Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment

[George Costanza]

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).

The question which prompted my comment which you have quoted here was: "In how many of the cases you have seen, was the victim white?" I will concede that my response was not all that clear. Let me present it another way:

In all of the hate crime prosecutions in which I have been involved, the victim was black and the perp was white. But the hate crime laws do not mention race. They only mention "racially motivated crimes." As such, if a black person attacked a white person for racial reasons, the black person would be prosecuted same as a white person would if the roles were reversed.

But the REALITY is that hate crimes usually involve whites attacking blacks, not the other way around. So, no - I have not seen any hate crimes where a white person was the victim. Does this mean that hate crime laws are applied unequally? No. It only means that whites commit them more often than blacks.

My experience has been that hate crimes are generally committed by whites against blacks, not the other way around.

Explain to me how hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause when the hate crime laws do not mention race. If a member of ANY race commits a hate crime against any other person for the reasons listed in the hate crime statute, they are subject to prosecution. That doesn't look like a violation of Equal Protection to me.

I find it a little ironic that, when the majority of hate crimes are committed by whites, the whites use that fact to scream that hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause. It flat does not. You cons can scream that it does until hell freezes over - that is not going to change the fact that it does not.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Got statistics to back your claim usually involve whites attacking blacks (I dont doubt your claim I just want you to defend it with actual numbers). Also, I am willing to bet that few prosecutors are willing to pursue the hate crime route when sentencing if its a minority, or group of minorities, that has commited a crime where the victim is a white person.

A violation would be if hate crime legislation didnt extend to white victims of hate crimes but did apply to blacks, hispanics, etc. If it applies equally to all groups than it is constitutional but also just plain bad policy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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

This us a thread on hate crimes. It's not a law on homicide laws.

FAIL
​

Juries never have the power to impose sentences - at least not in California

THE ENTIRE NATION IS NOT CALIFORNIA.

Google 'jury sentencing'

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.

'Standard conservative line'? You realize you're speaking to a leftist, right?

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.

Wrong. They were almost always passed in the interest of the newformed protected class.

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.

Many bad laws were and are on the books.

FAIL
​

My experience has been that although it is not true that all conservatives are bigots, it is true that most bigots are conservative.

How is attacking conservatives supposed to refute the points made by a leftist?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If you're going to resort to ad homs, try to at least hit the target.

Dumbass.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So according to the self-appointed attorney, only White people can be motivated by hate?

Did B52 get a new puppet?

 

[Anguille]

Hate crimes perpetrate rascism and discrimination and are a crime against society as a whole, therefore they should be punished more severly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

False analysis, George. A rose by any other name is still as sweet, a Contumacious by another name is still a danger to a certain portion of the human race. Hate crimes are thought crimes, and they are in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Go read Nat Hentoff. Do you good.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Hate crimes perpetrate rascism and discrimination and are a crime against society as a whole, therefore they should be punished more severly.

Hate crime laws are discrimination in the law and are counter-productive to real attempts to achieve legal and social equality, just like anti-White admission and hiring standards.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Charging someone with murder vice manslaughter is based on a "thought crime" also. Wanna throw those out?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Murder is murder and motive does not matter.

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

So according to the self-appointed attorney, only White people can be motivated by hate?

Did B52 get a new puppet?

The Supreme Court case that decided the legality of hate crime laws was a black-on-white hate crime. /justsaying

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

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.

Murder is murder and motive does not matter.

Actually, mens rea (criminal intent) is the basis of both English common law and the American legal system.

The English speaking countries have virtually the only legal systems in the world that make a legal distinction between your intent and the act.

 

[William Joyce]

because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes.

Does this need to be commented on, or does its stupidity speak for itself?

This is simply wrong, on the face of it.

Although this dumb statement is sadly the understanding of most laymen, which leads to the problem addressed in the post below...

 

[William Joyce]

Explain to me how hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause when the hate crime laws do not mention race.

Unequal enforcement is the answer. If you have a law that's facially neutral but always used to hurt a particular group, that's a violation. Check the chinese laundry case.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

Murder is murder and motive does not matter.

Had anyone murdered Hitler before war's end, I'd have called it just.

 

[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.

Charging someone with murder vice manslaughter is based on a "thought crime" also. Wanna throw those out?

I have no problem with that. Those laws are applied equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc... Hate crimes laws are not. Apples - Oranges.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Are you also against increased penalties for crimes against teachers, coaches, flight attendants, pilots, police, fireman, paramedics, etc. etc, etc, etc?

How come they get extra protection. More gays are attacked because they are gay than paramedics.

I oppose all of them but the right wing loves the others.

 

[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.

Charging someone with murder vice manslaughter is based on a "thought crime" also. Wanna throw those out?

I have no problem with that. Those laws are applied equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc... Hate crimes laws are not. Apples - Oranges.

Why do you feel that hate crimes are not APPLIED equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Hate crimes make no mention of a specific race, creed, etc. Typically, a hate crime involves "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

If a homosexual attacked a heterosexual, in whole or in part because the homosexual held a bias against heterosexuals, the homosexual person would be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Same if a black person attacked a white person because of racial bias.

And by the way - the correct expression to show an illogical or incorrect comparison is, "apples and ELEPHANTS," not "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and elephants are different things entirely.

When one uses that expression, they are saying: "You are comparing two things that are totally different and, therefore, your comparison is specious. You might as well be comparing apples to elephants."

No extra charge for the linguistics lesson.

 

[George Costanza]

Explain to me how hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause when the hate crime laws do not mention race.

Unequal enforcement is the answer. If you have a law that's facially neutral but always used to hurt a particular group, that's a violation. Check the chinese laundry case.

No - it isn't unequal enforcement - it's unequal commission of the crime. Hate crimes against blacks are typically and almost universally committed by whites.

Arguing that hate crime laws "hurt" white people because it punishes them when they commit hate crimes against blacks and, therefore, we should do away with hate crime legislation is both illogical and contrary to common sense.

"We violate the law and since it hurts us when we are punished, we want to do away with the law." I don't think so.