Can a hate crime be committed against a group that doesn't believe in hate crimes?

[martybegan]

Motive is always an issue that the law takes into account when it comes to crime.

Pretending that it doesn't matter what motivated the crime is rather silly position to take given that motive can completely alter the verdict and the sentence.

The state of mind of the perp is ALWAYS important according to the law of the land.

But state of mind is usually something far more basic than the ideology behind a given action. State of mind usually boils down to planned, heat of the moment, and not intentional.

So if you plan to kill your wife after finding out she is cheating, its 1st degree murder, if you kill her when you catch her in the act of screwing someone else, it would usually be second degree murder, and finally you kill her during an argument caused by her cheating by pushing her and she cracks her head on the coffee table it would be manslaughter.

Hate crime laws add another layer to it, by for example, stating that if any of these crimes were committed and the person your wife was sleeping with was black, and they can prove this was a further issue in her death, then they can charge you with additonal crimes, or increase the penalties.

 

[Katzndogz]

What's the point? The left created the judicial concept of "hate crimes" based on the alleged biased thoughts in the mind of the perpetrator. Now the left claims that the thoughts in the minds of the victims cancels out the motive of the shooter. The world is upside down and back-assward in the liberal mind

Well, no. There must be concrete evidence to charge a hate crime. Thoughts aren't concrete evidence.

But you avoided the issue.

The entire basis of a hate crime are thoughts!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

Clearly, you aren't aware of the fact that hate crimes are defined by the motivation of the person that commits the crime.
:doh:

 

[California Girl]

Well, no. There must be concrete evidence to charge a hate crime. Thoughts aren't concrete evidence.

But you avoided the issue.

No, there has to be concrete evidence to charge a crime. The hate part is subject to the whims of left wing ideology based on a convoluted method for judging the mental state of the perpetrator. The victim's mental state is not an issue unless an ACLU law suit created one while we weren't looking.

Feel free to show me a case where someone was convicted of a hate crime with no compelling evidence to support the charge.

It's the 'slippery slope'... at what point do we say 'you cannot imprison someone for a thought'. So what if they're motivated by 'hate'. Does that make the victim more important than another victim of the same crime? Do you not see how fucking ludicrous the concept is? And, again, at what point do we draw a line... or will you be supporting 'thought crimes' just because you disagree with the 'thought'? Dangerous.

 

[Ravi]

No, there has to be concrete evidence to charge a crime. The hate part is subject to the whims of left wing ideology based on a convoluted method for judging the mental state of the perpetrator. The victim's mental state is not an issue unless an ACLU law suit created one while we weren't looking.

Feel free to show me a case where someone was convicted of a hate crime with no compelling evidence to support the charge.

It's the 'slippery slope'... at what point do we say 'you cannot imprison someone for a thought'. So what if they're motivated by 'hate'. Does that make the victim more important than another victim of the same crime? Do you not see how fucking ludicrous the concept is? And, again, at what point do we draw a line... or will you be supporting 'thought crimes' just because you disagree with the 'thought'? Dangerous.

I'm up in the air about hate crimes. But since they require compelling evidence to support a conviction, I don't really have a problem with them. They are not thought crimes and no, I would not support thought crimes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Funny how the left was so concerned about the Constitutional rights of Communists who were out to overthrow the government and anarchists like Bill Ayers but they ignore the Constitution when the victims threaten the abortion industry. The 1st Amendment offers "equal protection under the law". That includes "the family research council". Case closed.

The ‘left’ is concerned about the Constitutional rights of all persons in the United States, on all points of the political spectrum. Also, the ‘left’ does not ignore the Constitution with regard to those opposed to the right to privacy, as restrictions with regard to demonstrations outside of health clinics which offer abortion services, such as buffer zones, have been determined Constitutional by the Supreme Court. See: Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc (1994).

What's the point? The left created the judicial concept of "hate crimes" based on the alleged biased thoughts in the mind of the perpetrator. Now the left claims that the thoughts in the minds of the victims cancels out the motive of the shooter. The world is upside down and back-assward in the liberal mind

No one is going to agree with you that Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas are ‘the left,’ and particularly not Justice Rehnquist who wrote the unanimous opinion in Wisconsin vs. Mitchell (1993). In Mitchell, the Court ruled that enhanced sentencing was Constitutional and appropriate when race was a motivating factor in the commission of a crime, nor did the Mitchell Court find statutes authorizing enhanced sentencing a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Feel free to show me a case where someone was convicted of a hate crime with no compelling evidence to support the charge.

It's the 'slippery slope'... at what point do we say 'you cannot imprison someone for a thought'. So what if they're motivated by 'hate'. Does that make the victim more important than another victim of the same crime? Do you not see how fucking ludicrous the concept is? And, again, at what point do we draw a line... or will you be supporting 'thought crimes' just because you disagree with the 'thought'? Dangerous.

I'm up in the air about hate crimes. But since they require compelling evidence to support a conviction, I don't really have a problem with them. They are not thought crimes and no, I would not support thought crimes.

Correct. These are not ‘thought crimes,’ as the enhanced sentencing takes place in the context of the violent crime, where race is a motivating factor.

 

[Si modo]

Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

Um, laws aren't applied based on the victim's beliefs in a law.

But, I bet you knew that.

 

[AmyNation]

Hate crimes should not be a designated crime.

 

[techieny]

Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

Get a bigger hat!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

To me terrorism has to have some goal of destabilizing society as a whole through violent action.

Right, and hanging someone for being black in no way terrorizes blacks as a group. Just ask all the blacks who happened to live next door to people who had crosses burned in their yard - they didn't feel threatened at all I'm sure.

 

[Ravi]

Hate crimes should not be a designated crime.

They aren't. You can't be convicted of just a hate crime. Another crime must also be committed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hate crimes should not be a designated crime.

They aren't. You can't be convicted of just a hate crime. Another crime must also be committed.

True. Otherwise 90 percent of the country would be in prison.

 

[Noomi]

Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

Lol. Sucks for them, then!

Unless there is evidence the shooter was motivated by hate, then no hate crime charge should be brought. Even if there was ample evidence to suggest it was a hate crime, no charge should be brought because the FRC doesn't believe in those charges.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

The Family Research Council is entitled to exhibit its ignorance and pretend whatever it likes doesn’t exist.

But enhanced sentencing in the context of crimes motivated by hate are indeed real, and Constitutional; not that that matters to most conservatives, of course.

 

[California Girl]

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

The Family Research Council is entitled to exhibit its ignorance and pretend whatever it likes doesn’t exist.

But enhanced sentencing in the context of crimes motivated by hate are indeed real, and Constitutional; not that that matters to most conservatives, of course.

What is it with the left and their communistic tendencies? Thought crime.... very dangerous road to go down. Sometimes, freedom is hard... but that does not mean we should not choose hard. JFK had it right. We do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

the law is the law, even if it is idiotic.

The FRC can be judged by what they do or try to do on this. If they ask that the hate crime part not be pushed, they are in the clear, if not.... well that's hypocrisy.

 

[editec]

Motive is always an issue that the law takes into account when it comes to crime.

Pretending that it doesn't matter what motivated the crime is rather silly position to take given that motive can completely alter the verdict and the sentence.

The state of mind of the perp is ALWAYS important according to the law of the land.

But state of mind is usually something far more basic than the ideology behind a given action.

Yes, that is certainly true. I quite agree, Marty

State of mind usually boils down to planned, heat of the moment, and not intentional.

No, not necessarily.

So if you plan to kill your wife after finding out she is cheating, its 1st degree murder, if you kill her when you catch her in the act of screwing someone else, it would usually be second degree murder, and finally you kill her during an argument caused by her cheating by pushing her and she cracks her head on the coffee table it would be manslaughter.

Yes, and you just decribed three DIFFERENT states of mind, didn't you? The first is what we sometimes call COLD BLOODED, the second we often describe as being IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT, and the third we often call a TRAGIC MISADVENTURE.

But ALL three states of mind ARE STATES of mind.

Hate crime laws add another layer to it, by for example, stating that if any of these crimes were committed and the person your wife was sleeping with was black, and they can prove this was a further issue in her death, then they can charge you with additonal crimes, or increase the penalties.

Hate crimes are a specific type of crime...they are crimes motivated by a rather specific kind of hatred, and crimes that are intended to cow, not only the victim, but those who are ALSO in the same class as the victim.