Say No To Hate Legislation

[Cats Cats Cats]

TeeDub is consistent on his illegaler stance and should be commended!

[TeeDub]

There are few things I want in the world...

1.  Laws that are fair.

2.  Ron Paul to quit emailing me asking for money.

[we vs us]

We've had this discussion before, but the rationale behind hate crime legislation is that certain crimes (even murder) are committed not only against an individual (Matthew Shephard, for instance) but also constitute a crime against a portion of society (gays).  I don't think it's a stretch to recognize that violence that goes unchecked or unaddressed for what it is -- which is to say violence against a class of person rather than just an individual -- is more bad, and worth addressing more than -- or separate from --  random violence.  

And for what it's worth, white men can be targets of a hate crime, too.

Also, I don't buy this whole "crime against thought" BS. We judge motive all the time in criminal proceedings and it's not a problem. In fact -- so long as the burden of proof is met -- it's a pillar of the conviction.  Hate crime legislation doesn't erase the burden of proof, either. You still have to prove that the guys in the bar who killed Shephard did it because they hated gays.   If you can't, then it was a crime of passion, pure and simple.

[Hometown]

Goodness FOTD, You got a turnout of the hateful Right but thankfully We vs. Us showed up to set things straight.  Luckily, as the lady in Dallas told me, Oklahoma doesn't count, and some good stuff will probably come down to us from the Feds as Oklahoma fights to hang onto our wicked past. 

[Conan71]

Have you looked around at the Tulsa state fair?

I kid, I kid

Bwaaahaaa!

[Conan71]

We've had this discussion before, but the rationale behind hate crime legislation is that certain crimes (even murder) are committed not only against an individual (Matthew Shephard, for instance) but also constitute a crime against a portion of society (gays).  I don't think it's a stretch to recognize that violence that goes unchecked or unaddressed for what it is -- which is to say violence against a class of person rather than just an individual -- is more bad, and worth addressing more than -- or separate from --  random violence.  

And for what it's worth, white men can be targets of a hate crime, too.

Also, I don't buy this whole "crime against thought" BS. We judge motive all the time in criminal proceedings and it's not a problem. In fact -- so long as the burden of proof is met -- it's a pillar of the conviction.  Hate crime legislation doesn't erase the burden of proof, either. You still have to prove that the guys in the bar who killed Shephard did it because they hated gays.   If you can't, then it was a crime of passion, pure and simple.

With all due respect, Wevus:  Is there really a need to legally create a secondary class of victims (i.e. a racial or sexual orientation group) with certain violent crimes?  Why not make rape officially a hate crime against women?  In many of the cases it happens because the rapist has a hatred of women.

I'm sensitve to the issue of someone being killed simply because they are gay, black, transgendered, Lithuanian, etc.  But adding a 15 yard penalty because the victim wasn't straight or English, or whatever simply is no deterrent.  Not only is punishment supposed to teach the offender a lesson and remove he/she from being an ongoing threat to society, but it's also supposed to be a deterrent to keep others from repeating the crime.  Apply murder laws equally across the board.  One intentional murder is just as heinous as the next if you ask victim's families regardless of ethnic, racial, or sexual orientation.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I agree that the "hate crimes" shouldn't be "worse" than any other murder.  Actually if somebody was charged with a hate crime it wouldn't necessarily have a worse sentence than Murder due to the fact that the sentencing guidelines are now voluntary instead of mandatory.  This bill should be re-written to not suggest the mandatory minimum be any more than any other murder.  I still believe that there are people in positions of power that would give individuals who attacked or killed people of a certain race or sexual orientation a different charge.  When is murder not a murder? When it is tried as manslaughter.  Passing this law would allow the Fed Gov. to try the cases as murders if somebody decided they didn't feel like prosecuting.  I think this is a State's rights issue too...  They should rewrite the law to remove any "increased" suggested sentencing from the books.

[waterboy]

With all due respect, Wevus:  Is there really a need to legally create a secondary class of victims (i.e. a racial or sexual orientation group) with certain violent crimes?  Why not make rape officially a hate crime against women?  In many of the cases it happens because the rapist has a hatred of women.

But adding a 15 yard penalty because the victim wasn't straight or English, or whatever simply is no deterrent.  Not only is punishment supposed to teach the offender a lesson and remove he/she from being an ongoing threat to society, but it's also supposed to be a deterrent to keep others from repeating the crime. 

Its interesting you used a football analogy. When a linebacker comes unabated to the quarterback and smashes him in the helmet viciously, it is a flagrant or intentional foul and carries the maximum. He may even be removed from the game. However, if he fights his way through and trips on a lineman, then smashes his helmet viciously, it is only incidental contact and a lesser penalty. Both hits were vicious and damaging, but somehow intent and the vulnerability of the quarterback position made the difference. Also, if the NFL sees a lot of that kind of vicious hitting on quarterbacks they will address it with specific rules to protect the position. Meanwhile, a lowly cornerback may be getting hit the same way in an occassional manner and nobody seems too bothered.

Might have been a bad analogy for you. I'm siding with Wevus since we've all had this conversation before and all used the same arguments. At least we're consistent.

[guido911]

I would think that everyone in this thread would be concerned more about the inherent unfairness evidence pertaining to a hate crime would have in a criminal trial. Having a prosecutor standing in front of the jury during opening statement, pointing his finger at a person that allegedly killed a homosexual, and saying "I have evidence that this man is opposed to gay marriage or evidence someone once overheard him say that he hates f$gs" or in a case where an African American was killed, "that man once said the N word and he has a confederate sticker on his pick up" would be permissible in a hate crime trial. That evidence, without hate crime laws, would be prejudicial and inflammatory and never thought of being admitted. Now, it's relevant, probative, and almost required to be presented!

[jamesrage]

An Action note for the Interfaith Alliance

Thanks for all your great work and help on this issue.

Subject: "Fight hate crimes: help us pass H.R. 1913!"

I am against hate crime laws. If someone commits premeditated murder then that individual treated no different than any one else who commits premeditated murder regardless of his victim is a different race,religion, or some other group. Thought control charges should not be used.