Hate crime haters

[Tech_Esq]

On the motive issue, as I say in a later post, the court takes aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account during sentencing. I just don't think it should be an element of the offense.

Concerning the "why not" question, my fear, as expressed by others on here as well, is that by separating some groups out for 'special protection,' you raise the ire of those seemingly non-protected groups. You have to remember the bulk of this country (or any other) is not made up of the intelligentsia, they are hardly going to be understanding of the finer points of historical discrimination and potential targeting of those groups. (That's assuming they would even buy it if you explained it to them). Instead, they are going to feel disaffected by the law.

You may say, so what, white males aren't a protected class, let them feel disaffected. My point is that it will create more potential for civil unrest and strife between the objects of the protection and those that aren't. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to claim that the passage of hate crime legislation would incite attacks by one group on another, instead it would take its place in a long list of supposed abuses that a disaffected group will take to citing as justification for their actions. It highlights the differences between groups instead of highlighting the similarities. You are making the protected groups more "the other" than they are now.

What a civil society needs to be focused on is maintaining order in the vast majority of the society on a daily basis. There aren't enough cops or prosecutors in the world to keep order if that is not the case. Yes, punish the crime. Punish it severely. But, in my view, the continued carving up of America into this and that "group" is done at the peril of continuance of civil society. I don't know which straw will break the camel's back, but I think maybe we should stop shoveling.

I absolutely see where you're coming from. I think it's a difference in philosophy. I am a believer that people who victimize others for what they are born deserve that extra bit of deterrance. And, if there isn't general deterrance, I'm ok with the specific deterrance inherant of keeping someone off the streets who would victimize someone for the color of their skin or sexuality.

there are those who say that such laws create more strife? do they? i don't know. i think the people who are full of hate are already full of hatred and it isn't going to make a difference.

that of course is just my opinion.

as to a "civil society".... I'm afraid I think a civil society doessn't tolerate beating to death a young man for being gay.... or beating an hispanic person for being hispanic.

it's a different philosophy certainly, but i think as to such things, I'd rather err on the side of protecting those suspect classes of people who have proven to have targets on their back for the lowlives who would attack them.

I do see your point, I mean after all I went to law school at American University, if there is a more liberal law school, I pity the students. My Crim Law Prof was the General Counsel of Rainbow Push. Jesse Jackson came to our class and we were treated to a rousing "I AM SOME BODY" chorus in class. (Honest to God). I am fully steeped in all the reasons we should favor hate crime laws.

In my civil society, we should value all of the members the same. If anyone gets beaten to death for any reason, or no reason at all, they should get the punishment they deserve. I would hate to be the relative of a murder victim and watch the criminal only get 25 years because my family member was not in a protected class, when life without parole would have be the sentence if they had been.

What of prosecutorial discretion? If you were the prosecutor in the Knoxville cases, where racial tensions were already running high because of the nature of the crimes, would you have had the balls to charge the murders with hate crimes and risk a race war?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I know it does, you know it does...but the perception is out there that it doesn't for whatever reason. So does the problem lay with the talking heads of the world for pretending it doesn't and aren't they actually trying to cause strife by pretending it doesn't and convincing their listeners that it doesn't?

The reason is a thing called prosecutorial discretion. The same reason when you are speeding down the road at 70 mph and the Trooper pulls you over, but doesn't pull over the guy going 85 in front of you and you're pissed. Prosecutorial discretion.

Bottom line is that politically elected prosecutors have to charge some one with a hate crime. Just what do you think the NAACP would have done in the Knoxville torture-murder cases last year if they had charged the 5 blacks who tortured and murdered the white couple with a hate crime? Just how long do you think their political career would be after Jesse and Al got down there and hounded them from office?

That's why people think like that. It isn't because it couldn't happen, it's because it won't. Prosecutors know damn well that charging minorities with hate crimes is a sure way to find yourself unemployed and will more trouble than they care to see in a lifetime. After all, the rationalization will go, it isn't like we aren't going to charge the minority in question with a crime, we just aren't going to go the "hate crime" route.

This sends a message to the community as well.

So basically you, and Editec, are against hate crime laws because of the fear someone will misuse the law.

I'm not even sure if it could be called "misuse." They will not apply it evenly, and you could argue, for good reason. If the prosecutor had used in the Knoxville cases, it probably would have caused a race war. That definitely would not have been in the public's interest even though it would have been an imminently just usage of the law.

So, I don't see the law being misused, just not equally applied.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm still undecided. While I can certainly understand not wanting a law written because of the potential for abuse I'm not sure if that reason is valid. After all, the law is abused constantly but that doesn't mean we should just not have laws.

I'm against the Patriot Act because it has the potential to abuse the innocent by illegal wiretapping, among other things. But I don't see hate crime legislation in exactly the same way since you cannot be arrested merely for having bigoted thoughts.

As I said earlier, I believe all violent crime should be severely punished. I do not believe that motivation should play a part in how severely a person is punished for a violent crime.

The same goes for non-violent crime. Should someone be punished for calling a gay man a Fag or a black man the N-word and that same jerk who used those words not be punished for calling either one of them... a Son of a Bitch?

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I'm still undecided. While I can certainly understand not wanting a law written because of the potential for abuse I'm not sure if that reason is valid. After all, the law is abused constantly but that doesn't mean we should just not have laws.

I'm against the Patriot Act because it has the potential to abuse the innocent by illegal wiretapping, among other things. But I don't see hate crime legislation in exactly the same way since you cannot be arrested merely for having bigoted thoughts.

As I said earlier, I believe all violent crime should be severely punished. I do not believe that motivation should play a part in how severely a person is punished for a violent crime.

The same goes for non-violent crime. Should someone be punished for calling a gay man a Fag or a black man the N-word and that same jerk who used those words not be punished for calling either one of them... a Son of a Bitch?

Immie

There is no law against calling someone a fag or a ****** so your question makes no sense to me.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm still undecided. While I can certainly understand not wanting a law written because of the potential for abuse I'm not sure if that reason is valid. After all, the law is abused constantly but that doesn't mean we should just not have laws.

I'm against the Patriot Act because it has the potential to abuse the innocent by illegal wiretapping, among other things. But I don't see hate crime legislation in exactly the same way since you cannot be arrested merely for having bigoted thoughts.

As I said earlier, I believe all violent crime should be severely punished. I do not believe that motivation should play a part in how severely a person is punished for a violent crime.

The same goes for non-violent crime. Should someone be punished for calling a gay man a Fag or a black man the N-word and that same jerk who used those words not be punished for calling either one of them... a Son of a Bitch?

Immie

There is no law against calling someone a fag or a ****** so your question makes no sense to me.

Except that every day as we move more and more towards the PC extreme world we get closer to the idea of it being a crime to call someone a fag. The laws against discrimination do, in fact, prevent someone from refusing to hire a homosexual based solely upon his homosexual nature. Call a man a fag in an interview and do not hire him, then you are guilty of discrimination and under hate crime laws, you could be considered guilty of a hate crime.

Don't think it applies with a homosexual, then try it with a black man. The EEOC will be on your butt before you can say "shit".

Immie

 

[Ravi]

As I said earlier, I believe all violent crime should be severely punished. I do not believe that motivation should play a part in how severely a person is punished for a violent crime.

The same goes for non-violent crime. Should someone be punished for calling a gay man a Fag or a black man the N-word and that same jerk who used those words not be punished for calling either one of them... a Son of a Bitch?

Immie

There is no law against calling someone a fag or a ****** so your question makes no sense to me.

Except that every day as we move more and more towards the PC extreme world we get closer to the idea of it being a crime to call someone a fag. The laws against discrimination do, in fact, prevent someone from refusing to hire a homosexual based solely upon his homosexual nature. Call a man a fag in an interview and do not hire him, then you are guilty of discrimination and under hate crime laws, you could be considered guilty of a hate crime.

Don't think it applies with a homosexual, then try it with a black man. The EEOC will be on your butt before you can say "shit".

Immie

The same would apply if you called someone a bible thumper.

Hate crime laws aren't the same thing as laws governing workplace discrimination.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hate crime law doesn't serve justice... PERIOD.

It's subjective, inequitable and it amounts to little more than thought control...

Such law can and will only result in undermining the faith of the citizenry in the means of the judiciary to serve justice and that is the essential to undermining a sound culture.

Watching this crap unfold is like watching the Twilight Zone... You know it can't happen... yet there it is... they look like adults, but they think like children.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is no law against calling someone a fag or a ****** so your question makes no sense to me.

Except that every day as we move more and more towards the PC extreme world we get closer to the idea of it being a crime to call someone a fag. The laws against discrimination do, in fact, prevent someone from refusing to hire a homosexual based solely upon his homosexual nature. Call a man a fag in an interview and do not hire him, then you are guilty of discrimination and under hate crime laws, you could be considered guilty of a hate crime.

Don't think it applies with a homosexual, then try it with a black man. The EEOC will be on your butt before you can say "shit".

Immie

The same would apply if you called someone a bible thumper.

Hate crime laws aren't the same thing as laws governing workplace discrimination.

They are precisely the same thing...

Hate crime law simply takes the protections for the protected classes even further... providing MUCH harsher sentencing to people who it can simply be argued have taken action to harm someone of those protected classes...

In this bill they've extended the protection to Pedophiles... which in effect establishes "pedophiles" as a protected class...

It is insanity on parade...

 

[manifold]

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?

None

 

[Ravi]

Except that every day as we move more and more towards the PC extreme world we get closer to the idea of it being a crime to call someone a fag. The laws against discrimination do, in fact, prevent someone from refusing to hire a homosexual based solely upon his homosexual nature. Call a man a fag in an interview and do not hire him, then you are guilty of discrimination and under hate crime laws, you could be considered guilty of a hate crime.

Don't think it applies with a homosexual, then try it with a black man. The EEOC will be on your butt before you can say "shit".

Immie

The same would apply if you called someone a bible thumper.

Hate crime laws aren't the same thing as laws governing workplace discrimination.

They are precisely the same thing...

Hate crime law simply takes the protections for the protected classes even further... providing MUCH harsher sentencing to people who it can simply be argued have taken action to harm someone of those protected classes...

In this bill they've extended the protection to Pedophiles... which in effect establishes "pedophiles" as a protected class...

It is insanity on parade...

What a liar you are.

 

[AllieBaba]

Care to elaborate exactly how PI's lying?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The same would apply if you called someone a bible thumper.

Hate crime laws aren't the same thing as laws governing workplace discrimination.

They are precisely the same thing...

Hate crime law simply takes the protections for the protected classes even further... providing MUCH harsher sentencing to people who it can simply be argued have taken action to harm someone of those protected classes...

In this bill they've extended the protection to Pedophiles... which in effect establishes "pedophiles" as a protected class...

It is insanity on parade...

What a liar you are.

A Liar?
.
.
.
Really?
.
.
.
.
How so...?

And be specific...
.
.
.
at least as specific, as your intellectual limitations, allow?

 

[JohnStOnge]

There is no law against calling someone a fag or a ****** so your question makes no sense to me.

I don't know if that's going to be true if the legislation they've been talking about passes. I mean, it may not be a law against name callling per se; but my understanding is that people might be held accountable for saying things that are construed as inspiring or encouraging someone else to commit a violent act.

Look, this is clearly an effort at thought control. I don't see how anybody can possibly miss that.

 

[Ravi]

There is no law against calling someone a fag or a ****** so your question makes no sense to me.

I don't know if that's going to be true if the legislation they've been talking about passes. I mean, it may not be a law against name callling per se; but my understanding is that people might be held accountable for saying things that are construed as inspiring or encouraging someone else to commit a violent act.

There's already a law against that I believe...conspiracy or incitement to riot.

Look, this is clearly an effort at thought control. I don't see how anybody can possibly miss that.

Your post or the hate crime law? I ask that half in jest.

Hate crime laws have been on the books for decades and I've yet to see anyone arrested for a thought crime. Well, the exception would be those idiots in Miami that were arrested for terrorism.

 

[editec]

I know it does, you know it does...but the perception is out there that it doesn't for whatever reason. So does the problem lay with the talking heads of the world for pretending it doesn't and aren't they actually trying to cause strife by pretending it doesn't and convincing their listeners that it doesn't?

The reason is a thing called prosecutorial discretion. The same reason when you are speeding down the road at 70 mph and the Trooper pulls you over, but doesn't pull over the guy going 85 in front of you and you're pissed. Prosecutorial discretion.

Bottom line is that politically elected prosecutors have to charge some one with a hate crime. Just what do you think the NAACP would have done in the Knoxville torture-murder cases last year if they had charged the 5 blacks who tortured and murdered the white couple with a hate crime? Just how long do you think their political career would be after Jesse and Al got down there and hounded them from office?

That's why people think like that. It isn't because it couldn't happen, it's because it won't. Prosecutors know damn well that charging minorities with hate crimes is a sure way to find yourself unemployed and will more trouble than they care to see in a lifetime. After all, the rationalization will go, it isn't like we aren't going to charge the minority in question with a crime, we just aren't going to go the "hate crime" route.

This sends a message to the community as well.

So basically you, and Editec, are against hate crime laws because of the fear someone will misuse the law.

Are you really a lawyer?

I ask because you keep reading into my posts thing which are clearly not there, and I've always thought that if there's one thing lawyers care about it's the careful assessment of what the words on the page really say.

No I did not say that I object to hate crime laws.

I said that the problem with having them is that their enforcement is far too often POLTICICIZED.

MOTIVE certainly does and should play a role in sentencing.

If I punch a Black man because that particular man annoyed me, that is a crime.

If I punch a Black man BECAUSE he is a Black man that SHOULD be recognized as another crime, and one that suggests that my sociopatholgy profile is a far more threatening kind to the commonweal.

Society would be damned foolish to pretend otherwise.

Editecian liberalism is not a suicide pact, Tech.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm still undecided. While I can certainly understand not wanting a law written because of the potential for abuse I'm not sure if that reason is valid. After all, the law is abused constantly but that doesn't mean we should just not have laws.

I'm against the Patriot Act because it has the potential to abuse the innocent by illegal wiretapping, among other things. But I don't see hate crime legislation in exactly the same way since you cannot be arrested merely for having bigoted thoughts.

As I said earlier, I believe all violent crime should be severely punished. I do not believe that motivation should play a part in how severely a person is punished for a violent crime.

The same goes for non-violent crime. Should someone be punished for calling a gay man a Fag or a black man the N-word and that same jerk who used those words not be punished for calling either one of them... a Son of a Bitch?

Immie

There is no law against calling someone a fag or a ****** so your question makes no sense to me.

Well, that's not true... The entire thesis behind Hate-crime legislation is to divine intent, vis-à-vis: Hate. Where someone commits a crime, particularly assault against another, who is designated to be one of the protected classes, and uses the words noted above int he process of that crime; those words will likely be used to trigger the hate-crime sanctions.

So while there may be no 'law' per se, which prevents their use otherwise, this LAW does provide for a greater punishment, due to those words being indicative of 'hate' and such does demonstrate a defacto law against their use...

As I've said, the notion of Hate-crime does not serve justice; the notion of hate-crimes and the legislation which increases the punishment for a given crime on the premise that the crime was a result of hate, serves 'fairness'... which while being 'felt' to be the same as equality, this irrational species of reasoning turns equality on its head and designates PREFERENCE, which is the antithesis of fairness...

The entire idea is to establish that 'hate' is simply intolerable... that 'hate' is an emotion which the culture will simply not abide... but such a notion stands in the face of the certainty that there are numerous wonderful examples of notions and people which nature's design has determined are anathema to civilization... Terrorism, Murder, Pedophilia and so one, come to mind as classic examples of those things which as a natural result of their absurd demonstration of irresponsibility will provoke hate... But the word hate is one of those words which, like fascism, torture and pornography, which people feel they understand, but when asked to define that word, most people have a tough time working through what the words actually mean and more often than not when they do rattle off a definition, they simply get it wrong.

hate [hayt]
v (past and past participle hat·ed, present participle hat·ing, 3rd person present singular hates)
1. vt dislike somebody or something intensely: to dislike somebody or something intensely, often in a way that evokes feelings of anger, hostility, or animosity
2. vti have strong distaste for something: to have strong distaste or aversion for something, somebody, or something that has to be done
I hate this show; it's so boring.
I hate to say it, but I know we're going to lose.
Some people seem to have been born to hate.



n (plural hates)
1. feeling of intense hostility: a feeling of intense hostility toward somebody or something
You could see the hate in his eyes.

2. something hated: something that is hated

See anything in that definition, which in and of itself demonstrates anathema? A feeling of intense dislike is what I feel for those whose sexual apetite is focused upon the innocence of children. What's not to hate? I feel the same way about the leftist ideology, as the species of reasoning which sustains that ideology promotes the interests of such people... as well as other similar debauchery, which must and will always lead to cultural chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Again, this bill provides for civil protections, via the increased punishment for 'hate-crimes' inflicted upon the PEDOPHILE...

Can I see a show of hands wherein those raising their hands would have beleived, just a couple of years ago, that the Democrat Party of the US and the ideological left on the whole would be advancing a law which PROTECTED the RIGHTS OF PEDOPHILES...?

(My hand is raised...)

Thus, this legislation, written by the Left, marked up by the DEMOCRATS and which will soon be on its way to be signed into law by the DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT... conclusively establishing that the Ideological left is using this legislation to subvert American values and demonstrates an AUDACITY which is on a here-to-fore unknown scale, to HOPE that they can completely destroy the judeo-christian value system which has sustained America since her birth... through sophistic, two-faced legislation which serves to appear as though it is 'taking it to' the extremists in the culture, when in fact it serves to PROMOTE THE INTERESTS of the most extreme elements of the culture...

And it's just the beginning... I mean if it's reasonable to put someone in prison for an extra DECADE just because someone divined they hated a certain segment of the population, a certain 'type' of individual... then what reasoning will be sustained which would argue that one 'should be allowed' to speak ill of that type or segment? Is it not true that this is a sign fo "HATE" and doesn't this bill tangibly punish that?

Just stand by kids... the heat is coming up quickly now... keep a sharp eye out or you'll miss it, when the protections which provide for 'free-speech' are modified to protect those who the State determines need protecting, through laws which provide for "Fair-speech."

Ravi, you've been unambiguously and quite directly challenged to support a post, which to the best of my knowledge, you've not retracted... So please either support the assertion in that post, of concede that you've no means to support it and simply withdraw the assertion.

Please respect the Administrations' determination that there is a new tone being establsihed... and such unsubstantiated trolling is no longer appropriate.

 

[Ravi]

There is nothing in the bill that protects pedophiles, therefore you are a liar. Though I suppose it is just possible that you are extremely stupid and believe any hysterical rant your hero Rush comes up with.

Nice work lumping women, minorities and Christians in with pedophiles you fucking stupid asswipe.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is nothing in the bill that protects pedophiles, therefore you are a liar. Though I suppose it is just possible that you are extremely stupid and believe any hysterical rant your hero Rush comes up with.

Nice work lumping women, minorities and Christians in with pedophiles you fucking stupid asswipe.

No?

I see... now is Pedophilia a sexual orientation? Because a LOT of people see this psychology, which requires that a person seeks sexual arousal and gratification through contact with prepubescent children...

If pedophilia NOT a sexual orietation... would ya explain how it's not?

"H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give "actual or perceived" sexual preference or "gender identity" (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders," including pedophilia(emphasis added). The hate crimes bill does not limit "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of "actual or perceived" includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly "thought" the other person had such disorder or fetish..."

Gateway Pundit: Dems Hate Crimes Bill Protects Pedophiles But Not Veterans Or Grandmas

Now in what stood for debate of this bill, the Democrat majority had a chance to designate an exception for Pedophiles and overtly opted not to do so...

Now given that the debate resulted in the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OPTING NOT TO EXCLUDE PEDOPHILIA FROM THE LEGISLATION... they overtly then sought to INCLUDE PEDOPHILIA...

Now here's the head of the pin... DANCE IVAN! DANCE!

 

[KittenKoder]

There is nothing in the bill that protects pedophiles, therefore you are a liar. Though I suppose it is just possible that you are extremely stupid and believe any hysterical rant your hero Rush comes up with.

Nice work lumping women, minorities and Christians in with pedophiles you fucking stupid asswipe.

No?

I see... now is Pedophilia a sexual orientation? Because a LOT of people see this psychology, which requires that a person seeks sexual arousal and gratification through contact with prepubescent children...

If pedophilia NOT a sexual orietation... would ya explain how it's not?

"H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give "actual or perceived" sexual preference or "gender identity" (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders," including pedophilia(emphasis added). The hate crimes bill does not limit "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of "actual or perceived" includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly "thought" the other person had such disorder or fetish..."

Gateway Pundit: Dems Hate Crimes Bill Protects Pedophiles But Not Veterans Or Grandmas

Now in what stood for debate of this bill, the Democrat majority had a chance to designate an exception for Pedophiles and overtly opted not to do so...

Now given that the debate resulted in the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OPTING NOT TO EXCLUDE PEDOPHILIA FROM THE LEGISLATION... they overtly then sought to INCLUDE PEDOPHILIA...

Now here's the head of the pin... DANCE IVAN! DANCE!

Pedophilia is much more than a sexual orientation, there are many aspects of it that do not fit into a valid sexual orientation or lifestyle.

1. It is rape, one party is unwilling or uninformed, and therefore it is by force.

2. It completely disagrees with the "consenting adults" part of a lifestyle.

3. It is no worse than BDSM for those reasons.

 

[Ravi]

My bad, Pubic...it appears that you are extremely stupid.

Dismissed.