I think the pornography comparison is valid.
Hate speech and pornography are legal but are restricted from being unwantedly thrust into people's faces.
Prosecutors Using Broad Definition of Hate Crimes
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
I think the pornography comparison is valid.
Hate speech and pornography are legal but are restricted from being unwantedly thrust into people's faces.
If the actions in question are already crimes, THERE IS NO NEED FOR HATE CRIME LAWS! Laws are not created so as to simply have multiple charges against a perp. That argument is specious; a red herring. Prosecutors don't make laws. Maybe the actual reasons for the legislation should be examined.
Hate crime legislation essentially says that certain already criminal acts need to be punished more severely if they committed against certain privileged groups. That flies in the face of the Constitution on numerous levels not the least of which is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!
Apparently excuses substitute critical thought in this thread.
Hate crime legislation essentially says that certain already criminal acts need to be punished more severely if they committed against certain privileged groups. That flies in the face of the Constitution on numerous levels not the least of which is EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!
Apparently excuses substitute critical thought in this thread.
It isn't about just 'privileged' groups shag - If a group of blacks gathered and the leader incited the group to go 'kill whitey' it would be a hate crime as defined by the law.
And as FIND mentioned before - we do punish crimes more severely for lots of reasons - why do you think we have 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree levels of murder, assault, etc. The punishment reflects the 'severity' of the crime. Our society has decided that hate for a group, just because they are members of a group is another element in that 'deciding factor' when we look at the severity of a crime.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Hate crime laws were not created just to make multiple charges..... I just said that multiple charges are used by police and prosecutors as leverage. They will use a vague assignment of many different charges to overwhelm and scare defendants into pleading guilty on a lesser charge. You can still only try a person one time for one crime. As I said before, most of the time, a finding of HATE CRIME, is something used in sentencing. It is not a separate criminal charge, it is just found independently after a guilty verdict. There is NOWHERE that you can be found guilty of murder as a hate crime, and murder simultaneously, that is double jeopardy, and would be stricken down immediately. It is either murder, or hate crime murder. Whether they reach that verdict through a legislation defining hate crime murder as a law, or through a hearing on whether or not to elevate a conviction to a conviction on a hate crime offense, makes no difference. It is still a single criminal charge that the defendant is facing.
Hate crimes are legislation that say certain criminal acts need to be punished more severely if they are committed under conditions of motivation that is found merely in hatred of a group. A hate crime can be committed against a white protestant just as easily as black jew(yes I realize what I just said). Hate crimes are stating that certain individuals are inherently more dangerous, especially towards certain groups of people, because they are motivated to criminal activity based solely upon the existence of that group.
You are grasping for straws now....
Of course they are.
You are naive if you believe otherwise.
In this case there is a little more than just a multiple charge to it.
It's extra punishment for being motivated by irrational and irresponsible hatred.
Then your entire argument is nothing more then a red herring.
So you can't be found guilty of a hate crime?
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with hate crime legislation rather then wildly speculating to find some excuse to justify your position.
Now you are spinning it 180 degree. Again, Maybe you should familiarize yourself with hate crime legislation and the reasons given for the legislation rather then wildly speculating to find some excuse to justify your position.
No, that would be you.
Actually, yes it is. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the specifics and rationale behind hate crime legislation.
A "deciding factor" is not a SEPARATE CRIME. That fact has yet to directly be confronted in this thread. All you, or FIND continue to do is dance around that fact.
That doesn't even make sense.
Criminalizing "hate crimes" is not criminalizing hate? THAT is a huge leap that ignores reality. ALL violent crimes are "hate crimes".
Shag – you might want to review the Violent Crime Control/Law Enforcement Act as well as the Matthew Shepard Act – they aren’t about ‘protected groups’ they are about race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation in total, not broken out along ‘protected group’ status. These are protected characteristics shag – maybe that is where you are confused. No where in those laws does it exclude a group – such as white heterosexual men, or protestants. All groups are included, no group is protected ‘more’ than any other group. The cause for the legislation was to protect minorities within those protected categories - but, the final legislation doesn't protect 'just' the minorities in those areas.
Hate crimes are bias motivated acts of violence or intimidation – they have to have the ‘act’ involved – it isn’t just about thinking thoughts or free speech shag – it has to have the ‘action’ part involved as well. Intimidating a group by saying you are going to single them out for rape, is a hate crime, when it involves a protected status, such as sexual orientation or gender.
Hate crime is a 'level' of crime shag - once again, like 1st degree murder compared to 2nd degree murder compared to a murder that falls within the 'hate crime' definition. It is then prosecuted as a 'hate crime' rather than a 2nd degree offense.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
As I have said before, I agree with this in a sense, and this is a justifiable opinion. Most violent crimes require hate to commit. However. Hate crimes are different from garden variety hate. Hate crimes are not just a crime that are brought about by hateful intent against an individual, hate crimes are crimes that are motivated SOLELY by hatred of a group, where a person need not have any type of relation with the victim. This is akin to committing a crime in cold blood, yet there is a motivation. You are confusing semantics here, and trying to gain support for your position by using a slightly different definition. THAT is a red herring.
No, it is not. Only if you are taking these statements out of context and misrepresenting them
So you can't be found guilty of a hate crime?
I never said that. I said it is generally a separate finding that is used in sentencing, not a separate charge that you can face at the same time for a single act. There cannot be a finding that you committed a hate crime without finding you guilty of a crime.
Perhaps you would like to justify your opinion with something like facts? I'd ask you to defer to the second part of Foxpaws last post for a restatement of what I said earlier. I'd also suggest a thorough review of hate crime legislation. Most legislation is neutral to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other factors. The legislation that is using the fact that certain groups are in greater need of protection I disagree with, as I do believe there should be an equal protection for majority groups under hate crime legislation, as a hate crime can be committed against a member of a majority community by definition. IDK if you took many Criminal Justice classes, or if you stuck with Political Sciences, but if I have time later, I will try and look back to find you some good stuff on this subject that I got back in the day.
Hate crime legislation does not cover any and all crime motivated by hate. This bill from last year covers only the following things:
It is either ignorant or dishonest to attempt to suggest that hate crime legislation covers all crime motivated by hate. Since hate crime legislation does not cover all hateful crime, it is decidedly unconstitutional; specifically with regards to idea of equal protection under the law.
In fact, this country was founded, philosophically, on the rejection of the idea that crimes against certain people were more heinous then crimes against other people.
And before one rejects-out-of-hand the notion of privileged classes, it might be wise to consider the specific legal notion of protected classes:
violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim
So what about crimes motivated by hate through envy; say against a CEO or other financially well off person? What about crimes motivated by hate through jealousy; say against a cheating spouse?It is either ignorant or dishonest to attempt to suggest that hate crime legislation covers all crime motivated by hate. Since hate crime legislation does not cover all hateful crime, it is decidedly unconstitutional; specifically with regards to idea of equal protection under the law.
In fact, this country was founded, philosophically, on the rejection of the idea that crimes against certain people were more heinous then crimes against other people.
And before one rejects-out-of-hand the notion of privileged classes, it might be wise to consider the specific legal notion of protected classes:
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes groups of people who are protected from discrimination and harassment
The whole notion of "protected classes" (which hate crime laws hinge on) flies in the face of equal protection under the law. Even my most liberal law professor admits as much.fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
No, I'm referring to Christians being arrested in PA for witnessing on public streets, for example. They were prosecuted for hate speech.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Is there a link to the case, the court case foss - it is rather hard to comment on this if I don't know the background.
Those are once again 'choices' shag - to hate someone because they are simply black, something they didn't chose, something they have absolutely no control over is different. They hate all blacks - whether rich or poor, male or female, christian or muslim. Rich people aren't protected as a 'class'. Spouses aren't protected as a 'class'. However white people are, females are, Christians are.
Do you think that rich people should be a protected class shag? That groups screaming out 'kill the wealthy' should be tried for hate crimes? That might be a more interesting discussion, however.
Protected classes are items you can't discriminate against shag. For reasons like race, religion, gender.... They don't pick and chose which races can't be discriminate against - it is an entirety thing. You can't discriminate because someone is white, male, protestant or black, female and muslim. They are classes which include majorities and minorities. It isn't flying in the face of equal protection, it guarantees equal protection. When white, male, protestants become a minority (guess what - you are) you are just as protected under the law as white, female, protestants - the current majority.
And when hate crimes are committed against white, male, protestants, they can be tried as hate crimes, it isn't relegated to minorities, it just uses protected class as a way to define what constitutes a hate crime.
One of the reasons this country was founded is because people were being persecuted in England for their religion and their religion only. They were objects of 'hatred' and misunderstanding shag.
Some crimes are more heinous than others.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
We've already discussed it in another thread a while back and I'm really not interested in your opinion on it anyway.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
The very idea of 'hate crimes' is anathema to me.
That said, when was the last time a 'hate crime' has been prosecuted when perpetrated by someone hating a 'white male protestant'?
KS
That is not a relevant distinction in this context; essentially a distinction without difference. Weather or not the reason the person is hated is due to their own choice should be irrelevant in determining crime under the rule of law.
A crime motivated by racism is not, in any way more deserving of punishment under the law then a crime motivated by envy. Unless you are rejecting the notion of people being treated and protected equally under the law; in essence, rejecting the rule of law. Again.
I really am tired of wasting my time in this thread on people who are only interested in making excuses to delegitimizing and dismissing opposing views.
If you have a genuine interest in understanding these critiques of the idea of "hate crimes", this issue/research paper and these blogs are a good place to start.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag, they aren't interested in learning anything. Honestly, can you recall one single time where ****** has approached a topic honestly? Looks like our new friend F.I. in North Dakota is cut from the same mold.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just because people and the courts don't agree with you is no reason to turn blue and start jumping up and down.
IMO and that of others crimes motivated by hate are more deserving of punishment than crimes motivated merely by crass personal gain.
Hate crimes are more heinious because it's not a personal thing but is usually pre meditated and there is no typical gain.
How do you get to rejecting the rule of law by obeying the law as it is.
So why bring it up in a response directed specifically at me? Perhaps there was a good reason to prosecute those poor little Christians witnessing on the streets in PA... Or maybe they got off... The possibilities are many.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
No, because you disqualified your own argument. You stated that he beate the man to death because he didn't like the skin color, and he wanted to rob him. 2 separate crimes.
If you do run across it some time, let me know. Sounds like that would be a fun read. Bear in mind, I am partially with you on Hate Speech. Just like Libel or Slander, the law OFTEN uses the definitions FAR too liberally.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I am in part with you on this. I still see some distinction between motivation by race, because that spurs criminal activity without any of the "normal" criteria needed. These are in essence cold blood crimes, where you need not know or have any relation to the victim, or know anything about them, aside from a defining factor such as skin color. This means there is a different thought process that is used, and in my opinion a far more dangerous one, in the commission of a crime. Though, the argument does have some gray areas when you could extend it to a poor guy walking into Beverly hills and killing off celebrities just because he hates rich people. This is a hatred for a group different from ones self, with no other apparent motivation or belief by the perpetrator of any type of gain from his acts. So, it becomes a delicate philosophical question when one takes it to the logical extremes. But, in essence, I tend to agree with hate crimes, because I believe an individual who kills people just because they have a different skin color is more dangerous to society than an individual who kills because his girlfriend cheated on him. The "hate criminal" needs less motivation to act seemingly.
You are doing the same thing every time you say stuff like this. Plus your entire argument this thread has consisted of saying something to the effect of, "No you are wrong, hate crimes are bad, hate crime legislation is just some liberal tool to oppress the majority, and if you don't agree with conservatives, you are wrong."
See, this is a good example. You say if people have a GENUINE INTEREST they will want to read a conservative blog and paper on the issue. Basically, if people disagree, they don't have a genuine interest? Correct me if I am wrong, because that is what it appears you are saying. It seems to me you are the only person in this thread dismissing and de-legitimizing opposing views. The rest of us are discussing this issue based upon our opinions, personal experience, and core beliefs.