Thought Crime Legislation

[BasicGreatGuy]

I realize that. In my opinion, Congress is usurping power that rightfully belongs to the state(s).

Here is an outline of such, some are federal elements, some are not.

Civil Rights Division Home Page


Some criminal laws, such as federal murder, MUST have a federal element, period.

In regards to hate crimes against homosexuals, or whatever X label one wants to make, I assert that it should be a state issue.

If someone kills a federal employee, that is different. We aren't talking about that though.

 

[Intense]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

Is that why banks are so secure???

 

[KittenKoder]

I have seen no evidence such detailed deterrents work, in any way. However some do create more resentment and less equality, such as "hate crime", instead of deter.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Lawbuff made a good point. We see calls for paedophiles who sexually assault children to be executed. We know that there are heavier sentences available for courts to pass on defendants who are convicted of sexual assault against children. Why?

If the respective states want to execute convicted pedophiles who have had their due process, I got no problem with that.

I see nothing in the Constitution, that gives Congress the right to dictate hate crime legislation against the states. A lot of people like such laws, because they are politically correct motivated, and give the appearance of keeping us safer. In actuality, they enslave us to the feds.

Have you noticed over the years how more and more is becoming a so-called federal issue? It is not about safety. It is about control. It is about the feds controlling the states like they want and in turn, controlling us.

 

[lawbuff]

In regards to hate crimes against homosexuals, or whatever X label one wants to make, I assert that it should be a state issue.

If someone kills a federal employee, that is different. We aren't talking about that though.

I was just pointing out some federal crimes are not totally federal in nature, nor are they limited to that. I see nothing wrong with concurrent powers here.

States can't criminalize some federal laws, such as IRS evasion, etc.

 

[Intense]

I realize that. In my opinion, Congress is usurping power that rightfully belongs to the state(s).

Here is an outline of such, some are federal elements, some are not.

Civil Rights Division Home Page


Some criminal laws, such as federal murder, MUST have a federal element, period.

What the Fed. also likes to do is try the accused more than once for the same action.

 

[lawbuff]

If the respective states want to execute convicted pedophiles who have had their due process, I got no problem with that.

The SC has ruled even rape of a child is not punishable by death, just last year they ruled it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have seen no evidence such detailed deterrents work, in any way. However some do create more resentment and less equality, such as "hate crime", instead of deter.

I think hate crime legislation is wrong, but who cares about resentment by certain individuals or groups? I imagine that the KKK hated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, I know it was because several men in our community had to be put down before that group of wingnuts settled down.

 

[lawbuff]

What the Fed. also likes to do is try the accused more than once for the same action.

This is true, it does not trigger Double Jeopardy.

 

[Diuretic]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

Is that why banks are so secure???

But deterrent sentences obviously work, I mean, you can see it in action. Walk past your average bank most days and it's not being knocked over

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If the respective states want to execute convicted pedophiles who have had their due process, I got no problem with that.

The SC has ruled even rape of a child is not punishable by death, just last year they ruled it.

The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter. The point is, that particular issue is not an enumerated power of Congress. As such, it should be left to the states to punish as they see fit. I see nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

[KittenKoder]

I have seen no evidence such detailed deterrents work, in any way. However some do create more resentment and less equality, such as "hate crime", instead of deter.

I think hate crime legislation is wrong, but who cares about resentment by certain individuals or groups? I imagine that the KKK hated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, I know it was because several men in our community had to be put down before that group of wingnuts settled down.

Yet ... we still hear about the same percentages of crimes being a committed that are "hate crimes" even today in spite of such "deterrents". If something doesn't work then why continue to invest more time in it? Instead you could put more effort into finding something that works ...

 

[goldcatt]

Federal hate crime legislation started as a civil rights measure, as a way to give the Federal government jurisdiction over crimes against blacks which the States refused to prosecute or put in the fix to make sure there would be no conviction. It was a neat way to sidestep those States - or avoid double jeopardy, since it was a different charge in a different jurisdiction - and attempt at least to make sure little things like racially motivated murder were taken seriously and deterred.
I disagree with it, of course. I can see what they were and are trying to do, but they're going about it the wrong way when it starts resembling the thought police. And now it's way out of hand.

 

[lawbuff]

The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter. The point is, that particular issue is not an enumerated power of Congress. As such, it should be left to the states to punish as they see fit. I see nothing unconstitutional about it.

It was NOT a Congressional act, if I remember correctly, it was a Louisiana case/statute.

Reagardless, it violates the 8th AM for any sovereign to do it.

 

[Intense]

What the Fed. also likes to do is try the accused more than once for the same action.

This is true, it does not trigger Double Jeopardy.

So if the feds. don't agree with the outcome of a State Trial, or want to set an example, Bam Bam!!! This can solve problems, it can also create more problems than it solves. It also does not come cheaply.

 

[lawbuff]

So if the feds. don't agree with the outcome of a State Trial, or want to set an example, Bam Bam!!! This can solve problems, it can also create more problems than it solves. It also does not come cheaply.

Trials never do, look at Terry Nichols from the OK bombing case. In my opinion, as many sovereigns could have tried him permitted by law, 2 here, and I had no problem with it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter. The point is, that particular issue is not an enumerated power of Congress. As such, it should be left to the states to punish as they see fit. I see nothing unconstitutional about it.

It was NOT a Congressional act, if I remember correctly, it was a Louisiana case/statute.

Reagardless, it violates the 8th AM for any sovereign to do it.

I was talking about the scenario in general, not a specific case. You believing it violates the VIII Amendment does not mean it actually does.

 

[lawbuff]

I was talking about the scenario in general, not a specific case. You believing it violates the VIII Amendment does not mean it actually does.

Anyone can disagree with a SC decision. I have mixed feelings about this one.

 

[Meister]

I'm against any kind of "hate crime legislation".
If someone in the majority commits a crime against a minority, because they are a minority...it's a hate crime.
But, if a minority commits the exact same crime against a majority, because they are the majority...it's not considered a hate crime.
Hence, there is a double standard of rules.

 

[lawbuff]

I'm against any kind of "hate crime legislation".
If someone in the majority commits a crime against a minority, because they are a minority...it's a hate crime.
But, if a minority commits the exact same crime against a majority, because they are the majority...it's not considered a hate crime.
Hence, there is a double standard of rules.

No, it has nothing to do with majority/minority.

Blacks are in the minority to whites. If a black commits a crime against a white, out of prejudice, it is a hate crime.