Hate crimes: How do you feel?

[Jerry_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.

I don’t know what you mean by treating victims equally, in the following examples, they’re all dead or burglarized or assaulted equally.

second degree murder (15 year minimum) is punished less harshly than first degree murder (life without parole), in both instances, the victim is dead.

a burglar might receive a mid-term of three years, another burglar might get a six year sentence for the same crime if there are aggravating conditions (used a gun). in both instances, the burglary victim is the same.

the punishment for assaulting a policeman is greater than for assaulting a civilian. in both instances, the assault is exactly the same (a rock to the head).

Westerby

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It’s that we can’t start punishing people based on the skin color/other characteristics of their victims. It really doesn’t matter whether the person is a racist or not, or it should not matter. The CRIME is what matters, otherwise we are elevating certain types of people as being more worthy of punishment than others.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

It’s that we can’t start punishing people based on the skin color/other characteristics of their victims. It really doesn’t matter whether the person is a racist or not, or it should not matter. The CRIME is what matters, otherwise we are elevating certain types of people as being more worthy of punishment than others.

exactly. if you want to destroy the klan, you make punishing klan members easier and punishment harder. its just implementation of a desirable social policy, its what legislatures do all the time.

Westerby

 

[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.

We’re not discussing “treating activity”, we’re discussing prosecuting a crime. If you’re saying that multiple crimes have been committed in one situation where organized activities are involved then you have changed the situation again. I think it may be better to take the more recent case of James Bird rather than look at Klan activities of a half century ago. Bird was brutally killed because he was black. Should his killers have been treated differently for selecting him as their victim because of his race instead of just grabbing the first person they met?

behind all criminal statutes is some kind of public policy

True, and the question here is whether it should be public policy to prosecute similar crimes similarly or whether a crime committed against person A should be prosecuted differently than the same crime committed against person B.

Ender

 

[Bill_Martin]

exactly. if you want to destroy the klan, you make punishing klan members easier and punishment harder. its just implementation of a desirable social policy, its what legislatures do all the time.

Westerby

The problem that many of us are having with this is that we don’t want the government to destroy a certain group because it doesn’t like its views.

 

[traillius]

exactly. if you want to destroy the klan, you make punishing klan members easier and punishment harder. its just implementation of a desirable social policy, its what legislatures do all the time.

Westerby

You forgot about something called the first amendment. Short of any actual crimes, The Klan has every right to express itself, even with its odious point of view.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

The problem that many of us are having with this is that we don’t want the government to destroy a certain group because it doesn’t like its views.

we’re not talking about the chamber of commerce, or the NY Yankees. so you don’t want the government to destroy the klan because? no one is talking about destroying a group because of its its views, we’re talking about tactics to destroy a group because of its actions.

Westerby

 

[interestedman]

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 personally think it is good to differentiate hate crimes to further discourage them from happening.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

You forgot about something called the first amendment. Short of any actual crimes, The Klan has every right to express itself, even with its odious point of view.

you’ll notice than when I mention “klan” I put it in the context of lynching. the klan can express any kind of hate it wants within first amendment limits, but when it turns those words into crimes, it should be destroyed.

Westerby

 

[traillius]

we’re not talking about the chamber of commerce, or the NY Yankees. so you don’t want the government to destroy the klan because? no one is talking about destroying a group because of its its views, we’re talking about tactics to destroy a group because of its actions.

Westerby

hmm substitute jews for klan, and you have hitler’s arguments.
slippery slope anyone…

 

[Ender]

hmm substitute jews for klan, and you have hitler’s arguments.
slippery slope anyone…

Given what has happened in Canada where one runs the real risk of prosecution under hate speech laws for speaking out against homosexuality, this slippery slope argument is not nearly as silly as it might otherwise seem. All in the name of eradicating a position the government opposes.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

We’re not discussing “treating activity”, we’re discussing prosecuting a crime. If you’re saying that multiple crimes have been committed in one situation where organized activities are involved then you have changed the situation again. I think it may be better to take the more recent case of James Bird rather than look at Klan activities of a half century ago. Bird was brutally killed because he was black. Should his killers have been treated differently for selecting him as their victim because of his race instead of just grabbing the first person they met?
True, and the question here is whether it should be public policy to prosecute similar crimes similarly or whether a crime committed against person A should be prosecuted differently than the same crime committed against person B.

Ender

the state makes policy decisions on what issues to address all the time in this way. it earmarks money to prosecutors offices to target liquor sales to minors, drug enforcement, white collar crime, the legislature has made it easier for the government to win DUI prosecutions by criminalizing a certain percent BAC in addition to actually being under the influence. if there’s a problem activity, this is how its addressed. if the legislature determines there’s an increase in race-based violence, then its fully within the state’s power to address the problem it in one of several ways, including enacting hate crime laws.

Byrd’s killers were not prosecuted under a hate crime statute. there is a federal hate crime law, that I’ll have to look into to see the congressional findings part, this will probably better explain the purpose an intent of these laws.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

hmm substitute jews for klan, and you have hitler’s arguments.
slippery slope anyone…

it would take a special kind of mind to make that leap. not one that I possess.

but since you mentioned hitler, the Nuremberg tribunal declared the SS to be a criminal organization, members automatically criminals themselves. so as a slippery slope, the *Reductio ad Hitlerum *argument not only fails again, it destroys itself.

Westerby.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I personally think it is good to differentiate hate crimes to further discourage them from happening.

Who determines what is and is not a “hate crime?”

What if the next iteration of government decides that the Catholic Church commits “hate crimes” against homosexuals?

It’s arbitrary!

Committing a crime is committing a crime, no matter what the motivation. Yes, murder is shocking, and some murders are particularly hideous.

Should this crime have been prosecuted as a “hate crime,” for example? Two young teenage girls were BRUTALIZED, raped, beaten, and murdered. The men who committed this sickening crime were Mexican nationals. The girls were Americans.

It was a horrible double murder, that qualified the perpetrators for the death penalty. No need for “hate crime” legislation. Just apply our current laws.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I think I read some where that in Wisconsin - or maybe it was Milwaukee - most those charged with racial hate crimes are black males.

I’m mixed-race myself. I think it upset some ethnic Black-Americans that their youth could actually be charged with hate crimes.

Frankly, I see no reason for the Klan to exist. I’ve always thought that it was because of the Inquisition in Latin America that something like the KKK never really grabbed a foothold. I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal to burn books or the Koran either.

My problem with “hate crimes” is that they could - or should - reasonably be applied to violent attacks on gang member by their rivals. Serial killers that stalk certain profiles of women are probably motivated out of a certain degree of hatred too.

Would be kind of nice if we could just live and let live.

 

[Bill_7154]

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 can’t choose one or the other in the poll as written. If there were more options I might be able to, in good faith, choose one.

I think that at times ‘hate crimes’ should carry stiffer penalties. Whether or not they should automatically always carry different/harsher penalties is a different story.

But if 3 kids beat up one other kid because they are bullies and don’t like him I think this is different than 3 kids beating up another while yelling and screaming ratial or other type terrible words, spit on him, tell him he’s worthless because of his race/his beliefs/whatever. I think that people who did the 2nd type of crime should be dealt with more harshly.

I’m not so sure that in all cases violence spurred on because of a dislike of a person for their beliefs should be treated differently, assuming the level of violence was the same. I think that the perp’s backgrounds should also be taken into account, if they have done ‘hate crimes’ in the past I think they should be dealt with more harshly.

Those are my thoughts.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Frankly, I see no reason for the Klan to exist. I’ve always thought that it was because of the Inquisition in Latin America that something like the KKK never really grabbed a foothold.I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal to burn books or the Koran either…

its hard to make heads or tails out out of that … statement.

please, spend 30 minutes of your time reading up on the klan just half an hour. you might get an insight into why some people go ballistic over their continued existence.

Westerby

 

[Bill_7154]

One thing I can say is that I am glad we have freedom of speech because I think that we would be much worse off if such groups as the Klan were more or less ‘forced’ underground. At least with the freedom speech I think we are in a better position to know our neighbors (close and distant) and if they are of a mindset of hate I think we are in a better position to protect ourselves if their gatherings and speech is out in the open (even though I’m sure that such groups have secret meetings, etc- I think it would be worse if it ‘had’ to be secret).

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The 1st Amendment (1st article in the Bill of Rights) was meant to protect citizens who spoke out against the GOVERNMENT. By extension it also protects groups such as the Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, Code Pink, anti-abortion protesters, etc. If we start losing our 1st Amendment rights, the government will gain even more power to act against us and more of our freedoms will be lost.

 

[maryjk]

its hard to make heads or tails out out of that … statement.

please, spend 30 minutes of your time reading up on the klan just half an hour. you might get an insight into why some people go ballistic over their continued existence.

Westerby

I have been quietly lurking on this thread, reading.

It seems to me that you don’t agree with hate crimes as much as you hate the Klan. Every example you use is about the Klan, every argument goes back to the Klan.