Hate Crime Bill Set to Pass?

[catzmeow]

How about burning a cross in a front yard of a recently arrived Black family who just moved into a formerly all White neighborhood

It's up to the prosecutor and local state laws, but I'd say that this falls into the category of terroristic threats.

How about if A White person moves into a Black neighborhood and somebody smashes their vehicle and paints "Get out Whitey"?

Unlikely to be charged as a hate crime, anywhere, ever. See, hate crime is really about certain protected classes of victims, and white people don't count.

Further, cases like this are rarely solved, so it doesn't matter what they are charged as.

Or do you think the law should be blind to reality and pretend that there aren't such hate crimes whose purpose is to TERRORIZE not only the victim, but the class that victim is a member of?

So, when CLS 18th Street members shoot up the White Fence neighborhood, how exactly is this different?

But of course motive is always an important consideration in every type of crime and I don't see any of you bitching about that.

In determining guilt, yes. In setting sentence, not so much in the way that you mean.

 

[catzmeow]

I always find it remarkable that anyone would be upset that goverment tries to stop people from being victimized by people who are full of hate just because of what someone is born.

But in all truthfulness, laws like this DON'T stop people from being victimized. They in essence set up a new criminal charge: thinking the wrong thoughts about the wrong people.

And, that seems anti-First Amendment, to me at least.

So, it's not about protecting victims. It's about not allowing any further erosion of the constitution and bill of rights.


If we want to protect victims, there are plenty of things we can do that don't require an erosion of civil liberties.

But this law isn't REALLY about protecting victims. Laws AREN'T about protecting victims. Laws are to define conduct that is legal and illegal. And killing someone is already illegal. So is a threat encoded into graffiti. As is burning a cross in someone's yard.

If we wanted to protect victims, we'd utilize the funding mechanisms already in place to develop programs FOR VICTIMS through BJA or OJP or one of the half dozen other alphabet soup federal agencies.

 

[jgbkab]

The simple fact is there is no legally justifiable reason to have "hate" crime laws. There is no justification to add an "extra" punishment for motivation.

Motive is not an element of any other crime and it should not be an element of criminal offense. It serves no purpose.

Actually, I think there is. Think about hate crimes of the past. I mean real hate crimes when there was no Federal Law to protect against hate crimes. And then a jury of peers acquit certain persons because they would sympathize with the accused and how they felt about the victims. If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.

 

[Gunny]

so what I'm hearing is that today the Democrats voted against an amendment that would exclude pedophiles from protection under this bill (means pedophiles are a protected group) but denied protection from hate crimes to our returning vets.. that's screwy as hell.

Absurd. Pedophiles don't deserve to breathe much less have special protection. Anyone that can't understand hating peds needs to go get the screws in their heads torqued back down.

 

[Gunny]

The simple fact is there is no legally justifiable reason to have "hate" crime laws. There is no justification to add an "extra" punishment for motivation.

Motive is not an element of any other crime and it should not be an element of criminal offense. It serves no purpose.

Actually, I think there is. Think about hate crimes of the past. I mean real hate crimes when there was no Federal Law to protect against hate crimes. And then a jury of peers acquit certain persons because they would sympathize with the accused and how they felt about the victims. If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.

Much better to have a jury of your "peers" decide what you were thinking, right? Basically, we all better hope that any future altercations with other humans is solely with those of one's own ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

Just wait ... we're already starting on fat people .... who's next?

 

[catzmeow]

If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.

It's not 1967 anymore, dude. And, changing the law won't change that issue because the defendant will STILL be entitled to a jury trial.

Also, remember OJ Simpson?

*cough*

 

[jgbkab]

If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.

It's not 1967 anymore, dude. And, changing the law won't change that issue because the defendant will STILL be entitled to a jury trial.

Also, remember OJ Simpson?

*cough*

Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here. And it depends on whether the jury is from the immediate community or from places other than your own community.

And OJ is the exception and not the rule.

 

[jillian]

If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.

It's not 1967 anymore, dude. And, changing the law won't change that issue because the defendant will STILL be entitled to a jury trial.

Also, remember OJ Simpson?

*cough*

As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.

 

[catzmeow]

Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here. And it depends on whether the jury is from the immediate community or from places other than your own community.

And OJ is the exception and not the rule.

Changing the law is not going to change the composition of juries.

 

[catzmeow]

As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.

True. But, race did play a role in the jury's decision.

 

[catzmeow]

Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here.

Feel free to name names. Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?

 

[jgbkab]

Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here. And it depends on whether the jury is from the immediate community or from places other than your own community.

And OJ is the exception and not the rule.

Changing the law is not going to change the composition of juries.

But the venue does.

 

[jgbkab]

Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here.

Feel free to name names. Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?

Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.

 

[jgbkab]

As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.

True. But, race did play a role in the jury's decision.

I believe it was the dough that made the difference. If OJ wouldn't have had the money for the legal team he had, it would have been a one day trial.

 

[jillian]

As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.

True. But, race did play a role in the jury's decision.

I believe it was the dough that made the difference. If OJ wouldn't have had the money for the legal team he had, it would have been a one day trial.

Perhaps... as with anything else, socio economic status enables you to buy a good defense... not that it helped Phil Spector since the evidence was so bad. But I also think OJ was a hero to them... and before they were going to put him in jail, they wanted the evidence to be right. Plus, it gave them the chance to give the finger to the LAPD which had a pretty bad history.

 

[WillowTree]

Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here.

Feel free to name names. Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?

Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.

mostly the bigotry and racist comments on this board come from people of color directed at white people.. talk about hypocrisy!

 

[del]

hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: they proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant, but that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful.


is that a message any decent society should wish to promote?

 

[jgbkab]

Feel free to name names. Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?

Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.

mostly the bigotry and racist comments on this board come from people of color directed at white people.. talk about hypocrisy!

Really? That is a bold statement. Can you give examples of these statements and the people that make them?

 

[jgbkab]

hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: they proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant, but that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful.


is that a message any decent society should wish to promote?

Then why not have set sentences for any type of crime conviction regardless of the crime?

 

[WillowTree]

Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.

mostly the bigotry and racist comments on this board come from people of color directed at white people.. talk about hypocrisy!

Really? That is a bold statement. Can you give examples of these statements and the people that make them?

just go down to race and race relations and do a little reading whydonchya?