Hate crimes: How do you feel?

[Bill_Martin]

you can’t pick words out of the legal lexicon and use them any way you want, “attainder” being the most recent example. I’m always happy to discuss issues with anyone, but you’ve got to get up to speed if you expect to learn something.

membership in the klan is not criminalized, but the legislature can control klan activities by enhancing punishment for klan activities. this is very straightforward and an ordinary practice in law enforcement.

under the RICO statutes, membership in a enterprise that’s committed predicate offenses can be found guilty.

and under international law, membership in certain criminal organizations was enough to be found guilty as a war criminal.

Westerby

Also a very dangerous one.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Also a very dangerous one.

I’d be more worried about RICO than hate crime legislation.

Westerby

 

[Micah11]

How do you answer groups who claim preaching against homosexuality is a hate crime?

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

How do you answer groups who claim preaching against homosexuality is a hate crime?

it depends on exactly what they’re preaching and what the hate crime statute says, right?

preaching against homosexuality as a sin is protected first amendment speech, saying something like what Henry II said of Thomas Becket isn’t.

Westerby

 

[sedonaman]

you can’t pick words out of the legal lexicon and use them any way you want, “attainder” being the most recent example. I’m always happy to discuss issues with anyone, but you’ve got to get up to speed if you expect to learn something.
…

If I wanted to learn something, I wouldn’t ask you. End of discussion.

 

[Ender]

There is something more evil in killing someone because of his race or religion than because you are greedy and don’t feel like working for your money.

There is? I’m not sure I buy this. Why is it worse to kill a person specifically because of his race than just because you feel like killing someone and you shoot the first person you find? I oppose the “hate crime” concept because it basically says that “A hits B” is somehow worse than “B hits A.” I have not heard a good argument that supports the concept of hate crimes.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

If I wanted to learn something, I wouldn’t ask you. End of discussion.

no, but you’d hang on my words.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Intending to steal something escalates trespassing into burglary because stealing is a crime. I still disagree with this, but it is not the same thing. Hatred is not a crime.

hatred combined with actions can be a crime.

let’s pretend… use your powers of imagination and try to imagine a fictional world where a virulent group of white men with a public and well known hatred of blacks would break into black farm houses at night and drag off the husband and lynch him in front of his wife and children because he was black and tried to vote. I know its hard to imagine this happening, but let’s just assume it might have.

the legislature wants to suppress this kind of crime, but it knows it can’t outlaw hatred, even the attempt is stupid. but it can target this kind of offense by writing laws giving enhanced penalties to black lynchings and making it easier for the government prosecutors to prove intent.

Its hard for me to how some might think this is unfair to the Grand Kretins of the world isn’t.

Westerby

 

[Bill_Martin]

hatred combined with actions can be a crime.

let’s pretend… use your powers of imagination and try to imagine a fictional world where a virulent group of white men with a public and well known hatred of blacks would break into black farm houses at night and drag off the husband and lynch him in front of his wife and children because he was black and tried to vote. I know its hard to imagine this happening, but let’s just assume it might have.

the legislature wants to suppress this kind of crime, but it knows it can’t outlaw hatred, even the attempt is stupid. but it can target this kind of offense by writing laws giving enhanced penalties to black lynchings and making it easier for the government prosecutors to prove intent.

Its hard for me to how some might think this is unfair to the Grand Kretins of the world isn’t.

Westerby

Murder is already illegal, so that would be pointless. If the penalty for murder is insufficient to suppress this kind of crime, then murder across the board needs a stiffer sentence.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

There is? I’m not sure I buy this. Why is it worse to kill a person specifically because of his race than just because you feel like killing someone and you shoot the first person you find? I oppose the “hate crime” concept because it basically says that “A hits B” is somehow worse than “B hits A.” I have not heard a good argument that supports the concept of hate crimes.

Ender

Because someone, or someones in the klan example, who kill based on race are more disposed to continue killing based on race, than criminals who take random shots. if you’re a black voter in Alabama in 1956, are you more likely, statistically, to be lynched or hit with a stray bullet from some yahoo just blasting away at the sky?

one way of deterring this problem is to make government prosecution easier, which might or might not involve adding a new crime to the penal code.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Murder is already illegal, so that would be pointless. If the penalty for murder is insufficient to suppress this kind of crime, then murder across the board needs a stiffer sentence.

I could write a law to make murder convictions a lot easier, the sentences can be exactly as they are, but there would be a lot more convicts.

when state juries weren’t convicting white defendants for black civil rights murders, the fed stepped in with criminal prosecutions for violations of federal civil rights. this is an example of how ordinary murder statutes fail.

Westerby

 

[traillius]

hatred combined with actions can be a crime.

let’s pretend… use your powers of imagination and try to imagine a fictional world where a virulent group of white men with a public and well known hatred of blacks would break into black farm houses at night and drag off the husband and lynch him in front of his wife and children because he was black and tried to vote. I know its hard to imagine this happening, but let’s just assume it might have.

the legislature wants to suppress this kind of crime, but it knows it can’t outlaw hatred, even the attempt is stupid. but it can target this kind of offense by writing laws giving enhanced penalties to black lynchings and making it easier for the government prosecutors to prove intent.

Its hard for me to how some might think this is unfair to the Grand Kretins of the world isn’t.

Westerby

That would still be murder, just as if a Chinese man shot an Native American, while shouting anti-Jewish slurs. ( I used my imagination) If you don’t want any one type of murder to occur, then you should automatically push for the maximum penalty for all possible types of murders. And if the penalty for one type of murder isn’t enough, than all murders should carry equally severe penalties. If you give life without parole for all possible murders, you still are giving life without parole for murders done out of “hate,” as defined by the current ( and wasteful, in my opinion) hate crime statutes.

 

[traillius]

I could write a law to make murder convictions a lot easier, the sentences can be exactly as they are, but there would be a lot more convicts.

when state juries weren’t convicting white defendants for black civil rights murders, the fed stepped in with criminal prosecutions for violations of federal civil rights. this is an example of how ordinary murder statutes fail.

Westerby

Wait, were those defendants charged with only murder, or with no crime at all? You weren’t clear. If they weren’t charged with anything, then the feds should strongly encourage the state to charge them with murder. If they were being charged with murder, without any other statutes attached, then they were already being charged to the fullest extent of state law for the crime that could be proven, which is murder. If you are saying that the federal government should have open jurisdiction on all murder cases, then that is a separate discussion.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Wait, were those defendants charged with only murder, or with no crime at all? You weren’t clear. If they weren’t charged with anything, then the feds should strongly encourage the state to charge them with murder. If they were being charged with murder, without any other statutes attached, then they were already being charged to the fullest extent of state law for the crime that could be proven, which is murder. If you are saying that the federal government should have open jurisdiction on all murder cases, then that is a separate discussion.

in the state trials, white defendants were charged with murder, a state crime. white juries have a very bad record of convicting in white on black murders. there’s a fed murder statute - for killing a federal official, for example – but it doesn’t apply to the lynching. so the feds prosecuted using a roundabout way: murder violates the victim’s federal civil rights, and there’s a fed statute that criminalizes violation of federal civil rights. it won’t result in a death penalty the way a state murder statute might, but its better than nothing.

Westerby

 

[sedonaman]

… Why is it worse to kill a person specifically because of his race than just because you feel like killing someone and you shoot the first person you find? …

Because Leftists have an obsession with race, among other things.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

That would still be murder, just as if a Chinese man shot an Native American, while shouting anti-Jewish slurs. ( I used my imagination) If you don’t want any one type of murder to occur, then you should automatically push for the maximum penalty for all possible types of murders. And if the penalty for one type of murder isn’t enough, than all murders should carry equally severe penalties. If you give life without parole for all possible murders, you still are giving life without parole for murders done out of “hate,” as defined by the current ( and wasteful, in my opinion) hate crime statutes.

its hard to generalize because this is done differently in various states and in the fed, but for simplicity’s sake, a “typical” convict will get a midrange sentence of so many years. the sentencing board can recommend the time can be increased or reduced based on aggravating (used a gun) or mitigating (stole to eat) factors. murder is a little different because I think states are moving to a minimum sentence (15 or 20 or 25 years), but these factors might impact the minimum sentence.

do you have any issues if a race-based killing is an aggravating factor to increase the sentence?

I think a second degree murder (shooting into a crowd) should be punished differently from a first degree murder with special circumstances (kidnap and torture). a murder involving race as a motive can call somewhere between those.

Westerby

 

[Ender]

Because someone, or someones in the klan example, who kill based on race are more disposed to continue killing based on race, than criminals who take random shots. if you’re a black voter in Alabama in 1956, are you more likely, statistically, to be lynched or hit with a stray bullet from some yahoo just blasting away at the sky?

You have grossly changed the nature of my question. I asked why it is worse to (e.g.) drag someone out of his house and lynch him because he is black than to drag someone out of his house and lynch him just because you feel like lynching someone. I’m comparing murder with murder, not murder with depraved indifference.

one way of deterring this problem is to make government prosecution easier, which might or might not involve adding a new crime to the penal code.

Why should it be easier to prosecute the person in the first example than to prosecute the person in the second one? Their crimes are identical, why should their prosecutions be different?

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

You have grossly changed the nature of my question. I asked why it is worse to (e.g.) drag someone out of his house and lynch him because he is black than to drag someone out of his house and lynch him just because you feel like lynching someone. I’m comparing murder with murder, not murder with depraved indifference.
Why should it be easier to prosecute the person in the first example than to prosecute the person in the second one? Their crimes are identical, why should their prosecutions be different?

Ender

my answer is that because you can’t treat klan activity as you would one-off offenses, e.g., some guy who decides to shoot the first black he sees. if blacks – note plural – are being dragged out and lynched, its a symptom of a problem with organized race-based crimes not bizarre conduct unlikely to be repeated.

behind all criminal statutes is some kind of public policy, the legislature will usually express this in the legislative intent part of the law, and will certainly be in the legislative history. law-making to enforce a public policy to suppress black lynchings is a perfectly valid exercise of state authority. where the klan uses witness intimidation or white juries are not likely to convict, then the legislature, or congress, has to have other ways of getting convictions for lynchings. this can be done by creating inferences or presumptions that help the prosecution with its burden, or letting the government prosecute under RICO-type statutes which criminalize enterprises and members for being part of the enterprise.

Westerby

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Personally, I think all violent crimes are hate crimes, thus there is no need for hate crime statutes. What do you think. See the poll, and leave a comment.

I think that “hate crimes” are just codifications of thought crimes. They are an attempt to make certain politically incorrect thinking against the law.

 

[traillius]

its hard to generalize because this is done differently in various states and in the fed, but for simplicity’s sake, a “typical” convict will get a midrange sentence of so many years. the sentencing board can recommend the time can be increased or reduced based on aggravating (used a gun) or mitigating (stole to eat) factors. murder is a little different because I think states are moving to a minimum sentence (15 or 20 or 25 years), but these factors might impact the minimum sentence.

do you have any issues if a race-based killing is an aggravating factor to increase the sentence?

I think a second degree murder (shooting into a crowd) should be punished differently from a first degree murder with special circumstances (kidnap and torture). a murder involving race as a motive can call somewhere between those.

Westerby

The law does not allow for selective equality within the law. Either all victims are equal or they are not. If they aren’t, then anti-discrimination laws are invalid. So, the logical,and legal, imperative of either getting rid of hate crime statutes or eliminating anti-discrimination laws is the result. Equal protection under the law can’t tolerate the two co-existing.