Hate crime?

[catzmeow]

Key point. The KKK and skinheads targeted the black community in Portland for violence. Mulageta Seraw was murdered. Skinheads went into a black neighborhood and beat this ethiopian immigrant to death.

The entire community was affected. I know, because I lived near where the murder occurred.

The skinheads were members of the Aryan Resistaance, a hate group started by Tom Metzger, a former grand wizard of the KKK.

The reason that Metzger is no longer a member of the KKK is because it had very little influence or power. First, you say the laws were put into place to "stop the KKK from lynching people." When confronted with the fact that the laws weren't put into place until almost 30 years after the lynching era, then you pick up this case.

Guess what? Hate crimes weren't required to prosecute the responsible gang members (and that's what they were, gang members), and to civilly litigate against Tom Metzger. hate crimes statutes WEREN'T EVEN USED in the Mulageta Seraw case.

In fact, the Mulageta Seraw prosecution is STRONG EVIDENCE that the existing criminal justice statutes work fine as is without additional hate crimes legislation. The defendants' racialist views were presented as aggravating factors in the homicide, and the main defendant received a long sentence for first degree murder.

Following the prosecution, the SPLC and ADL helped Seraw's survivors file a civil lawsuit against parties involved in the crime, WHICH THEY WON, to the tune of 12.5 million, bankrupting WAR.

Tell me again why hate crimes legislation is necessary to accomplish justice? It ISN'T. All that is necessary is that these crimes be effectively prosecuted. And, hate crimes legislation is not going to impact that issue.

Furthermore, there is no evidence, WHATSOEVER, that hate crime legislation decreases hate crimes. If anything, hate crimes have increased in the past 20 years.

It's the IDEA of this legislation supporting your chosen lifestyle that appeals to you, not whether or not it would actually impact crime (it wouldn't). I hate, hate, hate unnecessary legislation. legislation does not decrease crime, effective enforcement, investigation and prosecution do.

So, what, exactly, is the point, other than trying to cram your particular ideological agenda down other people's throats, and eliminating their right to disagree?

 

[Sky Dancer]

To this day, hate crime exists and the passage of the Matthew Shephard bill will deepen the penalties for it.

Hate crime is real.

Nobody denies that hate crime exists in this thread, so that's a strawman. However, there is simply no way that passing legislation will make it less common. It's a way for you to both attempt to link Matthew Shephard to the lynching era, and to impose your ideological agenda on other people. It's the first step in a path towards criminalizing thought and speech.

And thus, should be resisted by ANYONE who values the bill of rights.

The Matthew Shephard Act has just been passed by the House. It is hate crime legislation. Discussing the history of hate crime legislation does include racial violence--like lynchings and cross burnings.

Your position appears to be that hate crime legislation is unnecessary and that the Matthew Shephard bill is censorship. That's wrong.

Anyone who values the bill of rights values the rights of minorities to live in peace, free of being target for violence on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, citizen status, disability or sexual orientation.

Let's be clear what's at stake here.

 

[del]

To this day, hate crime exists and the passage of the Matthew Shephard bill will deepen the penalties for it.

Hate crime is real.

Nobody denies that hate crime exists in this thread, so that's a strawman. However, there is simply no way that passing legislation will make it less common. It's a way for you to both attempt to link Matthew Shephard to the lynching era, and to impose your ideological agenda on other people. It's the first step in a path towards criminalizing thought and speech.

And thus, should be resisted by ANYONE who values the bill of rights.

The Matthew Shephard Act has just been passed by the House. It is hate crime legislation. Discussing the history of hate crime legislation does include racial violence--like lynchings and cross burnings.

Your position appears to be that hate crime legislation is unnecessary and that the Matthew Shephard bill is censorship. That's wrong.

Anyone who values the bill of rights values the rights of minorities to live in peace, free of being target for violence on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, citizen status, disability or sexual orientation.

Let's be clear what's at stake here.

nothing is at stake here except the opportunity for some grandstanding pols to take advantage of the less intelligent. enjoy.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Nobody denies that hate crime exists in this thread, so that's a strawman. However, there is simply no way that passing legislation will make it less common. It's a way for you to both attempt to link Matthew Shephard to the lynching era, and to impose your ideological agenda on other people. It's the first step in a path towards criminalizing thought and speech.

And thus, should be resisted by ANYONE who values the bill of rights.

The Matthew Shephard Act has just been passed by the House. It is hate crime legislation. Discussing the history of hate crime legislation does include racial violence--like lynchings and cross burnings.

Your position appears to be that hate crime legislation is unnecessary and that the Matthew Shephard bill is censorship. That's wrong.

Anyone who values the bill of rights values the rights of minorities to live in peace, free of being target for violence on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, citizen status, disability or sexual orientation.

Let's be clear what's at stake here.

nothing is at stake here except the opportunity for some grandstanding pols to take advantage of the less intelligent. enjoy.

Lives of people targeted for bias motivated violence are at stake here.

Too bad you'd rather result to insults than discuss this important topic. Enjoy.

 

[del]

The Matthew Shephard Act has just been passed by the House. It is hate crime legislation. Discussing the history of hate crime legislation does include racial violence--like lynchings and cross burnings.

Your position appears to be that hate crime legislation is unnecessary and that the Matthew Shephard bill is censorship. That's wrong.

Anyone who values the bill of rights values the rights of minorities to live in peace, free of being target for violence on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, citizen status, disability or sexual orientation.

Let's be clear what's at stake here.

nothing is at stake here except the opportunity for some grandstanding pols to take advantage of the less intelligent. enjoy.

Lives of people targeted for bias motivated violence are at stake here.

Too bad you'd rather result to insults than discuss this important topic. Enjoy.

it's an important topic in your opinion, not mine. no lives will be saved by this, nor will any more be endangered.

an observation is not an insult.

ask someone smart to explain that to you.*

*this is both.

 

[Barb]

To this day, hate crime exists and the passage of the Matthew Shephard bill will deepen the penalties for it.

Hate crime is real.

Nobody denies that hate crime exists in this thread, so that's a strawman. However, there is simply no way that passing legislation will make it less common. It's a way for you to both attempt to link Matthew Shephard to the lynching era, and to impose your ideological agenda on other people. It's the first step in a path towards criminalizing thought and speech.

And thus, should be resisted by ANYONE who values the bill of rights.

Not so much. Intent is always considered in violent crime, this simply adds a way to gauge the intent of the perp. What "freedom of speech" is infringed upon? Chaining someone to the bumper of a truck and watching as their body is torn apart is not 'protected speech." Neither is chaining someone to a fence, physically and sexually abusing them, and then killing them "protected speech."

 

[catzmeow]

Your position appears to be that hate crime legislation is unnecessary and that the Matthew Shephard bill is censorship. That's wrong.

Anyone who values the bill of rights values the rights of minorities to live in peace, free of being target for violence on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, citizen status, disability or sexual orientation.

Let's be clear what's at stake here.

You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

The fact of the matter is that hate crimes legislation DOES NOT STOP HATE CRIMES or violent crimes. Making behavior against the law doesn't stop criminals from engaging in it.

It's like our absurd weapons prohibitions in some areas of the U.S. Legislating against guns doesn't keep criminals from possessing them. It just makes imbecilic well-intentioned liberals feel safer, even though they aren't.

 

[catzmeow]

Not so much. Intent is always considered in violent crime, this simply adds a way to gauge the intent of the perp.

Then, as I stated above, hate crime legislation is unnecessary.

I'd like to thank Sky for referencing the Mulugeta Seraw case. It provides an excellent example of why hate crimes legislation is totally unnecessary in our current system, which can already adequately address aggravating factors such as race-related crime, and which can punish other influential parties through civil means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulugeta_Seraw

 

[Sky Dancer]

nothing is at stake here except the opportunity for some grandstanding pols to take advantage of the less intelligent. enjoy.

Lives of people targeted for bias motivated violence are at stake here.

Too bad you'd rather result to insults than discuss this important topic. Enjoy.

it's an important topic in your opinion, not mine. no lives will be saved by this, nor will any more be endangered.

an observation is not an insult.

ask someone smart to explain that to you.*

*this is both.

That you for owning your intention to continue to engage in insults than discuss the topic.

Why are you posting on this thread if you're not interested in the topic?

 

[del]

Lives of people targeted for bias motivated violence are at stake here.

Too bad you'd rather result to insults than discuss this important topic. Enjoy.

it's an important topic in your opinion, not mine. no lives will be saved by this, nor will any more be endangered.

an observation is not an insult.

ask someone smart to explain that to you.*

*this is both.

That you for owning your intention to continue to engage in insults than discuss the topic.

Why are you posting on this thread if you're not interested in the topic?

i'm trying to intimidate you.

hate crime! hate crime!

 

[catzmeow]

i'm trying to intimidate you.

hate crime! hate crime!

Cyberbullying. Cyberbullying.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Your position appears to be that hate crime legislation is unnecessary and that the Matthew Shephard bill is censorship. That's wrong.

Anyone who values the bill of rights values the rights of minorities to live in peace, free of being target for violence on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, citizen status, disability or sexual orientation.

Let's be clear what's at stake here.

You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

The fact of the matter is that hate crimes legislation DOES NOT STOP HATE CRIMES or violent crimes. Making behavior against the law doesn't stop criminals from engaging in it.

It's like our absurd weapons prohibitions in some areas of the U.S. Legislating against guns doesn't keep criminals from possessing them. It just makes imbecilic well-intentioned liberals feel safer, even though they aren't.

Hate crime legislation increases the penalty on the crime of violence. It is necessary because the crime itself targets someone on the basis of race, creed, gender, disability, sexual orientation-AND SERVES TO INTIMIDATE AN ENTIRE MINORITY GROUP.

I agree that ;aws do not prevent people from engaging in criminal behavior. We create laws to punish people for behavior that is unacceptable in our culture.

The fact that you require the use of insults in your post shows how weak your arguments are.

We've been down this road many times. I'm not going there. You're on your own.

 

[Sky Dancer]

it's an important topic in your opinion, not mine. no lives will be saved by this, nor will any more be endangered.

an observation is not an insult.

ask someone smart to explain that to you.*

*this is both.

That you for owning your intention to continue to engage in insults than discuss the topic.

Why are you posting on this thread if you're not interested in the topic?

i'm trying to intimidate you.

hate crime! hate crime!

You're trying to provoke me to return an insult rather than address the topic. I have no idea what your motivation is. It could be hate, I don't know?

 

[del]

That you for owning your intention to continue to engage in insults than discuss the topic.

Why are you posting on this thread if you're not interested in the topic?

i'm trying to intimidate you.

hate crime! hate crime!

You're trying to provoke me to return an insult. I have no idea what your motivation is. It could be hate, I don't know.

i'll put in on the list.

 

[catzmeow]

Hate crime legislation increases the penalty on the crime of violence.

Violence is not a crime. If you mean to say that hate crime legislation adds an additional penalty to violent crimes, you should realize that such penalties are not necessary when crimes are well-prosecuted because offenders receive the maximum sentence. And, if prosecutors are inept, additional laws won't help them.

It is necessary because the crime itself targets someone on the basis of race, creed, gender, disability, sexual orientation-AND SERVES TO INTIMIDATE AN ENTIRE MINORITY GROUP.

Publicizing crimes as hate crimes serves to intimidate these groups far more, on a relative scale.

I agree that ;aws do not prevent people from engaging in criminal behavior. We create laws to punish people for behavior that is unacceptable in our culture.

Thank you, Queen Obviousa.

The fact that you require the use of insults in your post shows how weak your arguments are.

Actually, you have yet to address my arguments. that gets frustrating, so I taunt you in hopes that one day, you may actually pull a cogent argument out of your ass. Small hope, of course.

 

[Barb]

Not so much. Intent is always considered in violent crime, this simply adds a way to gauge the intent of the perp.

Then hate crime legislation is unnecessary.

So sez you. Not likely to be a victim of such, are you?

My daughters boyfriend was driving somewhere last night, forget what backwater it was, but there was a sign at a rest stop the boys were going to stop at: "Whites only"

They didn't stop, they were afraid to. Two young kids on the road alone.

That shouldn't be in today's America. They shouldn't have anything more to fear besides the random serial killer or violence any of us might deal with. Instead, they have so much more to avoid.

THAT infringes on their rights, and THAT is just one example of what makes this legislation not only NECESSARY, but important, not to "punish free speech" (whatta crock), but to protect others from infringements on their constitutional rights, because your right to do anything ends where it impinges mine to breathe free.

 

[catzmeow]

I have no idea what your motivation is. It could be hate, I don't know?

I think it's a highly refined sense of the ridiculous.

 

[del]

Not so much. Intent is always considered in violent crime, this simply adds a way to gauge the intent of the perp.

Then hate crime legislation is unnecessary.

So sez you. Not likely to be a victim of such, are you?

My daughters boyfriend was driving somewhere last night, forget what backwater it was, but there was a sign at a rest stop the boys were going to stop at: "Whites only"

They didn't stop, they were afraid to. Two young kids on the road alone.

That shouldn't be in today's America. They shouldn't have anything more to fear besides the random serial killer or violence any of us might deal with. Instead, they have so much more to avoid.

THAT infringes on their rights, and THAT is just one example of what makes this legislation not only NECESSARY, but important, not to "punish free speech" (whatta crock), but to protect others from infringements on their constitutional rights, because your right to do anything ends where it impinges mine to breathe free.

you'll excuse me for not believing this little anecdote.

 

[KittenKoder]

The question should be, is hate a crime?

Hate is not a crime. Violence motivated by hatred to a targeted group in order to intimidate others is hate crime.

It's the actions and the effects on not only the victim but the entire group that the perpetrator has targeted for violence that makes it a hate crim.

Actions are conscionable.

Key point. The KKK and skinheads targeted the black community in Portland for violence. Mulageta Seraw was murdered. Skinheads went into a black neighborhood and beat this ethiopian immigrant to death.

The entire community was affected. I know, because I lived near where the murder occurred.

The skinheads were members of the Aryan Resistaance, a hate group started by Tom Metzger, a former grand wizard of the KKK.

However, how many people truly fear these morons who commit the atrocities? Is there some huge hidden portion of the population that is hiding out in fear all the time? What I see is when such a crime is committed more people stand up and fight back now than ever, even those targeted. It's makes more of a message when the public stands up like that than to just tack on a few more years of thousands in bail (life is life, you can't make it longer).

 

[catzmeow]

So sez you. Not likely to be a victim of such, are you?

How do you know what I'm likely to be a victim of? I'm a white woman who has "halfbreed" children. You need to stop assuming, idiot.

My daughters boyfriend was driving somewhere last night, forget what backwater it was, but there was a sign at a rest stop the boys were going to stop at: "Whites only"

They should report this facility to your state attorney general's office. These types of discrimination are currently illegal (without the need for hate crime legislation) and can be prosecuted.

That shouldn't be in today's America. They shouldn't have anything more to fear besides the random serial killer or violence any of us might deal with. Instead, they have so much more to avoid.

People of color are about a hundred thousand times more likely to be victimized by someone from their own race than to be a victim of racial crime. True story. Hysterical exaggeration of the risk doesn't make anyone safer, and certainly does nothing for race relations in this country.

THAT infringes on their rights, and THAT is just one example of what makes this legislation not only NECESSARY, but important, not to "punish free speech" (whatta crock), but to protect others from infringements on their constitutional rights, because your right to do anything ends where it impinges mine to breathe free.

The behavior you described is ALREADY illegal. Thus, new laws aren't required.