Hate Crimes

[vern_humphrey]

So we agree abortion is a hate crime?

If there is such a thing as a hate crime, abortion is at the top of the list.

1. The victims are members of a distinct group or class.
2. They are completely innocent.
3. Their killers dehumanize them.

 

[buffalo]

If there is such a thing as a hate crime, abortion is at the top of the list.

1. The victims are members of a distinct group or class.
2. They are completely innocent.
3. Their killers dehumanize them.

We should pound our Catholic legislators with this. Tell them they must include abortion in their list. That should get em riled up!

Maybe we could get Tim Russert to ask them the question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We should pound our Catholic legislators with this. Tell them they must include abortion in their list. That should get em riled up!

I hate to tell you this, but our Catholic legislators (Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, et al) are mostly pro-abortion.

Maybe we could get Tim Russert to ask them the question.

They should be asked the question every time they appear in public and not allowed to skirt the issue.

 

[buffalo]

I hate to tell you this, but our Catholic legislators (Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, et al) are mostly pro-abortion.

They should be asked the question every time they appear in public and not allowed to skirt the issue.

I know that and that is my point. Have them explain how the can be pro-death and at the same time support hate crimes legislation.

Try it out on Hillary. See her squirm.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know that and that is my point. Have them explain how the can be pro-death and at the same time support hate crimes legislation.

One of them – I forget the name, he’s from Michigan – had a meltdown when confronted with his support for abortion. But he didn’t change his position.

Try it out on Hillary. See her squirm.

I have an answer for that – but out of Christian charity, I forbear.

 

[emily47017]

Hasn’t “cold blooded” murder always been considered worse than a murder surrounded by strong emotions?

mm, sort of. it’s really more the difference between a carefully planned murder and an impulsive one. and you’re right: our legal system has always taken these contextual things into account. this is just one more context that is important, and speaks to the severity of the crime.

besides why would a legislature even think that it could regulate feelings?

it doesn’t; it’s regulating crime. people can go ahead and feel however they want and say whatever they want, and they’re perfectly within the law.

when they carry out a crime based on hatred of a group of people (or carry out a crime they planned in advance, or carry out a lesser crime that results in death, or any number of other qualified circumstances), that makes the crime that much more evil and that much more worthy of punishment.

 

[melensdad]

I hate to tell you this, but our Catholic legislators (Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, et al) are mostly pro-abortion.

Well I still can’t figure out why they have have not be ex-communicated. It seems insulting to even consider them Catholics.

 

[jabelltulsa]

what makes a hate crime different is that it’s not just the direct victim that’s harmed. hate crimes send a message to an entire group of people that they are hated and will be attacked because they are hated.

the KKK’s reign of terror in the jim crow south was the worst example in the 20th century; black men were taking their hats off and lowering their eyes and calling white men “sir” (while white men called them “boy”) and suffering just about any humiliation in order to avoid being beaten or lynched. the murders themselves were heinous enough, but the message sent – the “hate crime” – was an additional evil, deserving of additional punishment.

I don’t understand how if someone robs and beats my wife, and another woman gets beaten up the same night, but that woman is a minority, that it somehow warrants more punishment.

This kind of thinking leads to the idea that we are NOT all equal.

Don’t you see it that way?

 

[jabelltulsa]

They should both be punished to the point that no one would dare rob either, is my point, by the way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t understand how if someone robs and beats my wife, and another woman gets beaten up the same night, but that woman is a minority, that it somehow warrants more punishment.

This kind of thinking leads to the idea that we are NOT all equal.

Don’t you see it that way?

During the 2000 election there was a big thing that Texas didn’t have a “hate crime” law, and Bush as governor didn’t push it.

A bit earlier there had been a crime that would qualify – three white men dragged a black man to death behind a pickup.

And when questioned about it, Bush pointed out one of the three turned states evidence (which they needed to get convictions) and got life without parole. The other two got death sentences. And he reasonably asked, what more could the state do – hate crime or no hate crime?

 

[emily47017]

Don’t you see it that way?

no – a crime isn’t a hate crime just because the victim is a member of a minority. the prosecuter has to show that the crime was committed *because *the victim was a member of a group (minority or majority, either one).

if the person who attacked your wife was yelling horrible things about women or white people (i’m just assuming – is that right?) or catholics, that could very well be a hate crime. if there’s no reason to believe that she wasn’t just a random target, then it probably isn’t a hate crime. the same goes for the other woman in your hypothetical.

They should both be punished to the point that no one would dare rob either, is my point, by the way.

agreed – and the person who committed the hate crime should also be made an example of so that no one would dare attack someone just because of the group they belong to.

 

[emily47017]

And he reasonably asked, what more could the state do – hate crime or no hate crime?

true, it’s hard to do more than the max.

 

[jabelltulsa]

no – a crime isn’t a hate crime just because the victim is a member of a minority. the prosecuter has to show that the crime was committed *because *the victim was a member of a group (minority or majority, either one).

if the person who attacked your wife was yelling horrible things about women or white people (i’m just assuming – is that right?) or catholics, that could very well be a hate crime. if there’s no reason to believe that she wasn’t just a random target, then it probably isn’t a hate crime. the same goes for the other woman in your hypothetical.

Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it for me. The motivations for committing the crime only come in to play when trying to prove someone guilty. Murder, theft, rape, all of these things are bad enough - DA’s should prosecute to the maximum no matter what the motivation.

The problem is this: hate crime politicize crime in general. The motivation of the crime, and the subsequent higher degree of punishment could minimize the ramifications of committing that crime against someone @ random rather than at a special group. Our government is required to protect individual rights, not the rights of groups.

If someone commits a crime against me because I am rich (I’m not, though), is in no way more wrong than against someone who is poor (vice versa).

When a person who belongs to some social/racial group (African American, White, Homosexual, Female, etc.) and a crime is committed against them, that group is not affected in the least by that crime in relation to the victim. I don’t care how you look at it. A man or woman lying there bleeding and robbed is the one who is victimized, not the group. You can say all day long that it puts fear into the group, or that it causes shame, or misery, or what have you, that group is in no way the victim.

Laws should be weighted more heavily against the offender in all cases, rather than making crimes against this group or that more severe.

Let me go on record in saying that the idea of hate crimes and the high level of punishment are a bad idea.

One final note: labeling something a hate crime insinuates that you know the mind of the offender. How do you prove this in cases where the evidence is not so obvious? If you can’t, then how can you defend yourself if a charge of a hate crime is levied against you?

This issue is open to too much error.

 

[emily47017]

You can say all day long that it puts fear into the group, or that it causes shame, or misery, or what have you, that group is in no way the victim.

i’ll agree with you in the sense that the expression of hatred is less harmful than the crime itself… i don’t think anyone would say that the whole group suffers in the same way as the victim.

there is harm done, though. i mentioned the cumulative effect of the KKK; smaller, more isolated incidents have similar effects on the society as a whole. in wisconsin v. mitchell, the case of a black boy who led an attack on a white boy because of his race, the supreme court unanimously upheld wisconsin’s hate crime legislation. rehnquist wrote the opinion:

Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner 24-27; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-15;Brief for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as Amicus Curiae 18-22; Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae 17-19; Brief for the Anti Defamation League et al. as Amici Curiae 9-10; Brief for Congressman Charles E. Schumer et al. as Amici Curiae 8-9. **The State’s desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs or biases. **As Blackstone said long ago, “it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.

Let me go on record in saying that the idea of hate crimes and the high level of punishment are a bad idea.

okay!

How do you prove this in cases where the evidence is not so obvious? If you can’t, then how can you defend yourself if a charge of a hate crime is levied against you?

the accuser always bears the burden of proof. if there isn’t enough evidence, then the charge is either dropped or the jury rejects it.

i’ll share an ugly chapter from my own sordid past:

my first year in college, a friend and i said really mean things to a girl in our dorm. we wrote some mean things on her dry erase board outside her door, too. it was shameful and mean and childish… i regretted it instantly, and i wish i’d been big enough to apologize. instead, we were defiant.

she went to the police and attempted to charge us with racial harrassment. the “racial” bit was news to us. i can honestly say it hadn’t crossed my mind that race had anything to do with it. but how do you answer the charge? “we hate you, not your skin!” ugh.

ultimately nothing happened, and i imagine part of the reason was that we’d never said anything remotely connected to her race. we were also known to be supportive of a couple of clubs she was a part of, which worked to expose racism on campus. it would have been impossible to make the case that we were bigoted, and certainly not that we’d harrassed her because of it.

lord, just remembering that incident makes me want to go take a shower. shudder what was my point again?

 

[steveandersen]

…it doesn’t; it’s regulating crime. people can go ahead and feel however they want and say whatever they want, and they’re perfectly within the law.

Assault is already a crime
If you hit me because you hate me (me in particular or me as in my ethnic/politic/religious identity) or if you hit me because you felt like it or if you hit me because I hit you how is that any different?

when they carry out a crime based on hatred of a group of people (or carry out a crime they planned in advance, or carry out a lesser crime that results in death, or any number of other qualified circumstances), that makes the crime that much more evil and that much more worthy of punishment.

Why?

Whether my mugger was a racist or not shouldn’t matter. Mugging is a crime. I want the mugger punished for what he did not for what he feels or thinks. I don’t care why he mugged me I just don’t want him to do it again.

Besides I don’t want political bodies making decision as to what is good or evil.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Assault is already a crime
If you hit me because you hate me (me in particular or me as in my ethnic/politic/religious identity) or if you hit me because you felt like it or if you hit me because I hit you how is that any different?

Why?

Whether my mugger was a racist or not shouldn’t matter. Mugging is a crime. I want the mugger punished for what he did not for what he feels or thinks. I don’t care why he mugged me I just don’t want him to do it again.

Besides I don’t want political bodies making decision as to what is good or evil.

It brings us a step closer to thought crimes.

 

[steveandersen]

It brings us a step closer to thought crimes.

Goodthink will be rewarded
Crimethink will be punished

 

[vern_humphrey]

Goodthink will be rewarded
Crimethink will be punished

And doubleplusgood duckspeakers will rule the world.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

There is one big misnomer about the idea that motive should not be taken into consideration and that you can simply punish the crime:

In most cities, there are laws against setting something on fire. If someone burned a cross on a black families lawn, under existing laws, the most they could be charged with would be “open burning” - usually a minor misdemeanor that carries no jail time and a maximum fine of $150. The title Arson does not fit - that is a very specific crime that involves setting fire to an occupied dwelling. So basically, you burn a cross, and it’s the same as having an illegal campfire in your backyard. Is that right?

In many aspects of criminal law we have always taken the motive into consideration. For instance, in this state, if I kill you because I get angry, I may get 15 years to life in prison. If, on the other hand, it can be proved that I had a motive and meticulously planned your murder, I can receive the death penalty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In many aspects of criminal law we have always taken the motive into consideration. For instance, in this state, if I kill you because I get angry, I may get 15 years to life in prison. If, on the other hand, it can be proved that I had a motive and meticulously planned your murder, I can receive the death penalty.

In other words, if you killed in anger or hatred, you would get a lighter sentence than if you killed in a cold and calculated manner.