Hate crimes against "the homeless"

I don't agree with the designation "hate crimes". Adding the homeless to the list just confirms, to me, the ridiculousness of it.

So you are in favor of hate crimes, then? You think we should do away with them?

George!!!! :eusa_drool:


I am 100% in favor of getting rid of hate crimes... and just flat out increasing all punishment to the enhanced level.

crime is crime...:tongue:

The USA already has the highest number (and percentage) of people in prison compared to every other country in the world.
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

i guess the white guy could argue it a hate crime if the perpetrator was black.....

Mitchell involved a black on white crime; the African-American defendant was subjected to enhanced sentencing.
 
There are no legal foundations whatsoever for conservatives to object to enhanced sentencing on Constitutional grounds.

Then why is it, I wonder, that so many conservatives DO object to hate crime legislation? Anyone care to hazard a guess? I'll take a shot ...

Because they FAVOR picking on the weak and helpless, humiliating the less fortunate and generally conducting themselves along the lines of the true, authoritarian personalities that so many of them have. The last thing they want is for the government to cut through to one of their favorite pasttimes and punish them more for engaging in it because it is so much more reprehensible tha similar conduct that is not directed against the less fortunate merely because they are less fortunate or weaker.

How can anyone argue AGAINST hate crime legislation and not be FOR the committing of hate crimes?

All right, cons . . . . bring it on . . . .
 
Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....


:eusa_eh:

I hope that includes the police. Around here the police are constantly harassing the homeless. we give out lunches to the homeless at my friends church and one bright sunny day, one of the regulars picked up his lunch, went out into the nice sunny day and lay down on the grass and fell asleep. He was arrested.
 
I don't agree with the designation "hate crimes". Adding the homeless to the list just confirms, to me, the ridiculousness of it.

So you are in favor of hate crimes, then? You think we should do away with them?

I am not in favor of crime.

I am in favor of abolishing laws that punish the feeling of hate.
 
There are no legal foundations whatsoever for conservatives to object to enhanced sentencing on Constitutional grounds.

Then why is it, I wonder, that so many conservatives DO object to hate crime legislation? Anyone care to hazard a guess? I'll take a shot ...

Because they FAVOR picking on the weak and helpless, humiliating the less fortunate and generally conducting themselves along the lines of the true, authoritarian personalities that so many of them have. The last thing they want is for the government to cut through to one of their favorite pasttimes and punish them more for engaging in it because it is so much more reprehensible tha similar conduct that is not directed against the less fortunate merely because they are less fortunate or weaker.

How can anyone argue AGAINST hate crime legislation and not be FOR the committing of hate crimes?

All right, cons . . . . bring it on . . . .

Or maybe they just favor equal protection under the law.
 
I don't agree with the designation "hate crimes". Adding the homeless to the list just confirms, to me, the ridiculousness of it.

So you are in favor of hate crimes, then? You think we should do away with them?

George!!!! :eusa_drool:


I am 100% in favor of getting rid of hate crimes... and just flat out increasing all punishment to the enhanced level.

crime is crime...:tongue:

No, it isn't. There are all different types of crimes. A parking violation is not the same thing as a torture-murder. There are varying degrees of homicide and of other crimes.

The whole point of hate crime legislation is that some crimes, while of the same general designation (assault), ARE "worse" than others because of the motivation behind their commission. As such, these "worse" types of crimes deserve a stiffer punishment.

It's no different than the well-known classifiction of homicides into degrees. First degree murder is obviously "worse" than second degree murder and it is punished more severely, even though both crimes are homicides. An assault motivated by racial reasons is worse than a "normal" assault and, as such, should be punished more severely.

If you don't see the difference between someone who beats a gay person to a pulp simply because he doesn't like their lifestyle, and someone who beats another guy up because the guy has been banging his girlfriend, then there is little more that we can discuss.
 
There are no legal foundations whatsoever for conservatives to object to enhanced sentencing on Constitutional grounds.

Then why is it, I wonder, that so many conservatives DO object to hate crime legislation? Anyone care to hazard a guess? I'll take a shot ...

Because they FAVOR picking on the weak and helpless, humiliating the less fortunate and generally conducting themselves along the lines of the true, authoritarian personalities that so many of them have. The last thing they want is for the government to cut through to one of their favorite pasttimes and punish them more for engaging in it because it is so much more reprehensible tha similar conduct that is not directed against the less fortunate merely because they are less fortunate or weaker.

How can anyone argue AGAINST hate crime legislation and not be FOR the committing of hate crimes?

All right, cons . . . . bring it on . . . .

well dont speak for me George..... becasue its not about picking on the weak...

its about punishing the criminals.

i favor tossing out "hate crime enhancement".... becasue i think everyone should be given the same sentence for a crime.... In MY opinion...all crime is hateful.

Bring up all punishment to enhanced level....and be done with it.
 

George!!!! :eusa_drool:


I am 100% in favor of getting rid of hate crimes... and just flat out increasing all punishment to the enhanced level.

crime is crime...:tongue:

The USA already has the highest number (and percentage) of people in prison compared to every other country in the world.

we need more prisons then.

Building prisons is very expensive. Housing prisoners is also very expensive. Continuing to do both for nonviolent offenders (like for people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses other than selling) is incredibly stupid and shortsighted especially since other options (like parole and drug treatment) are considerably more cost efficient and effective.
 
There are no legal foundations whatsoever for conservatives to object to enhanced sentencing on Constitutional grounds.

Then why is it, I wonder, that so many conservatives DO object to hate crime legislation? Anyone care to hazard a guess? I'll take a shot ...

Because they FAVOR picking on the weak and helpless, humiliating the less fortunate and generally conducting themselves along the lines of the true, authoritarian personalities that so many of them have. The last thing they want is for the government to cut through to one of their favorite pasttimes and punish them more for engaging in it because it is so much more reprehensible tha similar conduct that is not directed against the less fortunate merely because they are less fortunate or weaker.

How can anyone argue AGAINST hate crime legislation and not be FOR the committing of hate crimes?

All right, cons . . . . bring it on . . . .

Or maybe they just favor equal protection under the law.

I think if my friend and I walk out of a store and are killed by two different people, my friend being killed because he's gay, and I being killed because it was just random, I believe both the killers face the SAME punishment. I don't think my friend's life is worth more than mine, or mine is worth more than his. Do you?
 
Bill adds homeless to list of hate crimes

"Albuquerque, will introduce a bill next month to add homeless people to the state Hate Crimes Act. The proposed law means those who attack homeless people would be subject to harsher sentences if caught and convicted. "This sends a message to the general public - people need to have dignity," O'Neill said in an interview. "If we're going to talk about hate crimes, let's talk about the homeless."


....


:eusa_eh:

I hope that includes the police. Around here the police are constantly harassing the homeless. we give out lunches to the homeless at my friends church and one bright sunny day, one of the regulars picked up his lunch, went out into the nice sunny day and lay down on the grass and fell asleep. He was arrested.


loitering.

but said homeless...also got a place to sleep, a few meals and a shower.....
 
The crime should determine the punishment.

Person A sets a homeless man on fire because he hates the homless, person B sets a banker on fire because he hates corporate America. How is person A deserving of a harsher punishment?
For the same reason crimes against children call for exceptional punishment. Children are exceptionally vulnerable. So are the homeless, most of whom are mentally deficient.

If a man assaults another man does he deserve the same level of punishment as the man who assaults a woman?

Etc.

Why, is one person more valuable than another? The Constitution requires EQUAL protection under the law, not special protection.
It's not a question of value but of vulnerability.


If you are saying a healthy young man should expect the same level of punishment for assaulting (a) another young healthy man, (b) a frail old man, (c) a pre-adolescent child, (d) a woman, I strongly disagree. I believe judges should exercise common sense discretion in sentencing.

I am offended when someone who sticks up a bank is sentenced to five years while one who robs a neighborhood grocer, or mugs someone, or snatches a purse is back on the street in 18 months. The opposite should apply.
 
There are no legal foundations whatsoever for conservatives to object to enhanced sentencing on Constitutional grounds.

Then why is it, I wonder, that so many conservatives DO object to hate crime legislation? Anyone care to hazard a guess? I'll take a shot ...

Because they FAVOR picking on the weak and helpless, humiliating the less fortunate and generally conducting themselves along the lines of the true, authoritarian personalities that so many of them have. The last thing they want is for the government to cut through to one of their favorite pasttimes and punish them more for engaging in it because it is so much more reprehensible tha similar conduct that is not directed against the less fortunate merely because they are less fortunate or weaker.

How can anyone argue AGAINST hate crime legislation and not be FOR the committing of hate crimes?

All right, cons . . . . bring it on . . . .

Or maybe they just favor equal protection under the law.

Hate crime legislation has been held time and time again NOT to violate Equal Protection.

If a law provided for increased punishment for any white person who, for racial reasons, assaulted a person of any other race, such a law would violate Equal Protection, because it would punish members of only one race while allowing members of other races to commit similar crimes without being subjected to any increased punishment.

Hate crime legislation provides increased punishment for crimes committed by ANYONE (regardless of their race) against any other person for racial reasons. It punishes white, black, yellow or green equally - makes no difference.

Therefore, hate crime legislation is not violative of the Equal Protection clause.
 
There are no legal foundations whatsoever for conservatives to object to enhanced sentencing on Constitutional grounds.

Then why is it, I wonder, that so many conservatives DO object to hate crime legislation? Anyone care to hazard a guess? I'll take a shot ...

Because they FAVOR picking on the weak and helpless, humiliating the less fortunate and generally conducting themselves along the lines of the true, authoritarian personalities that so many of them have. The last thing they want is for the government to cut through to one of their favorite pasttimes and punish them more for engaging in it because it is so much more reprehensible tha similar conduct that is not directed against the less fortunate merely because they are less fortunate or weaker.

How can anyone argue AGAINST hate crime legislation and not be FOR the committing of hate crimes?

All right, cons . . . . bring it on . . . .

It’s also part of this ‘reverse discrimination’ nonsense; where conservatives have contrived some inane notion that ‘minorities’ are allowed to engage in hate speech with impunity while only white Americans are subject to prosecution – either by the legal system or by social condemnation, hence the myth of ‘political correctness.’
 
May I also add that not all homeless are helpless. Some are dangerous in their own right.

I oppose all unprovoked assaults on people. Let the existing laws handle the disposition of the charges to be applied for each crime.
 
The designation for the crime is wrong. What they should be concentrating on isn 't hate crimes but crime committed in the pursuit of having fun. Kids don't set people on fire because they hate them but because it is so funny.
 
So you are in favor of hate crimes, then? You think we should do away with them?

George!!!! :eusa_drool:


I am 100% in favor of getting rid of hate crimes... and just flat out increasing all punishment to the enhanced level.

crime is crime...:tongue:

No, it isn't. There are all different types of crimes. A parking violation is not the same thing as a torture-murder. There are varying degrees of homicide and of other crimes.

The whole point of hate crime legislation is that some crimes, while of the same general designation (assault), ARE "worse" than others because of the motivation behind their commission. As such, these "worse" types of crimes deserve a stiffer punishment.

It's no different than the well-known classifiction of homicides into degrees. First degree murder is obviously "worse" than second degree murder and it is punished more severely, even though both crimes are homicides. An assault motivated by racial reasons is worse than a "normal" assault and, as such, should be punished more severely.

If you don't see the difference between someone who beats a gay person to a pulp simply because he doesn't like their lifestyle, and someone who beats another guy up because the guy has been banging his girlfriend, then there is little more that we can discuss.


since when can a parking ticket be enhanced to a hate crime George? lol.

assault is assault...murder is murder... and should ALL be punished the same.


push all sentencing to the enhanced level. :thup:
 
Do you see something wrong with this or right with this? We occasionally read about suburban kids doing terrible things to the homeless on a lark, I am inclined to agree that stiffer penalties are deserved in cases like that.

As a society, we provide stronger penalties for crimes against favored classes and people. Since we value the homeless more than the average working slob, it's only right that crimes be punished more vigorously when perpetrated against them.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top