Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[Tilly]

Well if that's the purpose, then why not do that for all citizens?

Your claim here is that harsher sentences are for added protection. Okay, there we can agree. But why only added protection for victims of crime based on race or sexual preference?

Because those protections are there to solve a societal problem we are having.

It's a deterant. Social engineering. A lot of ignorant folk out there. Why you want to defend their ignorance?

Who you trying to protect?

It's not who I'm trying to protect, it's what I'm trying to protect, and what I'm trying to protect is equality; something liberals don't believe in.

Now you say "to solve a social problem we are having." Well...... don't you think the murders we have in this country are a social problem?

So why are hate crime laws supposed to work? Because it's tougher laws than for other people, or just because they are tougher laws period? Because if it's tougher laws period, then shouldn't we give that extra protection to everybody?

Let's say you are carjacked and murdered for your car. The penalty is whatever it it. Doesn't matter. Not the point. Point is that's not a hate crime. I get your point but if a white racist shoots up a black church, that's a hate crime.

Not all murders are equal. Circumstances matter.

So Ray is worth less.
Nah.

You aren't worth less. It's about the two different murderers. Them not you

Legislating against emotions and thoughts is absurd and should have no place in an enlightened society. .

 

[ChrisL]

Well if that's the purpose, then why not do that for all citizens?

Your claim here is that harsher sentences are for added protection. Okay, there we can agree. But why only added protection for victims of crime based on race or sexual preference?

Because those protections are there to solve a societal problem we are having.

It's a deterant. Social engineering. A lot of ignorant folk out there. Why you want to defend their ignorance?

Who you trying to protect?

It's not who I'm trying to protect, it's what I'm trying to protect, and what I'm trying to protect is equality; something liberals don't believe in.

Now you say "to solve a social problem we are having." Well...... don't you think the murders we have in this country are a social problem?

So why are hate crime laws supposed to work? Because it's tougher laws than for other people, or just because they are tougher laws period? Because if it's tougher laws period, then shouldn't we give that extra protection to everybody?

Let's say you are carjacked and murdered for your car. The penalty is whatever it it. Doesn't matter. Not the point. Point is that's not a hate crime. I get your point but if a white racist shoots up a black church, that's a hate crime.

Not all murders are equal. Circumstances matter.

So Ray is worth less.
Nah.

You aren't worth less. It's about the two different murderers. Them not you

It is about everyone involved. Victims family members are most certainly considered during trial and sentencing. That is why there are victim impact statements. Anyway, if a woman was murdered because some guy wanted to rape her, and a black man was murdered because he was black. Why is one deserving of a more harsh sentence than the other, under the "hate crime" legislation?

 

[sealybobo]

Then why do you care?

The purpose of hate crimes is to deter people from commuting them. Stop preying on old black gay Jews.

Does it work?

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

 

[ChrisL]

Things that should be considered more important are whether or not the murder was premeditated

Does it work?

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

Once the court and government get involved with labeling citizens as "racists" or "homophobes" then we have issues. That is NOT the role of the government. Punish the crime, not the thought behind it.

 

[sealybobo]

Because those protections are there to solve a societal problem we are having.

It's a deterant. Social engineering. A lot of ignorant folk out there. Why you want to defend their ignorance?

Who you trying to protect?

It's not who I'm trying to protect, it's what I'm trying to protect, and what I'm trying to protect is equality; something liberals don't believe in.

Now you say "to solve a social problem we are having." Well...... don't you think the murders we have in this country are a social problem?

So why are hate crime laws supposed to work? Because it's tougher laws than for other people, or just because they are tougher laws period? Because if it's tougher laws period, then shouldn't we give that extra protection to everybody?

Let's say you are carjacked and murdered for your car. The penalty is whatever it it. Doesn't matter. Not the point. Point is that's not a hate crime. I get your point but if a white racist shoots up a black church, that's a hate crime.

Not all murders are equal. Circumstances matter.

So Ray is worth less.
Nah.

You aren't worth less. It's about the two different murderers. Them not you

It is about everyone involved. Victims family members are most certainly considered during trial and sentencing. That is why there are victim impact statements. Anyway, if a woman was murdered because some guy wanted to rape her, and a black man was murdered because he was black. Why is one deserving of a more harsh sentence than the other, under the "hate crime" legislation?

Who said more? I think that rapist murderer should never see freedom again or should be executed. He's just not guilty of a hate crime.

 

[ChrisL]

It's not who I'm trying to protect, it's what I'm trying to protect, and what I'm trying to protect is equality; something liberals don't believe in.

Now you say "to solve a social problem we are having." Well...... don't you think the murders we have in this country are a social problem?

So why are hate crime laws supposed to work? Because it's tougher laws than for other people, or just because they are tougher laws period? Because if it's tougher laws period, then shouldn't we give that extra protection to everybody?

Let's say you are carjacked and murdered for your car. The penalty is whatever it it. Doesn't matter. Not the point. Point is that's not a hate crime. I get your point but if a white racist shoots up a black church, that's a hate crime.

Not all murders are equal. Circumstances matter.

So Ray is worth less.
Nah.

You aren't worth less. It's about the two different murderers. Them not you

It is about everyone involved. Victims family members are most certainly considered during trial and sentencing. That is why there are victim impact statements. Anyway, if a woman was murdered because some guy wanted to rape her, and a black man was murdered because he was black. Why is one deserving of a more harsh sentence than the other, under the "hate crime" legislation?

Who said more? I think that rapist murderer should never see freedom again or should be executed. He's just not guilty of a hate crime.

The whole purpose of a hate crime is to add time or money onto a sentence.

 

[sealybobo]

C

Things that should be considered more important are whether or not the murder was premeditated

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

Once the court and government get involved with labeling citizens as "racists" or "homophobes" then we have issues. That is NOT the role of the government. Punish the crime, not the thought behind it.

Circumstances matter.

 

[Tilly]

Does it work?

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

 

[sealybobo]

Let's say you are carjacked and murdered for your car. The penalty is whatever it it. Doesn't matter. Not the point. Point is that's not a hate crime. I get your point but if a white racist shoots up a black church, that's a hate crime.

Not all murders are equal. Circumstances matter.

So Ray is worth less.
Nah.

You aren't worth less. It's about the two different murderers. Them not you

It is about everyone involved. Victims family members are most certainly considered during trial and sentencing. That is why there are victim impact statements. Anyway, if a woman was murdered because some guy wanted to rape her, and a black man was murdered because he was black. Why is one deserving of a more harsh sentence than the other, under the "hate crime" legislation?

Who said more? I think that rapist murderer should never see freedom again or should be executed. He's just not guilty of a hate crime.

The whole purpose of a hate crime is to add time or money onto a sentence.

Yes

 

[Tilly]

Sealybobo:
If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

You see, this is the problem. You libtards so think you can read people's minds.

 

[ChrisL]

There's little to like about hate-crime laws

The best argument against "enhanced penalty" laws is the constitutional one. In the United States, we are taught, you can be sent to prison for what you do but not for what you think. Not only that, if government picks and chooses which crimes are the most serious based on the motivation behind them or the ethnic background of the victim, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

That was the message of a celebrated 1992 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Courtstruck down as a violation of the 1st Amendment a St. Paul, Minn., "bias-motivated crime ordinance," under which a white teenager had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of a black family.

The ordinance said in part: "Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender, commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that language was too broad. Although it was permissible for St. Paul to punish "fighting words" (and fighting symbols like a burning cross), the law violated the 1st Amendment because it picked and chose among which "fighting words" could land you in jail — those insulting someone on the basis of race, for example, but not sexual orientation or membership in a labor union.

The decision striking down the ordinance was unanimous and seemed likely to doom not only "pure" ethnic intimidation laws such as St. Paul's but also "piggyback" hate-crime laws (in which the penalty for a crime is enhanced, depending on the motivation behind it).



A year later, however, when a lower court cited the St. Paul decision in striking down a Wisconsin hate-crime law, the Supreme Court refused to follow its own logic and allowed the state's hate-crime law to stand. Interestingly, the decision in the Wisconsin case upheld the doubling of a sentence for a black man convicted of inciting violence against a white victim.



Hate-crime laws pose another problem. Call it the Jimmy Durante factor. Durante was the 1940s comedian whose catch phrase was: "Everybody wants to get into the act!" And once legislatures began to enact hate-crimes laws, everyone — that is every constituency with political clout — got into the act of agitating to be included in hate-crime laws.

In the 1992 cross-burning case, Scalia noted that St. Paul didn't prosecute "fighting words" based on sexual orientation, but California's hate-crime law has no such loophole. It provides enhanced penalties for "bias-motivated violence and intimidation" based on the victim's "race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability." New York's hate-crime laws adds "age" to the litany of protected categories. Can veterans be far behind?

The paradox is that as the list of protected groups gets longer and longer, the law approaches a situation in which every crime is a hate crime.

 

[Tilly]

It's not who I'm trying to protect, it's what I'm trying to protect, and what I'm trying to protect is equality; something liberals don't believe in.

Now you say "to solve a social problem we are having." Well...... don't you think the murders we have in this country are a social problem?

So why are hate crime laws supposed to work? Because it's tougher laws than for other people, or just because they are tougher laws period? Because if it's tougher laws period, then shouldn't we give that extra protection to everybody?

Let's say you are carjacked and murdered for your car. The penalty is whatever it it. Doesn't matter. Not the point. Point is that's not a hate crime. I get your point but if a white racist shoots up a black church, that's a hate crime.

Not all murders are equal. Circumstances matter.

So Ray is worth less.
Nah.

You aren't worth less. It's about the two different murderers. Them not you

It is about everyone involved. Victims family members are most certainly considered during trial and sentencing. That is why there are victim impact statements. Anyway, if a woman was murdered because some guy wanted to rape her, and a black man was murdered because he was black. Why is one deserving of a more harsh sentence than the other, under the "hate crime" legislation?

Who said more? I think that rapist murderer should never see freedom again or should be executed. He's just not guilty of a hate crime.

Really? Maybe he 'hates' women? Or maybe he has an all consuming hatred of short women? Or fat women? Or tall women? Or women of a certain age? Or women with blonde hair? Or women with blue eyes? ....

 

[sealybobo]

Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.

Nothing is fool proof

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

 

[Tilly]

C

Things that should be considered more important are whether or not the murder was premeditated

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

Once the court and government get involved with labeling citizens as "racists" or "homophobes" then we have issues. That is NOT the role of the government. Punish the crime, not the thought behind it.

Circumstances matter.

Every circumstance matters then. Every single one. So no need for this silly nonsense, just raise tariffs across the board and stop wasting time and money bending over backwards to prosecute people for their emotions and thoughts.

 

[blackhawk]

What are classified as hate crimes are usually but not always acts of violence and aren't violent crimes by their very nature hate based? If so wouldn't this make all violent crimes hate crimes?

 

[sealybobo]

There's little to like about hate-crime laws

The best argument against "enhanced penalty" laws is the constitutional one. In the United States, we are taught, you can be sent to prison for what you do but not for what you think. Not only that, if government picks and chooses which crimes are the most serious based on the motivation behind them or the ethnic background of the victim, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn't it?

That was the message of a celebrated 1992 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Courtstruck down as a violation of the 1st Amendment a St. Paul, Minn., "bias-motivated crime ordinance," under which a white teenager had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of a black family.

The ordinance said in part: "Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender, commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that language was too broad. Although it was permissible for St. Paul to punish "fighting words" (and fighting symbols like a burning cross), the law violated the 1st Amendment because it picked and chose among which "fighting words" could land you in jail — those insulting someone on the basis of race, for example, but not sexual orientation or membership in a labor union.

The decision striking down the ordinance was unanimous and seemed likely to doom not only "pure" ethnic intimidation laws such as St. Paul's but also "piggyback" hate-crime laws (in which the penalty for a crime is enhanced, depending on the motivation behind it).



A year later, however, when a lower court cited the St. Paul decision in striking down a Wisconsin hate-crime law, the Supreme Court refused to follow its own logic and allowed the state's hate-crime law to stand. Interestingly, the decision in the Wisconsin case upheld the doubling of a sentence for a black man convicted of inciting violence against a white victim.



Hate-crime laws pose another problem. Call it the Jimmy Durante factor. Durante was the 1940s comedian whose catch phrase was: "Everybody wants to get into the act!" And once legislatures began to enact hate-crimes laws, everyone — that is every constituency with political clout — got into the act of agitating to be included in hate-crime laws.

In the 1992 cross-burning case, Scalia noted that St. Paul didn't prosecute "fighting words" based on sexual orientation, but California's hate-crime law has no such loophole. It provides enhanced penalties for "bias-motivated violence and intimidation" based on the victim's "race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability." New York's hate-crime laws adds "age" to the litany of protected categories. Can veterans be far behind?

The paradox is that as the list of protected groups gets longer and longer, the law approaches a situation in which every crime is a hate crime.

I don't care for or agree with 99% of what Anthony scalia says.

 

[Tilly]

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

There is no common sense here, and I'd still like some evidence. You don't have it and you're clearly happy for the system to waste time and money, fine. And just so you know, attitudes and beliefs are the hardest things to change about people. Just because an antisemitic scumbag might not walk down the road shouting obscenities at Jews, doesn't mean you've changed his beliefs, nor does it mean he wouldn't do that during a heated confrontation, so your claims mean zilch. I also suggest, most people stopped behaving outwardly like that before 'hate crime' add ons reared their ugly heads. You still have no idea what a person really thinks unless they tell you and you cannot legislate emotions or thoughts, you only think you can.

 

[ChrisL]

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

You still haven't answered the question. Why is it worse if someone kills you for the color of your skin or sexual orientation or religious beliefs than for other reasons? What if someone kills someone just for the hell of it? They just wanted to know what it was like or something.

 

[ChrisL]

What are classified as hate crimes are usually but not always acts of violence and aren't violent crimes by their very nature hate based? If so wouldn't this make all violent crimes hate crimes?

I think so. I don't think you would kill someone that you like. Lol.

 

[Tilly]

Is there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?

Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkk

If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.

Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.

I think killing someone for money isn't a hate crime but should also get life wo the possibility of parole too.

So don't worry chris. Im not trying to lower the sentence of other scumbag, I'm just trying to add to the sentence of people who might only get probation.

I might get in aa fight with some random guy in the park for some stupid argument. I beat him up. The cops show up and its he said he said. Cop decides to arrest someone or both. Now in front of thejudge, I think if it's proven you beat the guy up BECAUSE he's gay or black or whatever, that should add to your sentence.

If it wasn't a deterant Tilly wouldn't mind it so much but clearly the message has been sent. Racism and homophobia won't be tolerated.

I would like to see if it is a deterrent, because I suspect it isn't. That means a huge amount of time and money is wasted for nothing.
Tariffs across the board could have simply been reviewed and increased, but clearly there is an agenda here, as the most cost effective and fair thing wasn't done. Now please provide evidence that adding 'hate' as a crime has acted as an effective deterrent. Why can't you back up your claim?

It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.

And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.

And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.

Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.