Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment

[ihopehefails]

The equal protection clause states that any protection given to one person must be given equally to all so if I were to penalize someone for assault more when the victim happen to be white you are not protecting the citizenary equally since you are staggering different penalties for different races. A person who is white will be more protected from assault than a person who is black.

This is what why the equal protection clause was created because whites were getting protections that other ethnic groups were not. Now we have crimes that are penalized more harshly when they are prejedice in nature this basically gives people who are the victim of hate crimes extra protection. This violates the 14th amendment (when a state law is doing it) and should be removed.

 

[George Costanza]

The equal protection clause states that any protection given to one person must be given equally to all so if I were to penalize someone for assault more when the victim happen to be white you are not protecting the citizenary equally since you are staggering different penalties for different races. A person who is white will be more protected from assault than a person who is black.

This is what why the equal protection clause was created because whites were getting protections that other ethnic groups were not. Now we have crimes that are penalized more harshly when they are prejedice in nature this basically gives people who are the victim of hate crimes extra protection. This violates the 14th amendment (when a state law is doing it) and should be removed.

You logic is incorrect here. Hate crimes do not punish assaults. They punish assaults that are commited for racial or ethnic reasons. There is a difference. An assault committed because the actor is angry, could be committed against anyone - white, black or purple. The law fixes the punishment for that, and that punisment will be imposed, regardless of the color of the skin of the victim.

Hate crime legislation only goes into effect when the assault is motivated in whole or in part by the color of the skin of the victim. This is an entirely different type of assault than a "general" assault - where the only motivation for it is anger on the part of the actor.

Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes. Conversely, someone who receives a harsher punishment for committing a hate crime than someone who commits a "general" assault, is not being discriminated against, because he has committed a more culpable crime than the person who commits an assault merely because of anger.

The whole basis behind hate crime legislation is the idea that an assault committed in whole or in part for racial reasons, is a more culpable crime than an assault committed merely because of anger toward the victim.

 

[Zander]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

 

[George Costanza]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

No, hate crimes are not "thought" crimes. They are thought motivated ACTION crimes.

If you smash someone's skull in with a rock simply because you wanted to smash someone's skull in with a rock, and the victim was homosexual or black, you would never be prosecuted under any hate crime legislation. Conviction of a hate crime requires more. It requires that you smashed the person's skull in with a rock in whole or in part because the person was homosexual or black.

I have been involved in the criminal prosecution of a number of hate crimes. In every case, the person charged had said something as he was committing the crime (racial slurs in every case), that gave a clear indication as to why he was doing it. Yes - the crime was motivated by racial bias, which is a "thought." But in each case, the "thought" was put into ACTION in the form of a criminal act. Hence, it is much more than a mere "thought" crime.

I don't have any trouble seeing an attack on a black person that is motivated by racial bias as being more culpable than an attack on another person (regardless of the color of their skin) merely out of anger. In both cases, the defendant's actions are motivated by anger. In a hate crime, there is more - there is anger that is caused by racial prejudice or bias.

Hence, a hate crime should be punished more severely.

 

[Zander]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

No, hate crimes are not "thought" crimes. They are thought motivated ACTION crimes.

If you smash someone's skull in with a rock simply because you wanted to smash someone's skull in with a rock, and the victim was homosexual or black, you would never be prosecuted under any hate crime legislation. Conviction of a hate crime requires more. It requires that you smashed the person's skull in with a rock in whole or in part because the person was homosexual or black.

I have been involved in the criminal prosecution of a number of hate crimes. In every case, the person charged had said something as he was committing the crime (racial slurs in every case), that gave a clear indication as to why he was doing it. Yes - the crime was motivated by racial bias, which is a "thought." But in each case, the "thought" was put into ACTION in the form of a criminal act. Hence, it is much more than a mere "thought" crime.

I don't have any trouble seeing an attack on a black person that is motivated by racial bias as being more culpable than an attack on another person (regardless of the color of their skin) merely out of anger. In both cases, the defendant's actions are motivated by anger. In a hate crime, there is more - there is anger that is caused by racial prejudice or bias.

Hence, a hate crime should be punished more severely.

Thanks for proving my point. The "action" is the crime and we already have laws against criminal ACTIONS. We don't have laws against criminal "thoughts". You are free to think that homosexuals are an abomination or that black people are a stain on the planet (I don't believe any of those things!) and you'll NEVER be arrested for thinking those thoughts. Try it. You'll never be arrested. The crime takes place only when you ACT on those thoughts in a criminal way. Because we already have laws against criminal ACTIONS, "Hate crimes" are "thought" crimes, plain and simple. You are adding punishment because you do not like the thoughts of the person.

 

[George Costanza]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

No, hate crimes are not "thought" crimes. They are thought motivated ACTION crimes.

If you smash someone's skull in with a rock simply because you wanted to smash someone's skull in with a rock, and the victim was homosexual or black, you would never be prosecuted under any hate crime legislation. Conviction of a hate crime requires more. It requires that you smashed the person's skull in with a rock in whole or in part because the person was homosexual or black.

I have been involved in the criminal prosecution of a number of hate crimes. In every case, the person charged had said something as he was committing the crime (racial slurs in every case), that gave a clear indication as to why he was doing it. Yes - the crime was motivated by racial bias, which is a "thought." But in each case, the "thought" was put into ACTION in the form of a criminal act. Hence, it is much more than a mere "thought" crime.

I don't have any trouble seeing an attack on a black person that is motivated by racial bias as being more culpable than an attack on another person (regardless of the color of their skin) merely out of anger. In both cases, the defendant's actions are motivated by anger. In a hate crime, there is more - there is anger that is caused by racial prejudice or bias.

Hence, a hate crime should be punished more severely.

Thanks for proving my point. The "action" is the crime and we already have laws against criminal ACTIONS. We don't have laws against criminal "thoughts". You are free to think that homosexuals are an abomination or that black people are a stain on the planet (I don't believe any of those things!) and you'll NEVER be arrested for thinking those thoughts. Try it. You'll never be arrested. The crime takes place only when you ACT on those thoughts in a criminal way. Because we already have laws against criminal ACTIONS, "Hate crimes" are "thought" crimes, plain and simple. You are adding punishment because you do not like the thoughts of the person.

No. There is a difference between an action motivated by a general thought (anger) and an action motivated by a specific (racial hatred) thought.

Crimes are classified as general intent crimes (battery) and specific intent crimes (murder). Specific intent crimes are punished more severely than general intent crimes.

Think of a hate crime as a specific intent crime - because that is exactly what it is.

You might as well argue that specific intent crimes merely punish thought and therefore should not be punished more severely than general intent crimes. Such an argument would be obviously wrong.

 

[theHawk]

I have been involved in the criminal prosecution of a number of hate crimes. In every case, the person charged had said something as he was committing the crime (racial slurs in every case), that gave a clear indication as to why he was doing it. Yes - the crime was motivated by racial bias, which is a "thought." But in each case, the "thought" was put into ACTION in the form of a criminal act. Hence, it is much more than a mere "thought" crime.

I don't have any trouble seeing an attack on a black person that is motivated by racial bias as being more culpable than an attack on another person (regardless of the color of their skin) merely out of anger. In both cases, the defendant's actions are motivated by anger. In a hate crime, there is more - there is anger that is caused by racial prejudice or bias.

Hence, a hate crime should be punished more severely.

How many of these cases was the victim white?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

I concur.

If it is worse because they sought the victim out for targeting, let that fall under 'aggravating circumstances'. That's why we have sentences ranges and allow for aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the first place, is it not, to account for the circumstances of an individual crime?

 

[Ragnar]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

I concur.

If it is worse because they sought the victim out for targeting, let that fall under 'aggravating circumstances'. That's why we have sentences ranges and allow for aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the first place, is it not, to account for the circumstances of an individual crime?

"Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment"

I too hate when crimes violate the law. When someone says "you can't say that' (speaking in PC code/Orwellian newspeak) what the ymean is "you can't THINK that".

Lets us just all us protect the smallest minority on earth... the individual

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

Just thought I'd stop by and point out that hate crimes aren't actual criminal charges, they are modifiers to the sentencing for other criminal charges.

 

[George Costanza]

I have been involved in the criminal prosecution of a number of hate crimes. In every case, the person charged had said something as he was committing the crime (racial slurs in every case), that gave a clear indication as to why he was doing it. Yes - the crime was motivated by racial bias, which is a "thought." But in each case, the "thought" was put into ACTION in the form of a criminal act. Hence, it is much more than a mere "thought" crime.

I don't have any trouble seeing an attack on a black person that is motivated by racial bias as being more culpable than an attack on another person (regardless of the color of their skin) merely out of anger. In both cases, the defendant's actions are motivated by anger. In a hate crime, there is more - there is anger that is caused by racial prejudice or bias.

Hence, a hate crime should be punished more severely.

How many of these cases was the victim white?

None. In all of them, the victims were black and the defendants were white. White skinheads, to be exact. I trust you know about the skinheads. Great bunch of guys. They like to torment black people. See themselves as superior to them. Much like another group of people in Germany a long time ago.

FYI - white people cannot, by definition, be protected by hate crime legislation because they are not protected. Why should they be? As mentioned, they are almost always the people who COMMIT hate crimes.

But, by all means, let's defend their right to do so.

 

[George Costanza]

Just thought I'd stop by and point out that hate crimes aren't actual criminal charges, they are modifiers to the sentencing for other criminal charges.

Actually, that is not true. At least in my jurisdiction, hate crimes are set forth in the Penal Code as independent crimes or, if you will, criminal charges. They have their own elements and sentences. A person can be charged and sentenced on the basis of only one charge -a hate crime.

 

[George Costanza]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

I concur.

If it is worse because they sought the victim out for targeting, let that fall under 'aggravating circumstances'. That's why we have sentences ranges and allow for aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the first place, is it not, to account for the circumstances of an individual crime?

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Murder in the first degree is a murder that is willful, deliberate and premeditated. The punishment for murder (at least in my jurisdiction) is life with a minimum of 15 years. The punishment for first degree murder is life with a minimum of 25 years.

These sentences are written right into the statutes for murder and first degree murder. They are separate and distinct sentences - not aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the judge. The judge has no leeway here. If a defendant is convicted of murder, the sentence is prescribed. If he is convicted of first degree murder, a different (and harsher) sentence is prescribed.

Now - I trust you would agree with me that "willful, deliberate and premeditated" are ALL "thought" considerations. What else could they be? All of them are formulated and take place entirely in the mind of the perpetrator.

Carrying your argument to its logical conclusion in this area of the law, it would follow that the sentence for murder and for first degree murder should be the same because, to impose the higher punishment for first degree murder would be to punish the defendant for a "thought" crime.

But we all know that is not the law and that is not what happens. And for very good reason. The more severe the crime, the more culpable the actions of the defendant, the more severe should be the punishment. Surely, as a conservative, you should agree with that, right?

So what does that leave us with? It leaves me with the feeling that y'all just don't consider hate crimes to be more culpable than other crimes. And what is the inescapable conclusion that follows from THAT . . . . . ?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

First, no lawyer would say murder and first-degree murder are two different charges. There is murder in the first, second, or third-degree. It's not a matter of murder v 1st-degree murder. Then, of course, there is manslaughter.

Secondly, in many jurisdictions, the judge or jury can determine the sentence within the sentencing range for many crimes. Google minimum, maximum, and presumptive sentences before talking out your neck again.

Thirdly, when determining the exact sentence, as well as when determining (if applicable) whether to convict of the primary or lesser charges, aggravating and mitigating factors can include motivation, forethought, state of mind, malice, and whether a person caused extreme suffering, among other factors. 'Hate crimes' fall under motivation and oft also under premeditation and extreme malice. Hence, such factors fall under existing accommodations for aggravating and mitigating factors. To claim that it is worse for person A to commit a crime against person B is a worse offense than to commit it against person C, not as a matter of aggravating factors related to the crime, but as a whole other class of offense, is to deny person C the same legal protections as person B, as they are considered less human, in effect, under law, as pertains to the matter in question.

Fourth- a conservative?There is only one appropriate response:

Finally, the inescapable conclusion is that we believe in equal protection before the law and that no class of people is superior to another or warrants protected or superior legal status.


Dumbass.

 

[mudwhistle]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

It's gotten to the point that saying "I hate fags" is a hate crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, hate crimes are not "thought" crimes. They are thought motivated ACTION crimes.

If you smash someone's skull in with a rock simply because you wanted to smash someone's skull in with a rock, and the victim was homosexual or black, you would never be prosecuted under any hate crime legislation. Conviction of a hate crime requires more. It requires that you smashed the person's skull in with a rock in whole or in part because the person was homosexual or black.

I have been involved in the criminal prosecution of a number of hate crimes. In every case, the person charged had said something as he was committing the crime (racial slurs in every case), that gave a clear indication as to why he was doing it. Yes - the crime was motivated by racial bias, which is a "thought." But in each case, the "thought" was put into ACTION in the form of a criminal act. Hence, it is much more than a mere "thought" crime.

I don't have any trouble seeing an attack on a black person that is motivated by racial bias as being more culpable than an attack on another person (regardless of the color of their skin) merely out of anger. In both cases, the defendant's actions are motivated by anger. In a hate crime, there is more - there is anger that is caused by racial prejudice or bias.

Hence, a hate crime should be punished more severely.

Thanks for proving my point. The "action" is the crime and we already have laws against criminal ACTIONS. We don't have laws against criminal "thoughts". You are free to think that homosexuals are an abomination or that black people are a stain on the planet (I don't believe any of those things!) and you'll NEVER be arrested for thinking those thoughts. Try it. You'll never be arrested. The crime takes place only when you ACT on those thoughts in a criminal way. Because we already have laws against criminal ACTIONS, "Hate crimes" are "thought" crimes, plain and simple. You are adding punishment because you do not like the thoughts of the person.

No. There is a difference between an action motivated by a general thought (anger) and an action motivated by a specific (racial hatred) thought.

Crimes are classified as general intent crimes (battery) and specific intent crimes (murder). Specific intent crimes are punished more severely than general intent crimes.

Think of a hate crime as a specific intent crime - because that is exactly what it is.

You might as well argue that specific intent crimes merely punish thought and therefore should not be punished more severely than general intent crimes. Such an argument would be obviously wrong.

The result of either crime is the same.

Really motive does not matter. Dead is dead whether or not the killer hated the victim.

And why is the person who kills a Black or a gay guy out of hate more evil than the guy who kills the guy who kills his wife because she cheated?

 

[George Costanza]

And why is the person who kills a Black or a gay guy out of hate more evil than the guy who kills the guy who kills his wife because she cheated?

If you even have to ask this question, there is no point in trying to discuss the issue.

 

[George Costanza]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

It's gotten to the point that saying "I hate fags" is a hate crime.

No - saying something like that is not a hate crime. Saying it while you drag a homosexual behind your pick up truck by a chain would be, however.

Merely saying something like that only establishes the person saying it as a bigot.

 

[George Costanza]

First, no lawyer would say murder and first-degree murder are two different charges. There is murder in the first, second, or third-degree. It's not a matter of murder v 1st-degree murder. Then, of course, there is manslaughter.

Secondly, in many jurisdictions, the judge or jury can determine the sentence within the sentencing range for many crimes. Google minimum, maximum, and presumptive sentences before talking out your neck again.

Thirdly, when determining the exact sentence, as well as when determining (if applicable) whether to convict of the primary or lesser charges, aggravating and mitigating factors can include motivation, forethought, state of mind, malice, and whether a person caused extreme suffering, among other factors. 'Hate crimes' fall under motivation and oft also under premeditation and extreme malice. Hence, such factors fall under existing accommodations for aggravating and mitigating factors. To claim that it is worse for person A to commit a crime against person B is a worse offense than to commit it against person C, not as a matter of aggravating factors related to the crime, but as a whole other class of offense, is to deny person C the same legal protections as person B, as they are considered less human, in effect, under law, as pertains to the matter in question.

Fourth- a conservative?There is only one appropriate response:

Finally, the inescapable conclusion is that we believe in equal protection before the law and that no class of people is superior to another or warrants protected or superior legal status.


Dumbass.

An interesting take on the law of homicide. Totally incorrect, of course - but nonetheless interesting.

If a particular statute does not prescribe a mandatory sentence, the judge always has the power to impose whatever sentence he/she feels is appropriate, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Juries never have the power to impose sentences - at least not in California. In death penalty cases, the trial is conducted in two phases: the guilt phase and the penalty phase. In the penalty phase, the jury has the power to recommend the death penalty, but the ultimate say-so on whether it will actually be imposed belongs to His Honor.

The standard conservative line with regard to hate crimes is that they should be treated as aggravating factors rather than as substantive crimes in and of themselves. The problem with that is, where hate crimes exist, they exist because the state legislatures involved have determined that the public interest is best served by enacting hate crime legislation. Simple as that. Don't like it? Write your state legislator. Until then, hate crimes are on the books and the courts will be enforcing them as such.

John Stuart Mill once said: "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." My experience has been that although it is not true that all conservatives are bigots, it is true that most bigots are conservative.

Have a nice day.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

FYI - white people cannot, by definition, be protected by hate crime legislation because they are not protected. Why should they be? As mentioned, they are almost always the people who COMMIT hate crimes.

This is the most inane and idiotic point youve made in the entire discussion. And if true hate crime legislation would be a clear violation of the equal protection clause (which i dont necessarily believe it is).