Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[Redfish]

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Wrong. Cop killing is an attack on the law enforcement system. They are doing their jobs and killing them puts undo pressure on the whole system. It has zip to do with hate.

It's additional penalties based on the nature of the crime. Murder is murder, right?

People who commit hate crimes are not attacking the individual, their intent is to terrorize that minority group and they get additional penalties as a result.

Either you support additional penalties based on the nature of the crime or you don't.

I made it clear I don't. You're assuming the mind of another though, which is my point. If a guy hates Jews and beats up a Jew he isn't necessarily seeking to intimidate the race.

Jewish is not a race, its a religion.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

No we haven't. We have liberals that want to punish people more for being politically incorrect. They want to actually control our thoughts. Libs cannot get too much power.

 

[Iceweasel]

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Wrong. Cop killing is an attack on the law enforcement system. They are doing their jobs and killing them puts undo pressure on the whole system. It has zip to do with hate.

It's additional penalties based on the nature of the crime. Murder is murder, right?

People who commit hate crimes are not attacking the individual, their intent is to terrorize that minority group and they get additional penalties as a result.

Either you support additional penalties based on the nature of the crime or you don't.

I made it clear I don't. You're assuming the mind of another though, which is my point. If a guy hates Jews and beats up a Jew he isn't necessarily seeking to intimidate the race.

Jewish is not a race, its a religion.

I said Jews.

 

[Redfish]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

 

[Redfish]

There are additional penalties for killing children or cops. OP's logic dictates these must go as well.

Wrong. Cop killing is an attack on the law enforcement system. They are doing their jobs and killing them puts undo pressure on the whole system. It has zip to do with hate.

It's additional penalties based on the nature of the crime. Murder is murder, right?

People who commit hate crimes are not attacking the individual, their intent is to terrorize that minority group and they get additional penalties as a result.

Either you support additional penalties based on the nature of the crime or you don't.

I made it clear I don't. You're assuming the mind of another though, which is my point. If a guy hates Jews and beats up a Jew he isn't necessarily seeking to intimidate the race.

Jewish is not a race, its a religion.

I said Jews.

jews are not a race. Jews can be caucasions, negroes, Asians, religion is not race

 

[Iceweasel]

jews are not a race. Jews can be caucasions, negroes, Asians, religion is not race

Once again, I said Jews, not Jewish.

Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal
In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

For most of the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people, the notion of what came to be known as “Jewish exceptionalism” was hardly controversial. Because of our history of inmarriage and cultural isolation, imposed or self-selected, Jews were considered by gentiles (and usually referred to themselves) as a “race.” Scholars from Josephus to Disraeli proudly proclaimed their membership in “the tribe.”

 

[Redfish]

jews are not a race. Jews can be caucasions, negroes, Asians, religion is not race

Once again, I said Jews, not Jewish.

Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal
In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

For most of the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people, the notion of what came to be known as “Jewish exceptionalism” was hardly controversial. Because of our history of inmarriage and cultural isolation, imposed or self-selected, Jews were considered by gentiles (and usually referred to themselves) as a “race.” Scholars from Josephus to Disraeli proudly proclaimed their membership in “the tribe.”

Yeah, Ok fine. Now explain how blacks and Asians and Caucasians can be jews. Most jews are of Arabic decent, just as most muslims are of Arabic decent.

I don't understand why we want to call every demographic a race. Hispanic is not a race, muslim is not a race, Christian is not a race.

 

[Iceweasel]

jews are not a race. Jews can be caucasions, negroes, Asians, religion is not race

Once again, I said Jews, not Jewish.

Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal
In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

For most of the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people, the notion of what came to be known as “Jewish exceptionalism” was hardly controversial. Because of our history of inmarriage and cultural isolation, imposed or self-selected, Jews were considered by gentiles (and usually referred to themselves) as a “race.” Scholars from Josephus to Disraeli proudly proclaimed their membership in “the tribe.”

Yeah, Ok fine. Now explain how blacks and Asians and Caucasians can be jews. Most jews are of Arabic decent, just as most muslims are of Arabic decent.

I don't understand why we want to call every demographic a race. Hispanic is not a race, muslim is not a race, Christian is not a race.

I agree that religion isn't a race. But there is a blood line, they tend to marry other Jews. Anyone can become a "Jew" like anyone can become Christian. Hitler wasn't just trying to eliminate a religion.

 

[Redfish]

jews are not a race. Jews can be caucasions, negroes, Asians, religion is not race

Once again, I said Jews, not Jewish.

Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal
In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

For most of the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people, the notion of what came to be known as “Jewish exceptionalism” was hardly controversial. Because of our history of inmarriage and cultural isolation, imposed or self-selected, Jews were considered by gentiles (and usually referred to themselves) as a “race.” Scholars from Josephus to Disraeli proudly proclaimed their membership in “the tribe.”

Yeah, Ok fine. Now explain how blacks and Asians and Caucasians can be jews. Most jews are of Arabic decent, just as most muslims are of Arabic decent.

I don't understand why we want to call every demographic a race. Hispanic is not a race, muslim is not a race, Christian is not a race.

I agree that religion isn't a race. But there is a blood line, they tend to marry other Jews. Anyone can become a "Jew" like anyone can become Christian. Hitler wasn't just trying to eliminate a religion.

OK, its just one of my pet peeves that we want to call every demographic a race. You and I are on the same page.

 

[Timmy]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

 

[Iceweasel]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

 

[Timmy]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

 

[Iceweasel]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

 

[Timmy]

I think we've displayed in this thread that what one thinks makes a big difference on the crime and wether there's a crime at all.

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Apples and oranges.

What you're trying to do is make a comparison between different types of killings and killing based on category of people. If I kill an intruder it doesn't matter what race, sex or religion that person is. The same if I accidentally shoot somebody or catch them sleeping with my wife.

However Hate Crimes are special protections for potential Democrat voters like gays and minorities. How would you like if Republicans got leadership and made it an automatic death penalty for killing cops, CEO's or religious leaders?

No special group of people should have more advanced protection than all the other groups of people. It's a violation of Equal Protection. Furthermore is the hypocrisy from the left that have always protested capital punishment which is part of a Hate Crimes sentencing.

 

[Iceweasel]

just the opposite. a crime is a crime no matter what the criminal was thinking at the time.

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Huh? All three were acts, not thoughts. Are you on LSD?

 

[Desperado]

We already have laws.
So does it matter what the motive was for breaking that law?
If you vandalize something there is already a law against that.
If you vandalize something because it belongs to a group that you don't like why should that punishment be made worse?
It is getting penalized twice once for breaking the law, the second time because it was against a protected group.
Which brings up the next point, all people are created equal, and thus all laws should be enforced equally.
There should be no protected groups.

 

[Timmy]

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Huh? All three were acts, not thoughts. Are you on LSD?

No . It's the same act . You shot the person .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We already have laws.
So does it matter what the motive was for breaking that law?
If you vandalize something there is already a law against that.
If you vandalize something because it belongs to a group that you don't like why should that punishment be made worse?
It is getting penalized twice once for breaking the law, the second time because it was against a protected group.
Which brings up the next point, all people are created equal, and thus all laws should be enforced equally.
There should be no protected groups.

There ought to be no suspect or protected groups, in a perfect world.

But the world is far from perfect, there are far too many who seek to disadvantage through force of law various classes of persons for no other reason than who they are – the unwarranted hatred directed at Muslim Americans is another recent, sad example of that.

As a consequence, it's perfectly appropriate and Constitutional to recognize suspect and protected classes of persons to protect their civil rights from attack by the states simply because of race, religion, or national origin.

And again, it's also perfectly appropriate and Constitutional to use enhanced sentencing in cases where race, religion, or national origin was a factor contributing to an act of criminal violence against a person for no other reason than who that person is.

 

[Timmy]

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy ****.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Apples and oranges.

What you're trying to do is make a comparison between different types of killings and killing based on category of people. If I kill an intruder it doesn't matter what race, sex or religion that person is. The same if I accidentally shoot somebody or catch them sleeping with my wife.

However Hate Crimes are special protections for potential Democrat voters like gays and minorities. How would you like if Republicans got leadership and made it an automatic death penalty for killing cops, CEO's or religious leaders?

No special group of people should have more advanced protection than all the other groups of people. It's a violation of Equal Protection. Furthermore is the hypocrisy from the left that have always protested capital punishment which is part of a Hate Crimes sentencing.

It is equal protection .

You realize white people can be victims of hate crimes right ? There's this misconception that hate crimes don't cover everyone .