As Joel already said, premeditation [and conspiracy to commit, mashercf] are based on hard evidence, like documents detailing plans or blueprints of the preschool you're going to be blowing up with bombmaking materials etc. in the vicinity. hence how the decide what level of murder or manslaughter it is. The idea of a hate crime, even if based on documented things you said, is still assumed for that moment. Unless there is a witness or recording of you yelling racial obscenities, there is no way to be 100% sure you were thinking that, and even with that, there's no way to be sure it's why you committed the crime.

And it's nice to be back in the politics board again :D

[ariastar]

Things we have deemed illegal are illegally because we find them morally wrong.

When morals are legally enforceable, they cease to be morals and become laws.

[ariastar]

Umm, I can hate or like anyone I want. It's just that some people think one should be punished more IF one hits/injures/yells at a member of a protected group.

Um, "human" is a protected group.

[ariastar]

but yea. that's why I'm in a quandry. Crime is crime. A sentence is a sentence. So yeah, head explodes. I got "laid off" cause I was gay, not a crime, but still a punishment for something I couldn't control. He did it in slow, deliberate, insidious ways that i could never prove in court, but it was there. He knew it, I knew it, my work buddies knew it. Union knew it. But no evidence. Premeditated.

Hon, the reason you were laid off isn't a valid reason, so that's why reason would be taken into consideration in court.

When someone is killed, regardless of the reason, there's no valid reason.

[ariastar]

Do Dem's believe in the death penalty? (I'm being serious, I don't feel like looking that issue up as I'm about to go to bed.)

No. Democrats are pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty. I am half-Democrat.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

No. Democrats are pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty.How ironic. I guess when you're that little it doesn't count. :rolleyes:

[tokenuser]

No. Democrats are pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty. I am half-Democrat.Pro-choice != pro-abortion.

Abortion is a choice, but it is not the only one.
Pro-life advocates have no choice.

[masherscf]

Pro-choice != pro-abortion.

Abortion is a choice, but it is not the only one.
Pro-life advocates have no choice.

NS! that was stupid thing top say. I'm pro-choice, but hate abortions. There are too many abortions in this county. It's a fact. However, that was true before abortions were legal as well.

[mikec]

Um, "human" is a protected group.

Ms Aria, I totally agree with you. However some people want to separate us down into groups, white/black/straight/gay/whatever. You and I are both unique creations. Hurting anyone, unless boxing, or defending your life (and they started the fight) is not right.

[mikec]

Derail ...

Only if I was part of the justice system or a member of the well regulated militia.

Using the derail provided by the mod....

In the state of Maryland there is a citizens militia. It is currently inactive but the law is still on the books. Back in '42 the governor activated the Militia and required the citizens in it to provide their own firearms. Since that law is still in place, I guess since I live in MD I am a member.

[ariastar]

Pro-choice != pro-abortion.

Abortion is a choice, but it is not the only one.
Pro-life advocates have no choice.

Pro-abortion also means in favor of allowing them.

[ariastar]

How ironic. I guess when you're that little it doesn't count. :rolleyes:

I know. Personally I'm against both.

Some idiot on a forum I was reading yesterday actually thinks that if a baby's head is out, but the rest of the body isn't, then it should be okay to stab the baby in the eye if you wanted because it still isn't a life, just "leaching" off her body. That sickened me.

[ariastar]

Ms Aria, I totally agree with you. However some people want to separate us down into groups, white/black/straight/gay/whatever. You and I are both unique creations. Hurting anyone, unless boxing, or defending your life (and they started the fight) is not right.

Male/female, redhead/blond, blue eyes/brown eyes, freckled/not freckled.... There are so damned many ways to break people down. Redheads with freckled get hated a lot too, called "gingers," and I have no idea why the hate. Is a crime against someone with red hair or freckles a hate crime? Crime against a human is crime against a human, regardless of all else.

I think a better way to say "unless boxing" is any situation where all parties give consent to the possibility of being hurt, such as martial arts competitions or a group of college guys wanting to fist fight in the back yard while they're all drunk, or even people who participate in BDSM with whips and meat hooks. Hurting someone without their consent is when it's wrong.

[rabidbadger]

I think a better way to say "unless boxing" is any situation where all parties give consent to the possibility of being hurt, such as martial arts competitions or a group of college guys wanting to fist fight in the back yard while they're all drunk, or even people who participate in BDSM with whips and meat hooks. Hurting someone without their consent is when it's wrong.

Or War. ;)

[bigshotprof]

I'm late to the game on this one, because I honestly don't know. One one hand, attacking someone specifically because that person is a random representative of a class of people--race, religion, sexual preference, etc. is a different and more heinous act than simple assault. In a way it is a symbolic act of terror--like shooting a cop--that has to be responded to more strenuously by society, because the intent is more corrosive.

That said, how does one judge intent? Where I grew up, it was often easy. The white hoods and robes gave it away. However, if someone gets into a fight on a NY street and during the fight hurls a racial epithet, intent is not as clear. If someone throws a copy of the Koran in the toilet, is that a crime or just idiotic? I'm glad I don't have to be the one who decides this.I can leave that you all of you.

[bigshotprof]

Redheads with freckles


Ahh college . . . ahhh Caitlin . . . oops. I digress.

[burkhartmj]

I know. Personally I'm against both.

Some idiot on a forum I was reading yesterday actually thinks that if a baby's head is out, but the rest of the body isn't, then it should be okay to stab the baby in the eye if you wanted because it still isn't a life, just "leaching" off her body. That sickened me.

Obama believes that <__<

I know, derailing, I just had to get it out of my system. I'll be good from now on :D