Hate crime haters

[Ravi]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

 

[007]

Why write redundant laws?

 

[DiamondDave]

You really don't have any 'kindness' crimes.. now do you?

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

There should be no legislation or policy that references or is based upon race in any fashion. Such policies, intended to help make us all equal and whole, serve only to keep us separated-- and the Supreme Court has wisely ruled in the past that what is separate cannot be equal.

There is only room for one race in America, and that is the American race.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

You really don't have any 'kindness' crimes.. now do you?

Assisted suicide. Copyright infringement. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Statutory rape. Even some versions of Treason.

But all that aside, yeah, the concept of singling out crimes motivated by "hate" for extra punishment seems pretty silly to me. Especially since the more time people spend in prison, the more they're going to learn to hate.

 

[Ravi]

There should be no legislation or policy that references or is based upon race in any fashion. Such policies, intended to help make us all equal and whole, serve only to keep us separated-- and the Supreme Court has wisely ruled in the past that what is separate cannot be equal.

There is only room for one race in America, and that is the American race.

They don't only cover race.

 

[KittenKoder]

Hate crimes are just as bias as those they are suppose to be used against, for one. The other is that it is not equality at all, to have true equality no one should have extra "protection" either.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

They don't only cover race.

The same principle applies, as does my other objection.

 

[Ravi]

They don't only cover race.

The same principle applies, as does my other objection.

How do you feel about laws against terrorism and do you see them as different than hate crime law?

 

[WillowTree]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

so should people be divided by color? laws written according to color?? Is that where we are headed? Interesting.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Hate crimes are special interest group legislation intended to advance whatever their agenda is. It is corruption crap on top of the growing pile of corruption crap our honorable congressional representatives cook up to improve the lives of the U.S. citizenry.

Murder, manslaughter and their derivatives are legally established crimes. In fact, it is difficult to find any area of American civilization where there are not existing laws governing human misbehavior. The questions are as they have always been: to what degree are existing laws being enforced by 1) those charged with that and 2) those charged with determining guilt and punishment.

 

[WillowTree]

Tell us which is worse


A white man kills a black man


or




A black man kills a white man










then you have your answer..







we shall wait

 

[WillowTree]

which is worse



a straight man kills a gay man



or





a gay man kills a straight man










Then you have your answer










we shall wait

 

[Tech_Esq]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

Speaking from the legal perspective, I never really understood the value of adding time for someone's motive. In criminal cases, motive is not part of the case. I don't understand why you should bring in some other idea to specific cases categorized as "hate" crimes.

Crimes are not usually acts of love, so people shouldn't get too confused. If there is a specific action you would like to increase a penalty for, I think that's fine. Like in Virginia, we have Project Exile and the like, you commit a crime and have a gun on you, you sit an extra five years.

But, if you are punishing a specific action with more time, I think it should serve a "compelling state interest" like punishing people who use firearms when they commit a crime. If the action is merely obnoxious, I wouldn't see it as a compelling interest. There are many things that are obnoxious and offensive.

That's my take anyway. If you are not satisfied with the level of punishment you give a certain crime, then increase it across the board.

 

[Ravi]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

so should people be divided by color? laws written according to color?? Is that where we are headed? Interesting.

Just a simple question, Willow. I notice W. Joyce and Yurt both seem to think hate crime laws are okay as long as they also protect white people/men. Others think hate crime laws are wrong no matter how they are written. I'm undecided.

 

[Ravi]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

Speaking from the legal perspective, I never really understood the value of adding time for someone's motive. In criminal cases, motive is not part of the case. I don't understand why you should bring in some other idea to specific cases categorized as "hate" crimes.

Crimes are not usually acts of love, so people shouldn't get too confused. If there is a specific action you would like to increase a penalty for, I think that's fine. Like in Virginia, we have Project Exile and the like, you commit a crime and have a gun on you, you sit an extra five years.

But, if you are punishing a specific action with more time, I think it should serve a "compelling state interest" like punishing people who use firearms when they commit a crime. If the action is merely obnoxious, I wouldn't see it as a compelling interest. There are many things that are obnoxious and offensive.

That's my take anyway. If you are not satisfied with the level of punishment you give a certain crime, then increase it across the board.

What if it is only considered for sentencing purposes?

 

[WillowTree]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

so should people be divided by color? laws written according to color?? Is that where we are headed? Interesting.

Just a simple question, Willow. I notice W. Joyce and Yurt both seem to think hate crime laws are okay as long as they also protect white people/men. Others think hate crime laws are wrong no matter how they are written. I'm undecided.

I think you should answer the two questions,, may help you decide.. I personally think we should decide if we deserve equal protection under the law no matter what our color creed or sexual orientation.. equal,, being the key word.. now do we want to divide our rights up according to color.. or do we not?

 

[William Joyce]

Just a simple question, Willow. I notice W. Joyce and Yurt both seem to think hate crime laws are okay as long as they also protect white people/men. Others think hate crime laws are wrong no matter how they are written. I'm undecided.

I'd add one thing:

Also prosecute HOAX hate crimes, which are themselves a type of hate crime.

 

[Ravi]

so should people be divided by color? laws written according to color?? Is that where we are headed? Interesting.

Just a simple question, Willow. I notice W. Joyce and Yurt both seem to think hate crime laws are okay as long as they also protect white people/men. Others think hate crime laws are wrong no matter how they are written. I'm undecided.

I think you should answer the two questions,, may help you decide.. I personally think we should decide if we deserve equal protection under the law no matter what our color creed or sexual orientation.. equal,, being the key word.. now do we want to divide our rights up according to color.. or do we not?

They are all equally wrong. Do you feel the same about terrorism laws? Because I really can't see a difference between charging someone with terrorism and charging them with a hate crime.

 

[Ravi]

Just a simple question, Willow. I notice W. Joyce and Yurt both seem to think hate crime laws are okay as long as they also protect white people/men. Others think hate crime laws are wrong no matter how they are written. I'm undecided.

I'd add one thing:

Also prosecute HOAX hate crimes, which are themselves a type of hate crime.

What is a hoax hate crime?