Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment

[George Costanza]

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

And that is all that needs to be said. Glad someone here gets it.

 

[George Costanza]

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...

Hate crimes invariably involve action by someone in the majority, against someone in the minority. I doubt that you are going to find too many hate crimes committed by a member of a minority, against a member of the majority.

When I used the phrase, "general population," I meant it to mean the majority.

I suppose members of the majority could be victims of hate crimes, so I will amend my original statement to read: "Members of the general population are rarely (if ever) victims of hate crimes."

That better?

Now go work on your manners.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hate crimes statutes perpetuate socio-class warfare. They are immoral and ethically flawed. No other way is feasible in understanding why they are wrong.

 

[Zander]

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.

Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.

We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.

 

[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.

The Chinese Laundry Case

In 1880, the city of San Francisco passed a city ordinance that laundry businesses could not be conducted in wooden buildings without a permit.

On its face, the ordinance appeared race neutral. However, at the time, about 95% of the city's 320 laundries were operated in wooden buildings. Approximately two-thirds of those laundries were owned by Chinese persons. Although most of the city's wooden building laundry owners applied for a permit, none were granted to any Chinese owner, while only one out of approximately eighty non-Chinese applicants was denied a permit.

The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Matthews, found that the administration of the statute in question was discriminatory and that there was therefore no need to even consider whether the ordinance itself was lawful. Even though the Chinese laundry owners were usually not American citizens, the court ruled they were still entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The majority opinion denounced the ordinance as a blatant attempt to exclude the Chinese from the laundry business in San Francisco.

Why the Chinese Laundry Case is Distinguishable From Hate Crime Legislation

The Chinese laundry case involved a law that appeared fair on its face, but was being administered unfairly. Moving this argument over into the hate crime area, in order for hate crimes to be stricken as contrary to the equal protection clause, it would have to appear that they are being administered unfairly.

In order for the hate crime laws to be administered unfairly, it would have to appear that hate crimes were being committed by members of all racial, ethnic and sexual groups in our society, but only white people were being prosecuted under them.
Because virtually all hate crimes are committed by whites, it would appear that only whites are being prosecuted. But that, in and of itself, does not establish a denial of equal protection. More information is needed.

The real question is - are members of other racial, ethnic or sexual groups committing hate crimes but escaping prosecution?

I doubt that this is the case. If anyone has any statistics on it, let's see them. Most prosecutors with whom I have dealt, gleefully prosecute crimes regardless of the racial or ethnic origin of the defendant. And if you assume that the majority of prosecutors are white, you can toss in the notion that they would probably go out of their way to prosecute a hate crime with a white victim.

The Chinese laundry case is distinguishable from hate crime legislation and does not serve as a basis for arguing equal protection in the enforcement of hate crimes.

 

[Oddball]

Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment

Dadgummed stupid, ratty, bullshit car pool lanes violate the 14th Amendment.

Ooooo...New thread.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.

We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.

In order to answer your question, we would have to know why you attacked the homosexual on Monday. If you did not know he was a homosexual, and he had just insulted your wife or some such, then you should not receive any harsher punishment for that than for attacking a heterosexual on Tuesday.

However, if your reason for attacking the homosexual on Monday was motivated in whole or in part by a hatred of homosexuals, then you have committed a hate crime and should receive harsher punishment.

Why? First of all, the legislatures that pass hate crime laws do so because they recognize that someone who attacks another person for reasons of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is more culpable than someone who attacks another person for the usual reasons people attack others - anger, jealousy, retribution, etc. A racial attack on another person is considered a "worse crime" than an attack out of anger, jealousy, etc.

Why is a racial attack considered a "worse" crime than a "regular" or "usual" (if you will) attack? Probably one of the main reasons is that a member of certain racial or ethnic group has no control over his or her being in that group. Furthermore, there is no rational reason to support a racial attack. If someone insults your wife or shoots your dog, there is at least a rational reason for attacking them, even if such an attack would still be prosecuted.

Apologies for appearing pedantic. While what I said there is absolutely true, I did put it in there with tongue in cheek. In fact, I hunted around for a winking Smiley but was unable to find one. Sorry.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

It's like comparing you to an educated lawyer, then?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.

We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zander again.

 

[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.

Murder is murder and motive does not matter.

Right church, wrong pew. You are correct that it is not necessary to prove motive in order to convict someone of murder. Motive is not an element of the crime of murder. (Although most prosecutors will tell you they would much prefer to have a case where there is motive to kill than one without it.)

However, intent IS an element of murder and must be proven along with all of the other elements of the crime. And intent is what distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder or manslaughter. The punishments are different for first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. The higher up you go, the stiffer the punishment.

No one (in a legitimate legal context) has ever contended that, because of this fact, murder and manslaughter are "thought crimes."

So it is with hate crime legislation. An assault committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias is clearly a more culpable crime than a "simple" assault, committed because of the usual reasons one commits assaults - anger, jealousy, envy, revenge, retribution, etc. As such, the punishment is (and should be) harsher.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Source?

If that were true the WBC would have all been arrested years ago.

Also it would be a blatant violation of the 1st.

 

[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.

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.

There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.

 

[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.

There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.

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.

I said that, didn't I . . . Let me try that again another way. What I was trying to say is that hate crimes are almost always committed by members of the majority against members of a minority. Whites v. blacks. Straights v. gays. I regret using the term "general population." I should have said "the majority." And it is further not necessarily true that members of the majority cannot be victims of hate crimes. Usually, they are the perps, not the victims. But they can be victims.

Hate crime legislation does not protect any specific group. The hate crime laws do not say, "it is a hate crime to attack a black person or a homosexual." The hate crime laws simply say that a crime against "any peson" which is committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is a hate crime. I don't find any "group" anywhere in there.

There is nothing unequal about hate crime legislation. Where is there any inequality? Can you point it out to me? All hate crime laws do is giver harsher penalties to crimes committed for racial or ethnic reasons. Hence, if I (a white person) am attacked by an Indonesian person because the Indonesian guy hates white people, guess what - the Indonesian guy will be prosecuted for a hate crime. And rightly so! Attacking ME? The son of a . . . .

 

[jillian]

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.

There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.

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.

I said that, didn't I . . . Let me try that again another way. What I was trying to say is that hate crimes are almost always committed by members of the majority against members of a minority. Whites v. blacks. Straights v. gays. I regret using the term "general population." I should have said "the majority." And it is further not necessarily true that members of the majority cannot be victims of hate crimes. Usually, they are the perps, not the victims. But they can be victims.

Hate crime legislation does not protect any specific group. The hate crime laws do not say, "it is a hate crime to attack a black person or a homosexual." The hate crime laws simply say that a crime against "any peson" which is committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is a hate crime. I don't find any "group" anywhere in there.

There is nothing unequal about hate crime legislation. Where is there any inequality? Can you point it out to me? All hate crime laws do is giver harsher penalties to crimes committed for racial or ethnic reasons. Hence, if I (a white person) am attacked by an Indonesian person because the Indonesian guy hates white people, guess what - the Indonesian guy will be prosecuted for a hate crime. And rightly so! Attacking ME? The son of a . . . .

you are far more patient with her than i am.

 

[Zander]

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.

Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.

We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.

In order to answer your question, we would have to know why you attacked the homosexual on Monday. If you did not know he was a homosexual, and he had just insulted your wife or some such, then you should not receive any harsher punishment for that than for attacking a heterosexual on Tuesday.

However, if your reason for attacking the homosexual on Monday was motivated in whole or in part by a hatred of homosexuals, then you have committed a hate crime and should receive harsher punishment.

Why? First of all, the legislatures that pass hate crime laws do so because they recognize that someone who attacks another person for reasons of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is more culpable than someone who attacks another person for the usual reasons people attack others - anger, jealousy, retribution, etc. A racial attack on another person is considered a "worse crime" than an attack out of anger, jealousy, etc.

Why is a racial attack considered a "worse" crime than a "regular" or "usual" (if you will) attack? Probably one of the main reasons is that a member of certain racial or ethnic group has no control over his or her being in that group. Furthermore, there is no rational reason to support a racial attack. If someone insults your wife or shoots your dog, there is at least a rational reason for attacking them, even if such an attack would still be prosecuted.

Apologies for appearing pedantic. While what I said there is absolutely true, I did put it in there with tongue in cheek. In fact, I hunted around for a winking Smiley but was unable to find one. Sorry.

I can appreciate your position on the issue, but I disagree with the fundamentals. I think the idea of "protected" groups is inherently wrong. If we are ever to move past racism and bigotry we need to end special treatment for "special" groups. We are all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc., our laws should reflect that.

PS - I specifically chose the words "apples and oranges" because we are discussing "LAW" - Different "fruits" within the law. Apples and elephants would apply if there was no commonality!!!

 

[George Costanza]

There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.

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.

I said that, didn't I . . . Let me try that again another way. What I was trying to say is that hate crimes are almost always committed by members of the majority against members of a minority. Whites v. blacks. Straights v. gays. I regret using the term "general population." I should have said "the majority." And it is further not necessarily true that members of the majority cannot be victims of hate crimes. Usually, they are the perps, not the victims. But they can be victims.

Hate crime legislation does not protect any specific group. The hate crime laws do not say, "it is a hate crime to attack a black person or a homosexual." The hate crime laws simply say that a crime against "any peson" which is committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is a hate crime. I don't find any "group" anywhere in there.

There is nothing unequal about hate crime legislation. Where is there any inequality? Can you point it out to me? All hate crime laws do is giver harsher penalties to crimes committed for racial or ethnic reasons. Hence, if I (a white person) am attacked by an Indonesian person because the Indonesian guy hates white people, guess what - the Indonesian guy will be prosecuted for a hate crime. And rightly so! Attacking ME? The son of a . . . .

you are far more patient with her than i am.

I'm relatively new here . . .

 

[George Costanza]

I can appreciate your position on the issue, but I disagree with the fundamentals. I think the idea of "protected" groups is inherently wrong. If we are ever to move past racism and bigotry we need to end special treatment for "special" groups. We are all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc., our laws should reflect that.

It is interesting to consider whether a statute that makes no mention of any group, in fact does protect only a certain group or groups. As I have said to death on this thread, hate crime laws simply make it a crime to commit any crime against "any person" motivated by racial bias. So, on its face, a hate crime statute does not single out any group.

However, in practice, we know that hate crime laws DO protect certain groups within our society. So I guess the core question is: is that a good idea? And I think you're right. At this point, it gets down to basic fundamentals. I happen to think it is a good idea. I have never liked bullies and bullies are the guys who commit hate crimes. I don't think too many people will condone the image of a group of cretins, dragging some poor guy to death behind a pickup truck merely because he is black, homosexual or whatever.

I know, I know - we already have punishments for that kind of stuff. But, to me, there just is something "worse" about crimes that are committed for reasons of racial prejudice. To me, those crimes are more culpable and simply should merit harsher punishment.

So many of the issues we love to kick around on boards like this really boil down to fundamental beliefs. I suspect this is one of them. Abortion and the death penalty are similar type issues. There are valid arguments on both sides of such issues - although I will never concede that hate crime laws violate the equal protection clause because they simply do not.

PS - I specifically chose the words "apples and oranges" because we are discussing "LAW" - Different "fruits" within the law. Apples and elephants would apply if there was no commonality!!!

Fair enough.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.

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.

I said that, didn't I . . . Let me try that again another way. What I was trying to say is that hate crimes are almost always committed by members of the majority against members of a minority. Whites v. blacks. Straights v. gays. I regret using the term "general population." I should have said "the majority." And it is further not necessarily true that members of the majority cannot be victims of hate crimes. Usually, they are the perps, not the victims. But they can be victims.

Hate crime legislation does not protect any specific group. The hate crime laws do not say, "it is a hate crime to attack a black person or a homosexual." The hate crime laws simply say that a crime against "any peson" which is committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is a hate crime. I don't find any "group" anywhere in there.

There is nothing unequal about hate crime legislation. Where is there any inequality? Can you point it out to me? All hate crime laws do is giver harsher penalties to crimes committed for racial or ethnic reasons. Hence, if I (a white person) am attacked by an Indonesian person because the Indonesian guy hates white people, guess what - the Indonesian guy will be prosecuted for a hate crime. And rightly so! Attacking ME? The son of a . . . .

There is plenty unequal about hatecrimes legislation because the perpetrator will attack one group less than another thus creating unequal protection of that law even though it is not written that way. A good example is if a skinhead wants to go out and beat up someone and he sees a black person. He chooses not to attack that black person because and then goes out to assault a non-hated group like another white person. Can you say that people who belong to the non-hated group are being protected equally? Of course not! The law itself creates one group, the group he hates, as the more protected group because of harsher penalties and groups that he does not hate recieve lesser penalties.

Here is another example. Someone who is rich might get mugged more than someone who is poor so should we create two classes of felonies. One class for the average joe that only get a regular sentencing but since rich people are going to be mugged more often then we have to create harsher penalties for them. Then you get two levels of protection where the rich will not be assaulted as often as the poor because of the harsher penalties. The question is doesn't the average joe deserve as much protection over his property as the rich person?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is plenty unequal about hatecrimes legislation because the perpetrator will attack one group less than another thus creating unequal protection of that law even though it is not written that way. A good example is if a skinhead wants to go out and beat up someone and he sees a black person. He chooses not to attack that black person because and then goes out to assault a non-hated group like another white person. Can you say that people who belong to the non-hated group are being protected equally? Of course not! The law itself creates one group, the group he hates, as the more protected group because of harsher penalties and groups that he does not hate recieve lesser penalties.

Here is another example. Someone who is rich might get mugged more than someone who is poor so should we create two classes of felonies. One class for the average joe that only get a regular sentencing but since rich people are going to be mugged more often then we have to create harsher penalties for them. Then you get two levels of protection where the rich will not be assaulted as often as the poor because of the harsher penalties. The question is doesn't the average joe deserve as much protection over his property as the rich person?

You use "unequal" where I think you mean 'unfair' and that is where your argument(s) falls apart.

Your skinhead example is betrayed by real life examples.

Just like crimes committed against people one knows, crimes of passion, are more violent than other similar crimes---crimes against target groups are more vicious and horrific.

Not many people see somebody they want to beat up and tie them to the back of pick up trucks and drag them, or tie people up to fence posts and burn them and torture them.

Maybe serial killers do, but nobody says serial killers should not be treated more harshly than other killers.

 

[ihopehefails]

I can appreciate your position on the issue, but I disagree with the fundamentals. I think the idea of "protected" groups is inherently wrong. If we are ever to move past racism and bigotry we need to end special treatment for "special" groups. We are all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc., our laws should reflect that.

It is interesting to consider whether a statute that makes no mention of any group, in fact does protect only a certain group or groups. As I have said to death on this thread, hate crime laws simply make it a crime to commit any crime against "any person" motivated by racial bias. So, on its face, a hate crime statute does not single out any group.

However, in practice, we know that hate crime laws DO protect certain groups within our society. So I guess the core question is: is that a good idea? And I think you're right. At this point, it gets down to basic fundamentals. I happen to think it is a good idea. I have never liked bullies and bullies are the guys who commit hate crimes. I don't think too many people will condone the image of a group of cretins, dragging some poor guy to death behind a pickup truck merely because he is black, homosexual or whatever.

I know, I know - we already have punishments for that kind of stuff. But, to me, there just is something "worse" about crimes that are committed for reasons of racial prejudice. To me, those crimes are more culpable and simply should merit harsher punishment.

So many of the issues we love to kick around on boards like this really boil down to fundamental beliefs. I suspect this is one of them. Abortion and the death penalty are similar type issues. There are valid arguments on both sides of such issues - although I will never concede that hate crime laws violate the equal protection clause because they simply do not.

PS - I specifically chose the words "apples and oranges" because we are discussing "LAW" - Different "fruits" within the law. Apples and elephants would apply if there was no commonality!!!

Fair enough.

Didn't you spend some time saying that this was not a thought crime legislation but then say that this punishes people for crimes with racial bias in them. In other words, you are punishing the motive behind it.