Want To See A REAL Hate Crime?

[George Costanza]

they should recieve the full punishment for the crime, regardless of WHO it was done to

equal justice under the law
if someone attacks me they should receive the same punishment

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

No, they are written based on the perceived thoughts and emotions of the people committing the crimes. How do you justify that under the Constitution again?

QW - my main man! Where ya been on this thread? OK, let's get at it . . .

You refer to the "perceived thoughts and emotions" of the people committing the crimes, as if people get convicted of hate crimes without any real evidence thereof. Not so. Prosecutors are not stupid. They will not even file on a hate crime unless they have substantial evidence to establish the motivation of the defendant. In this case, the attackers were screaming, "Fag! Fucking faggot!" as they knocked the victim to the ground and kicked him in the head. There is nothing necessary to "perceive" here - the attackers made it perfectly clear what their motivation was. The prosecutor will have a field day with this case, if it ever gets to trial. No problem establishing this as a hate crime. None.

How do I justify hate crime legislation under the Constitution? Why is that even an issue? Are you referring to so-called "thought crimes"? Hate crimes are not thought crimes. They are thought motivated action crimes. There is a difference. It would be unconsitutional to convict someone for merely thinking he would like to attack a gay person. (I guess it would be unconstitutional - not sure where the Constitution talks about anything like that, but what the hell; I will assume it does for sake of argument.)

However, when our "thought crime" guy decides to put his thoughts into action, it is an entirely different matter. And, once again, no one ever gets convicted of (or even prosecuted for) a hate crime unless, as in this case, there is ample evidence of his intent.

You do recognize that different degrees of murder are punished differently, right? And what is it that differentiates the varying degrees of murder? Nothing more than the thought process of the perp. Funny - I haven't heard anyone arguing that punishing first degree murder more harshly than second degree murderer is "punishing the perceived thoughts and emotions" of the murderer.

Fight the ones you can win, QW - this one isn't it.

 

[DiveCon]

Prejudice against whom - racists who attack others for racially motivated reasons? Damn right. As Barb has noted - the more serious the crime, the more serious the penalty.

Prejudice against those assaulted for reasons other than Racism. PC School for Felon's- How to avoid Hate Crime Charges selecting your victims more intelligently. Recycle through the system faster, get more done, just avoid the protected classes. It's all bullshit George.

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

whats wrong with equal justice for the victims?
is a non-minority victim somehow of less value?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

Why?

Why is it worse if I hate a person and beat him to death because he is gay or because he killed my cat?

You are accusing me, and those who agree with me, of not seeing that hate crimes are worse because the motivation is hate. I can hate a person for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic group, or skin color. Justify yourself and explain why one type of hate is worse than another.

 

[jillian]

Hate crimes are worse that plain assault crimes, because of the motivation of the perp. Simple as that. I see a racially motivated attack as more culpable than a non-racially motivated attack. Apparently you do not.

We would seem to be at a basic disagreement that precludes further discussion.

Why?

Why is it worse if I hate a person and beat him to death because he is gay or because he killed my cat?

You are accusing me, and those who agree with me, of not seeing that hate crimes are worse because the motivation is hate. I can hate a person for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic group, or skin color. Justify yourself and explain why one type of hate is worse than another.

1. because society should send a message that that type of hatred is unacceptable.

2. because but for the hatred of a group of people, the act wouldn't have happened.

personally, i think people who oppose hate crime legislation oppose anything that benefits what the court calls 'suspect classes' of people.

 

[ConHog]

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

No, they are written based on the perceived thoughts and emotions of the people committing the crimes. How do you justify that under the Constitution again?

QW - my main man! Where ya been on this thread? OK, let's get at it . . .

You refer to the "perceived thoughts and emotions" of the people committing the crimes, as if people get convicted of hate crimes without any real evidence thereof. Not so. Prosecutors are not stupid. They will not even file on a hate crime unless they have substantial evidence to establish the motivation of the defendant. In this case, the attackers were screaming, "Fag! Fucking faggot!" as they knocked the victim to the ground and kicked him in the head. There is nothing necessary to "perceive" here - the attackers made it perfectly clear what their motivation was. The prosecutor will have a field day with this case, if it ever gets to trial. No problem establishing this as a hate crime. None.

How do I justify hate crime legislation under the Constitution? Why is that even an issue? Are you referring to so-called "thought crimes"? Hate crimes are not thought crimes. They are thought motivated action crimes. There is a difference. It would be unconsitutional to convict someone for merely thinking he would like to attack a gay person. (I guess it would be unconstitutional - not sure where the Constitution talks about anything like that, but what the hell; I will assume it does for sake of argument.)

However, when our "thought crime" guy decides to put his thoughts into action, it is an entirely different matter. And, once again, no one ever gets convicted of (or even prosecuted for) a hate crime unless, as in this case, there is ample evidence of his intent.

You do recognize that different degrees of murder are punished differently, right? And what is it that differentiates the varying degrees of murder? Nothing more than the thought process of the perp. Funny - I haven't heard anyone arguing that punishing first degree murder more harshly than second degree murderer is "punishing the perceived thoughts and emotions" of the murderer.

Fight the ones you can win, QW - this one isn't it.

George, I don't get you. Do you not see that ALL victims deserve equal justice?

 

[jillian]

Prejudice against those assaulted for reasons other than Racism. PC School for Felon's- How to avoid Hate Crime Charges selecting your victims more intelligently. Recycle through the system faster, get more done, just avoid the protected classes. It's all bullshit George.

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

whats wrong with equal justice for the victims?
is a non-minority victim somehow of less value?

because the victims weren't treated equally. they were targed BECAUSE of the group they were identified with.

 

[ConHog]

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

whats wrong with equal justice for the victims?
is a non-minority victim somehow of less value?

because the victims weren't treated equally. they were targed BECAUSE of the group they were identified with.

Can you prove that someone targeted because of what group they belong to suffers anymore from a crime than someone who was just randomly attacked?

 

[Intense]

Prejudice against whom - racists who attack others for racially motivated reasons? Damn right. As Barb has noted - the more serious the crime, the more serious the penalty.

Prejudice against those assaulted for reasons other than Racism. PC School for Felon's- How to avoid Hate Crime Charges selecting your victims more intelligently. Recycle through the system faster, get more done, just avoid the protected classes. It's all bullshit George.

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

Because the same group that justifies lenient sentencing putting unreformed predators back out in public want an exception, extra punishment, for predators that do not choose to be Politically correct in who they choose to target. How is choice of victim less of a crime How is choice of victim more important than the nature and extent of injury. Let Circumstance and reason decide punishment.

 

[Ragnar]

OK - done answering all the posts I am going to respond to for now.

One final thing at this point: I have YET to see ANYONE distinguish increased punishment for the varying intent levels of manslaughter and murder, from hate crime legislation.
Kill someone by accident in your car and you might get off with a year in county jail. Pay to have someone killed, and you could get the death penalty. In both cases, the victim is just as dead. Yet the criminal justice system (and I would assume most people as well) have no difficulty whatsoever in executing the capital murderer and giving the negligenct vehicular homicide person a relatively short time in custody. Why? Because the different levels of intent are obvious.

You hate crime legislation opponents need to recognize that, just as in the law of homicide, there is a different level of intent between a simple assault and a racially motivated assault. Your refusal to recognize this distinction tells me that you all really don't see a racially motivated assault as any worse than a regular assault.

And THAT speaks worlds about where you are coming from if you are opposing hate crime legislation.

Don't see that shoe fitting IMHO. A "different level of intent between a simple assault and a racially motivated assault". Really? Does that really matter? I see how it applies in the case of murder but assault? A human being was assaulted that that's all that should matter. Assault is not murder, and in that vein menacing is not assault. Is there such a thing as "hate menacing in the second degree"? Should there be? Hate loitering?

I just don't think that argument works for hate crimes laws. My understanding is that "hate crimes" are about additional punishment being applied to what is otherwise an already established crime with sentencing guidelines and all the rest. Should a racist listening to his David Duke tapes who drunkenly (and accidentally) runs over some unfortunate Chinese woman get a worse sentence than a "plain" drunken vehicular homicide? I think not. (Despite the fact that he is clearly a worse person than a non-racist) The State should see only individuals, not race or class.

Here in Cincy a few years ago I was mugged and (mildly) assaulted by three guys of a different race than mine. (I don't want to perpetuate a stereotype but I'm pretty sure they were Bengals) Was I "hate mugged"? Would those guys have deserved harsher punishment due to racial language and a not so subtle implication that I didn't belong in their neighborhood? I don't think so. (the mugging alone said I was not welcome, lol) Where does it stop? If I fly through that neighborhood in the future am I "hate speeding".

I'm just thinking out loud here so this need not be seen only as questions for George.

 

[jillian]

Prejudice against those assaulted for reasons other than Racism. PC School for Felon's- How to avoid Hate Crime Charges selecting your victims more intelligently. Recycle through the system faster, get more done, just avoid the protected classes. It's all bullshit George.

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

Because the same group that justifies lenient sentencing putting unreformed predators back out in public want an exception, extra punishment, for predators that do not choose to be Politically correct in who they choose to target. How is choice of victim less of a crime How is choice of victim more important than the nature and extent of injury. Let Circumstance and reason decide punishment.

i'd suggest that's an inapt generalization. i am a firm believer in sure and swift punishment after a fair trial.

but i also think that if some thugs decide to go 'fag-hunting' that their reason for choosing their target should be considered in sentencing.

or are you concerned that only white racists will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

 

[DiveCon]

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

whats wrong with equal justice for the victims?
is a non-minority victim somehow of less value?

because the victims weren't treated equally. they were targed BECAUSE of the group they were identified with.

so, a punch to the face of a minority person hurts more than a punch to the face of a non-minority
i never knew that

 

[DiveCon]

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

Because the same group that justifies lenient sentencing putting unreformed predators back out in public want an exception, extra punishment, for predators that do not choose to be Politically correct in who they choose to target. How is choice of victim less of a crime How is choice of victim more important than the nature and extent of injury. Let Circumstance and reason decide punishment.

i'd suggest that's an inapt generalization. i am a firm believer in sure and swift punishment after a fair trial.

but i also think that if some thugs decide to go 'fag-hunting' that their reason for choosing their target should be considered in sentencing.

or are you concerned that only white racists will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

but what if their selected target isn't actually gay? is it still a hate crime?

 

[Immanuel]

Hate crimes have been discussed here for a long time. Much of the discussion is unfocused and many of the opinions expressed based upon incomplete information. Want to see what a real hate crime looks like? I just took this case in. The arrest report contains the following:



Note that here is no question here as to WHY the suspects were attacking and robbing the victim - they SAY SO throughout the attack and the robbery.

All right, hate crime apologists - have at it. Come on and defend these animals.

There is no defending the morons who committed these crimes. That being said, I do not believe they should be punished any more or any less than the person that commits the same without using the offensive language.

Immie

You don't see a connection between the offensive language and the motivation for the attack?

Sure I do, but I can't figure out why you favor one victim over another.

Immie

 

[ConHog]

but why the objection to hate crimes legislation? if it's all the same, why do you care?

Because the same group that justifies lenient sentencing putting unreformed predators back out in public want an exception, extra punishment, for predators that do not choose to be Politically correct in who they choose to target. How is choice of victim less of a crime How is choice of victim more important than the nature and extent of injury. Let Circumstance and reason decide punishment.

i'd suggest that's an inapt generalization. i am a firm believer in sure and swift punishment after a fair trial.

but i also think that if some thugs decide to go 'fag-hunting' that their reason for choosing their target should be considered in sentencing.

or are you concerned that only white racists will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

That would in fact be a yes, history , especially RECENT history , has shown that many people believe that only whites can be racists.

 

[ConHog]

Because the same group that justifies lenient sentencing putting unreformed predators back out in public want an exception, extra punishment, for predators that do not choose to be Politically correct in who they choose to target. How is choice of victim less of a crime How is choice of victim more important than the nature and extent of injury. Let Circumstance and reason decide punishment.

i'd suggest that's an inapt generalization. i am a firm believer in sure and swift punishment after a fair trial.

but i also think that if some thugs decide to go 'fag-hunting' that their reason for choosing their target should be considered in sentencing.

or are you concerned that only white racists will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

but what if their selected target isn't actually gay? is it still a hate crime?

Exactly what I was thinking. It's a logical extension of on this board when certain people get mad and they scream "faggot" at someone who isn't gay . If you scream "faggot" at a herero and then kick his ass, is that a hate crime?

Or how about this. When the Bloods kill Crips, they hate each other, are those hate crimes?

 

[Immanuel]

Why do you see the victim in this case as being more deserving of retribution than a straight white kid who was beaten and robbed simply because he was an easy target?

Immie

Because a racially motivated attack is more culpable than an attack for non-racial reasons. It is not so much providing retirubtion to the victim as it is a desire to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place. The idea is, that increased punishment will act as a deterrent.

Why is there more interest in deterring racially motivated attacks than in deterring "regular" assaults? Because racially motivated attacks are more culpable.

You don't think they are?

No, I do not. One criminal is just as bad as the next regardless of reasons for the crime. John who beats the crap out of Joe because Joe did not pay that $5 bet he lost on the football game last week is just as guilty as Mark who beat the crap out of Barney because Barney looked gay.

John should not get off easier than Mark.

Immie

 

[asterism]

Because of what the suspects said during the attack. Their motivation is clear here.

So, if you believe the perp about his motivation, how come you don't believe them when they use the SODDI defense?

Ah, the logic of a liberal.

(Some other dude did it.)

PC - listen up. Pay attention now. When suspects are calling the victim a "fucking fag" as they attack him, the motivation of the attack is clear - any problem with that? When a defendant tells his attorney SODDI, there is no independent verification one way or the other to prove that this is true, other than the defendant's word. Big difference.

I disagree. When I got mugged I was called a "stupid cracka" and "you da black man's bitch now" but the motivation was not my race, it was my car. They wanted it.

 

[Immanuel]

You say Hate Crime Legislation is race neutral and I absolutely agree with that statement. However, I would ask this question of you. Do you think prosecution of Hate Crimes is race neutral or sexual orientation neutral? I don't think it is.

No, prosecution of hate crimes is not race/sexual orientation neutral at all. Why? Because it is usually minority race members and gay people who are on the receiving end of hate crimes. So what? Are you trying to argue that because one segment of society seems to commit hate crimes more than any other, they should not receive increased punishment for committing such crimes? I trust you do see the fallacy of such an argument, if that's what you are saying.

That being said, and both of us understanding that the legislation is neutral when it comes to the victim, can you tell me that you really believe that latinos who beat a white man screaming, "damned gringos" while they do so, would be charged with a hate crime rather than just assault? Some how, I think prosecution in this case would be lacking.

I can absolutely guarantee you that the Latinos would be prosecuted for a hate crime, same as a white guy would if the situation was reversed. Prosecutors (at least the ones I have known) prosecute. They don't give a damn who the defendant is - all they want to know is, can they prove the crime in front of a jury?

Then in your first paragraph, you are stating that it is perfectly acceptable to you for justice to discriminate. I have to disagree with you.

I do not agree with your "absolutely guarantee you" statement either. They go for what they believe they can convict on. It would be difficult to convict a latino of a hate crime because well "minorities can't be racists" (according to the left that is) so they will simply charge the defendant with assault and battery.

Why on earth should we add 10 years to a sentence simply because someone used a racial slur during an attack? The crime was wrong regardless of who the victim is and should be prosecuted with the same vigor under all circumstances and punishment should be severe regardless of who the victim is.

Hate crime legislation is just PC policing.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK - done answering all the posts I am going to respond to for now.

One final thing at this point: I have YET to see ANYONE distinguish increased punishment for the varying intent levels of manslaughter and murder, from hate crime legislation.
Kill someone by accident in your car and you might get off with a year in county jail. Pay to have someone killed, and you could get the death penalty. In both cases, the victim is just as dead. Yet the criminal justice system (and I would assume most people as well) have no difficulty whatsoever in executing the capital murderer and giving the negligenct vehicular homicide person a relatively short time in custody. Why? Because the different levels of intent are obvious.

You hate crime legislation opponents need to recognize that, just as in the law of homicide, there is a different level of intent between a simple assault and a racially motivated assault. Your refusal to recognize this distinction tells me that you all really don't see a racially motivated assault as any worse than a regular assault.

And THAT speaks worlds about where you are coming from if you are opposing hate crime legislation.

I had to run before I answered that post.

Unless I am mistaken, the lesser types of homicides were created because it was impossible to convict a person who lost control of a car of murder, so the politicians invented new crimes to cover things that are not murder. In other words, we are not talking about basing criminal acts on a demonstrated decision to kill, but on the lack thereof. Murder requires that the state prove intent by showing that a person planned to kill. Manslaughter only requires a person to to actually kill.

 

[Immanuel]

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

No, they are written based on the perceived thoughts and emotions of the people committing the crimes. How do you justify that under the Constitution again?

QW - my main man! Where ya been on this thread? OK, let's get at it . . .

You refer to the "perceived thoughts and emotions" of the people committing the crimes, as if people get convicted of hate crimes without any real evidence thereof. Not so. Prosecutors are not stupid. They will not even file on a hate crime unless they have substantial evidence to establish the motivation of the defendant. In this case, the attackers were screaming, "Fag! Fucking faggot!" as they knocked the victim to the ground and kicked him in the head. There is nothing necessary to "perceive" here - the attackers made it perfectly clear what their motivation was. The prosecutor will have a field day with this case, if it ever gets to trial. No problem establishing this as a hate crime. None.

How do I justify hate crime legislation under the Constitution? Why is that even an issue? Are you referring to so-called "thought crimes"? Hate crimes are not thought crimes. They are thought motivated action crimes. There is a difference. It would be unconsitutional to convict someone for merely thinking he would like to attack a gay person. (I guess it would be unconstitutional - not sure where the Constitution talks about anything like that, but what the hell; I will assume it does for sake of argument.)

However, when our "thought crime" guy decides to put his thoughts into action, it is an entirely different matter. And, once again, no one ever gets convicted of (or even prosecuted for) a hate crime unless, as in this case, there is ample evidence of his intent.

You do recognize that different degrees of murder are punished differently, right? And what is it that differentiates the varying degrees of murder? Nothing more than the thought process of the perp. Funny - I haven't heard anyone arguing that punishing first degree murder more harshly than second degree murderer is "punishing the perceived thoughts and emotions" of the murderer.

Fight the ones you can win, QW - this one isn't it.

Different degrees of homicide are prosecuted differently because of intent. Manslaughter has no intent at all. First degree murder involves premeditated intent. I suspect that if the circumstances warranted it, second degree murder could also be charged as a hate crime.

Your example was one of assault and battery. In that case it would have been "first degree assault". There might also be cases where second degree assaults might also be charged as hate crimes.

Since the degree of a crime is immaterial to whether or not a crime can be charged as a hate crime, your example of different degrees of murder justifying hate crime legislation does not hold water as many crimes have varying degrees and just as different degrees of murder can be a either a hate crime (under said legislation) the same can be said for assault and battery or vandalism or what have you.

Immie