Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

motives are punished in many criminal trials.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

No it does not because when you create special penalties for crimes committed against the attackers hated group then anyone else outside of that group is not being protected equally by hate crime legislation since racist don't hate everyone equally. When the racist hates everyone equally then you can say everyone is protected equally from the racist attacks.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

motives are punished in many criminal trials.

Sometimes they are but only because it was a horrific crime in the first place. A guy being dragged from a pickup truck because he was gay shouldn't be punished more harshly because the attackers hated gays but because the crime itself was horrific. A similar crime that might happen to a hetero for reasons not involving bigotry should also be punished as harshly because of the nature of the crime itself. To say it should be punished more harshly because it was a hate crime is saying that identically horrific crimes like that committed against a hetero for non-bigotry reasons is not protecting everyone equally against such a crime since the penalities are different.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

No it does not because when you create special penalties for crimes committed against the attackers hated group then anyone else outside of that group is not being protected equally by hate crime legislation since racist don't hate everyone equally. When the racist hates everyone equally then you can say everyone is protected equally from the racist attacks.

your simple approach is contrary to experience. you make the same error as the criminals caught who complain about being treated unfairly because they are being made an example of.

there is such a thing as judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

When you grow up in an environment where mandatory sentencing is a common rant of idiotic pols, I can see where you go wrong, but there is nothing fair about charges brought, prosecution of cases, or sentencing.

racists by definition do not hate everyone equally. you are confusing racists with misanthropic troglodytes, which I fear you may become.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

motives are punished in many criminal trials.

When? and Where?

notice I used 'punished'


Motive itself is not prosecuted in the formal sense, but motive can and does affect sentencing. Sentencing is the punishment.

Motive itself is not a crime, but...

a distinction with a difference, but a distinction that is most likely lost on the accused/sentenced.

your arguments are sophomoric at best. If you want to understand and argue, fine...but if you think your limited grasp if life and it's nuances

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

No it does not because when you create special penalties for crimes committed against the attackers hated group then anyone else outside of that group is not being protected equally by hate crime legislation since racist don't hate everyone equally. When the racist hates everyone equally then you can say everyone is protected equally from the racist attacks.

your simple approach is contrary to experience. you make the same error as the criminals caught who complain about being treated unfairly because they are being made an example of.

there is such a thing as judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

When you grow up in an environment where mandatory sentencing is a common rant of idiotic pols, I can see where you go wrong, but there is nothing fair about charges brought, prosecution of cases, or sentencing.

racists by definition do not hate everyone equally. you are confusing racists with misanthropic troglodytes, which I fear you may become.

Which is why it is unequal protection because all groups he hates will be punished more harshly then non-hated groups which makes non-hated groups unprotected by the hate-crimes legislation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No it does not because when you create special penalties for crimes committed against the attackers hated group then anyone else outside of that group is not being protected equally by hate crime legislation since racist don't hate everyone equally. When the racist hates everyone equally then you can say everyone is protected equally from the racist attacks.

your simple approach is contrary to experience. you make the same error as the criminals caught who complain about being treated unfairly because they are being made an example of.

there is such a thing as judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

When you grow up in an environment where mandatory sentencing is a common rant of idiotic pols, I can see where you go wrong, but there is nothing fair about charges brought, prosecution of cases, or sentencing.

racists by definition do not hate everyone equally. you are confusing racists with misanthropic troglodytes, which I fear you may become.

Which is why it is unequal protection because all groups he hates will be punished more harshly then non-hated groups which makes non-hated groups unprotected by the hate-crimes legislation.

It is all situational

Hate crime legislation is something I do not always support. What I also do not support is your arguments.

Your use of unequal, is weak. Unfair, is what you mean.

The law is not fair, it is blind.

as far as I know, equal protection is not what hate crime defenses are about.

your arguments would hold more water if they were based on something other than an uneducated opinion.

 

[ihopehefails]

motives are punished in many criminal trials.

When? and Where?

notice I used 'punished'


Motive itself is not prosecuted in the formal sense, but motive can and does affect sentencing. Sentencing is the punishment.

Motive itself is not a crime, but...

a distinction with a difference, but a distinction that is most likely lost on the accused/sentenced.

your arguments are sophomoric at best. If you want to understand and argue, fine...but if you think your limited grasp if life and it's nuances

I am going to assume that you are correct and a specific motive gets harsher sentences. Whatever motive gets punished has to apply equally to all groups. When you punish someone for a motive like 'human depravity' that would apply to all groups since that particular motive does not make a distinction between groups. When you punish them for the motive of racism then you are punishing a person for attacking a certain group and you are punishing them for that way of thinking.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

so far, all the web site links I see on the www/net, are opinionated arguments cased on weak foundations.

can you provide a credible and reasonable link to your argument?

it may exist.

 

[ihopehefails]

your simple approach is contrary to experience. you make the same error as the criminals caught who complain about being treated unfairly because they are being made an example of.

there is such a thing as judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

When you grow up in an environment where mandatory sentencing is a common rant of idiotic pols, I can see where you go wrong, but there is nothing fair about charges brought, prosecution of cases, or sentencing.

racists by definition do not hate everyone equally. you are confusing racists with misanthropic troglodytes, which I fear you may become.

Which is why it is unequal protection because all groups he hates will be punished more harshly then non-hated groups which makes non-hated groups unprotected by the hate-crimes legislation.

It is all situational

Hate crime legislation is something I do not always support. What I also do not support is your arguments.

Your use of unequal, is weak. Unfair, is what you mean.

The law is not fair, it is blind.

as far as I know, equal protection is not what hate crime defenses are about.

your arguments would hold more water if they were based on something other than an uneducated opinion.

Equal protection was established because certain groups were getting protections that other groups were not getting. It was a crime in many states to take the property of a white person only. This protection did not extend to all groups which is the 14th amendment was created.

Hate crimes do the same thing because it makes the attacker distinguish between protected groups which are groups he hates and unprotected groups which are groups he does not hate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am going to assume that you are correct and a specific motive gets harsher sentences.

Whatever motive gets punished has to apply equally to all groups.

When you punish someone for a motive like 'human depravity' that would apply to all groups since that particular motive does not make a distinction between groups.

When you punish them for the motive of racism then you are punishing a person for attacking a certain group and you are punishing them for that way of thinking.

sentences do not have to apply equally.

individuals tried are not tried as groups.

when you prosecute a klansman for attacking and killing a black man, the klansman is not charged with racism.

 

[ihopehefails]

I am going to assume that you are correct and a specific motive gets harsher sentences.

Whatever motive gets punished has to apply equally to all groups.

When you punish someone for a motive like 'human depravity' that would apply to all groups since that particular motive does not make a distinction between groups.

When you punish them for the motive of racism then you are punishing a person for attacking a certain group and you are punishing them for that way of thinking.

sentences do not have to apply equally.

individuals tried are not tried as groups.

when you prosecute a klansman for attacking and killing a black man, the klansman is not charged with racism.

They should not be punished because of any beliefs they hold about other people. They should be punished for the crime itself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which is why it is unequal protection because all groups he hates will be punished more harshly then non-hated groups which makes non-hated groups unprotected by the hate-crimes legislation.

It is all situational

Hate crime legislation is something I do not always support. What I also do not support is your arguments.

Your use of unequal, is weak. Unfair, is what you mean.

The law is not fair, it is blind.

as far as I know, equal protection is not what hate crime defenses are about.

your arguments would hold more water if they were based on something other than an uneducated opinion.

Equal protection was established because certain groups were getting protections that other groups were not getting. It was a crime in many states to take the property of a white person only. This protection did not extend to all groups which is the 14th amendment was created.

Hate crimes do the same thing because it makes the attacker distinguish between protected groups which are groups he hates and unprotected groups which are groups he does not hate.

I go with this reasoning as opposed to yours:

"The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen."-Notes on the Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am going to assume that you are correct and a specific motive gets harsher sentences.

Whatever motive gets punished has to apply equally to all groups.

When you punish someone for a motive like 'human depravity' that would apply to all groups since that particular motive does not make a distinction between groups.

When you punish them for the motive of racism then you are punishing a person for attacking a certain group and you are punishing them for that way of thinking.

sentences do not have to apply equally.

individuals tried are not tried as groups.

when you prosecute a klansman for attacking and killing a black man, the klansman is not charged with racism.

They should not be punished because of any beliefs they hold about other people. They should be punished for the crime itself.

People are punished for crimes, and then sentencing involves considering extenuating circumstances.

Do you think murder one should be equal to manslaughter? If not, why the distinction? Why is there murder 1,2, 3?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They should not be punished because of any beliefs they hold about other people. They should be punished for the crime itself.

btw, to clarify...I do not usually agree with most hate crime legislation, but for different reasoning than yours.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Motive can be the difference between a homicide charge and getting off scot free even if there weren't hate crime laws.

For example say I shoot someone in the back of the head. Murder right?

Well supposing I was doing it to stop them from stabbing someone else.

Now suppose I did it because he wouldn't share his ice cream.

Different motives, and different charges.

Not sure how I feel about hate crime laws, just saying.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.



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.

Motive can be the difference between a homicide charge and getting off scot free even if there weren't hate crime laws.

For example say I shoot someone in the back of the head. Murder right?

Well supposing I was doing it to stop them from stabbing someone else.

Now suppose I did it because he wouldn't share his ice cream.

Different motives, and different charges.

 

[George Costanza]

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.



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.

Motive can be the difference between a homicide charge and getting off scot free even if there weren't hate crime laws.

For example say I shoot someone in the back of the head. Murder right?

Well supposing I was doing it to stop them from stabbing someone else.

Now suppose I did it because he wouldn't share his ice cream.

Different motives, and different charges.

Not sure how I feel about hate crime laws, just saying.

You are confusing motive with intent. Intent is an element of murder and must be proven. Motive is not an element and a person can be convicted of murder without any proof of motive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Are you really as dumb as this post suggests, or simply blinded by your own bias?