Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why do we have to muddy the waters with so much red tape?
Hate is thought.
Racism is thought. Racism is defined as believing your race is superior to another.
When you ACT on those thoughts and that act is a crime then you get prosecuted.
We already have laws on the books for that.
Hate is thought.
Racism is thought. Racism is defined as believing your race is superior to another.
When you ACT on those thoughts and that act is a crime then you get prosecuted.
We already have laws on the books for that.
Ah, but hate crime legislation addresses a "special" kind of hate - a kind of hate that is different from the general type of hate that typically motivates a physical attack on another person. The special kind of hate that hate crime leglislation addresses is bigotry and racisim.
Why are you opposed to increased penalties for racists who attack victims solely for racist reasons? Can you answer that one? "Because we already have laws for that," you say? No, we don't. We have laws for attacking another person. Usually, when a "general" attack of that nature takes place, there is some justicifaction for it. The victim said or did something that angered the attacker. What is the justification for a hate crime? Merely that the victim was a member of a minority group.
If you don't see someone who attacks another for solely racial reasons as more culpable than someone who attacks someone because of something they said or did, then there is little I can say to you any further on this topic.
Hate is thought.
Racism is thought. Racism is defined as believing your race is superior to another.
When you ACT on those thoughts and that act is a crime then you get prosecuted.
We already have laws on the books for that.
Ah, but hate crime legislation addresses a "special" kind of hate - a kind of hate that is different from the general type of hate that typically motivates a physical attack on another person. The special kind of hate that hate crime leglislation addresses is bigotry and racisim.
Why are you opposed to increased penalties for racists who attack victims solely for racist reasons? Can you answer that one? "Because we already have laws for that," you say? No, we don't. We have laws for attacking another person. Usually, when a "general" attack of that nature takes place, there is some justicifaction for it. The victim said or did something that angered the attacker. What is the justification for a hate crime? Merely that the victim was a member of a minority group.
If you don't see someone who attacks another for solely racial reasons as more culpable than someone who attacks someone because of something they said or did, then there is little I can say to you any further on this topic.
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.
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act
(28 U.S.C 994)
Congress enacted a federal complement to state hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes in the 1994 crime bill. This provision required the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This measure applies, inter alia, to attacks and vandalism which occur in national parks and on federal property.
In May, 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission announced its implementation of a three-level sentencing guidelines increase for hate crimes, as directed by Congress. This amendment took effect on November 1, 1995.
http://www.adl.org/issue_government/hate_crime_sentencing_act.asp
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.
Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[2].....
....In the United States, racist anti-black bias is the most frequently reported hate crime motivation. African-Americans constitute the second-largest minority group with Hispanics being the largest.[4] Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, the most frequently reported motivation was bias against blacks, almost 3,000,[5] other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, Jewish, Gay, Muslim, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
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.
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☭;2103094 said:You know the guy Dick Cheney shot didn't die.
I do.
So either you think people can be charged with murder when noone dies- proving your claim to be an attorney a lie and proving that you're fucking retarded, or you just now Googled it and now know the guy didn't die- proving you're a retard.
