Hate crime haters

[Ravi]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

Hate crime laws are dangerous to the society because it becomes so easy for those in power to abuse them for political purposes

Basically they create a class of thought crimes.

There ARE hate crimes, and I do understand why hate crime is essantially different and more pathological than those other crimes which it takes to accuse somebody of a hate crime, too.

But the fact is that this hate crime law is enormously dangerous to the commonweal.

Hate crimes laws are a slippery slope that I personally cannot imagine we won't find ourselves sliding down.

I offer no alternative solution to this issue because frankly, I can't think of any way to do so that doesn't make motive THE crime.

"Essantially" is not a word, and "hate crime" is a made-up concept generally used by leftists and morons in another stupid attempt to make society equal.

You are a dummy.

He's a dummy because he doesn't hate crime laws, huh? Well, you're an asshole.

 

[Nationalismus]

He's a dummy because he doesn't hate crime laws, huh? Well, you're an asshole.

Crime laws? What the hell is that?

I'm talking about creating specific "hate crime" laws that apply to certain individuals being a bad idea... you know the original concept of this thread.

Stop trying to spin things up with your stupidity because you make no sense.

I may be an asshole, but you just proved you have the IQ of a plant.

 

[Ravi]

He's a dummy because he doesn't hate crime laws, huh? Well, you're an asshole.

Crime laws? What the hell is that?

I'm talking about creating specific "hate crime" laws that apply to certain individuals being a bad idea... you know the original concept of this thread.

Stop trying to spin things up with your stupidity because you make no sense.

I may be an asshole, but you just proved you have the IQ of a plant.

lol...I forgot the word like.

He's a dummy because he doesn't like hate crime laws, huh? Well, you're STILL an asshole.

 

[Nationalismus]

He's a dummy because he doesn't hate crime laws, huh? Well, you're an asshole.

Crime laws? What the hell is that?

I'm talking about creating specific "hate crime" laws that apply to certain individuals being a bad idea... you know the original concept of this thread.

Stop trying to spin things up with your stupidity because you make no sense.

I may be an asshole, but you just proved you have the IQ of a plant.

lol...I forgot the word like.

He's a dummy because he doesn't like hate crime laws, huh? Well, you're STILL an asshole.

Thank you for correcting yourself. If you are going to attack me and sling mud, you should at least be grammatically correct.

 

[editec]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

Hate crime laws are dangerous to the society because it becomes so easy for those in power to abuse them for political purposes

Basically they create a class of thought crimes.

There ARE hate crimes, and I do understand why hate crime is essantially different and more pathological than those other crimes which it takes to accuse somebody of a hate crime, too.

But the fact is that this hate crime law is enormously dangerous to the commonweal.

Hate crimes laws are a slippery slope that I personally cannot imagine we won't find ourselves sliding down.

I offer no alternative solution to this issue because frankly, I can't think of any way to do so that doesn't make motive THE crime.

"Essantially" is not a word, and "hate crime" is a made-up concept generally used by leftists and morons in another stupid attempt to make society equal.

You are a dummy.

Every concept is made up, chum.

That's what concepts are all about.

They're something humans conceptualize, lad.

 

[Nationalismus]

Hate crime laws are dangerous to the society because it becomes so easy for those in power to abuse them for political purposes

Basically they create a class of thought crimes.

There ARE hate crimes, and I do understand why hate crime is essantially different and more pathological than those other crimes which it takes to accuse somebody of a hate crime, too.

But the fact is that this hate crime law is enormously dangerous to the commonweal.

Hate crimes laws are a slippery slope that I personally cannot imagine we won't find ourselves sliding down.

I offer no alternative solution to this issue because frankly, I can't think of any way to do so that doesn't make motive THE crime.

"Essantially" is not a word, and "hate crime" is a made-up concept generally used by leftists and morons in another stupid attempt to make society equal.

You are a dummy.

Every concept is made up, chum.

That's what concepts are all about.

They're something humans conceptualize, lad.

I am conceptualizing you with duct tape around your mouth and becoming quite content with the concept.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

It just seems to me this is another of those issues where some people have a knee jerk reaction to be adamantly against it, thus successfully creating another wedge issue.

Since it is based on reasoning that already exists within the law -- "Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable" -- Although in some cases it might be redundant, the notion that it is some sort of slippery slope seems rather far fetched.

The central issue in my mind, besides needlessly complicating the application of criminal law, is losing resistance to politicizing (further) the adjudication of criminal cases. If our legal institution, as flawed as it is, comes to be seen by the public as a political arena or one which favors one group over another a priori, we will indeed be headed down the slippery slope of social disorder.

The other issues are technical and, IMHO, irresolvable if one wishes to maintain some semblance of legal neutrality in the courtroom: How does one set about the task of determining worthiness of the "who", who makes that decision, is it permanent, what specifically should be altered from a legal statute standpoint, and what should those alterations be. Focusing on the "what" avoids this tar pit. And again, I do not think it is even feasible to head down the who road.

You make a good point about the dangers of politicizing the legal process, but as long as we don't favor one group over another, I think it makes sense to give prosecutors a vehicle to try the crime within the crime, so to speak.

Most politically neutral prosecutors and judges would likely feel this is already taken into account during sentencing and via the assignment of existing statutes to the indictment.

 

[Immanuel]

He's a dummy because he doesn't hate crime laws, huh? Well, you're an asshole.

Crime laws? What the hell is that?

I'm talking about creating specific "hate crime" laws that apply to certain individuals being a bad idea... you know the original concept of this thread.

Stop trying to spin things up with your stupidity because you make no sense.

I may be an asshole, but you just proved you have the IQ of a plant.

lol...I forgot the word like.

He's a dummy because he doesn't like hate crime laws, huh?

Psst! That is what the edit feature is for.

Immie

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hate crime Legislation serves one purpose and one purpose only... it is an extension of left-think which seeks to establish protections in the law for classes of individuals, on the spurious grounds of 'fairness.'

While assault is assault, equal in the eyes of the Justice... punishable by an objective measure of valid law... 'its not fair, that someone is assaulted because they're a pedophile... ' thus, as is the case with the bill presently making its way to the CEO's desk... Pedophiles will become, by default, a protected class of individuals, by nature of their cultural identity, which in this case is represented by their sexual proclivities...

What you have in 'hate-crime law' is a deterioration of the concept of Justice, by those who want to impart an irrational notion of 'fairness' into the law... which as is ALWAYS THE CASE with left-think, stands wholly antithetical to the concept of EQUALITY and will subvert the very service of Justice...

It's not fair that someone beats the hell out of another because they sexually abused their child... so we will treat them UNEQUALLY with those who can be said to have assaulted another who is NOT a member of this protected class...

Now, when the subject returns for debate... and wherein, the ideological left are noted to be the advocates of adult/child sex... the ideological left will again SCREAM that such a charge is not true, that they do NOT condone adult/child sex... and this despite, the ideological left, having established Pedophiles as a protected class of citizens, through their political party: THE Democrat Party... having written this bill up, debated the inclusion of pedophiles and overtly approving the inclusion of pedophiles, to be protected through this travesty in the form of this legislation... which will be signed into law by the leftist/Democrat President.

It's not a complex issue friends... its just made to appear complex by those who lack the intellectual means to understand the concept of justice and as a result confuse the elements of equality with their irrational sense of fairness...

Which is the bed-rock distinction between leftist and Americans... Liberty is founded in equality of opportunity... while leftist erroneously feel that liberty can only be had when every opporunity results in equal outcomes... because to them, that is what fair means...

The irony is that they consistantly implement policy which destroys equality, crushes opportunity and precludes any hope of 'fairness'...

 

[editec]

"Essantially" is not a word, and "hate crime" is a made-up concept generally used by leftists and morons in another stupid attempt to make society equal.

You are a dummy.

Every concept is made up, chum.

That's what concepts are all about.

They're something humans conceptualize, lad.

I am conceptualizing you with duct tape around your mouth and becoming quite content with the concept.

Everybody needs to have a dream, I suppose.

One of my fond dreams is giving you guys a land where you can test out your theories about the White race.

My guess is, sans the mud people, the brotherhood you imagine that you are a part of would quickly create a scapegoat class chosen from among your own people.

Why?

Because your leadership would need to find some excuse for their failings (that's what government do, after all), and since the mindset of your nation would be focused on race, they'd decide what while all Whites are created equal, some would be more equal than others.

Speaking as a not very kinder and gentler liberal, I know that often the best way people can learn the error of their ways is to allow them to test their theories against reality.

It's the give 'em enough rope school of editecian liberalism.

So do bear in mind that I support your RIGHT to have that Whites ONLY place that you so long for.

Not because I'm a sympathetic person to your cause or you POV, but because I don't see that nation you folks would create as threat to the USA.

 

[jillian]

Speaking from the legal perspective, I never really understood the value of adding time for someone's motive. In criminal cases, motive is not part of the case. I don't understand why you should bring in some other idea to specific cases categorized as "hate" crimes.

That's wishful thinking. Of course motive is part of every prosecution. If you kill someone for money, you are getting a harsher sentence.

Crimes are not usually acts of love, so people shouldn't get too confused. If there is a specific action you would like to increase a penalty for, I think that's fine. Like in Virginia, we have Project Exile and the like, you commit a crime and have a gun on you, you sit an extra five years.

I'm not quite sure why the continued offense at protecting people who are victimized. White people aren't a suspect class. Gays get targeted. Blacks get targeted.

Again, I don't understand why anyone would be bothered by their being protected... unless of course, like some of the people who love chiming in on this issue, (not you) they are happy to see them victimized.

But, if you are punishing a specific action with more time, I think it should serve a "compelling state interest" like punishing people who use firearms when they commit a crime. If the action is merely obnoxious, I wouldn't see it as a compelling interest. There are many things that are obnoxious and offensive.

Of course it serves a "compelling state interest". It keeps trash from victimizing people for the race or sexuality...

if someone kicks the bejesus out of a white guy, while saying "die, you white... so and so...." they're going to be prosecuted for a hate crime, too.

That's my take anyway. If you are not satisfied with the level of punishment you give a certain crime, then increase it across the board.

we're going to disagree on that one.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Speaking from the legal perspective, I never really understood the value of adding time for someone's motive. In criminal cases, motive is not part of the case. I don't understand why you should bring in some other idea to specific cases categorized as "hate" crimes.

That's wishful thinking. Of course motive is part of every prosecution. If you kill someone for money, you are getting a harsher sentence.

Crimes are not usually acts of love, so people shouldn't get too confused. If there is a specific action you would like to increase a penalty for, I think that's fine. Like in Virginia, we have Project Exile and the like, you commit a crime and have a gun on you, you sit an extra five years.

I'm not quite sure why the continued offense at protecting people who are victimized. White people aren't a suspect class. Gays get targeted. Blacks get targeted.

Again, I don't understand why anyone would be bothered by their being protected... unless of course, like some of the people who love chiming in on this issue, (not you) they are happy to see them victimized.

But, if you are punishing a specific action with more time, I think it should serve a "compelling state interest" like punishing people who use firearms when they commit a crime. If the action is merely obnoxious, I wouldn't see it as a compelling interest. There are many things that are obnoxious and offensive.

Of course it serves a "compelling state interest". It keeps trash from victimizing people for the race or sexuality...

if someone kicks the bejesus out of a white guy, while saying "die, you white... so and so...." they're going to be prosecuted for a hate crime, too.

That's my take anyway. If you are not satisfied with the level of punishment you give a certain crime, then increase it across the board.

we're going to disagree on that one.

On the motive issue, as I say in a later post, the court takes aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account during sentencing. I just don't think it should be an element of the offense.

Concerning the "why not" question, my fear, as expressed by others on here as well, is that by separating some groups out for 'special protection,' you raise the ire of those seemingly non-protected groups. You have to remember the bulk of this country (or any other) is not made up of the intelligentsia, they are hardly going to be understanding of the finer points of historical discrimination and potential targeting of those groups. (That's assuming they would even buy it if you explained it to them). Instead, they are going to feel disaffected by the law.

You may say, so what, white males aren't a protected class, let them feel disaffected. My point is that it will create more potential for civil unrest and strife between the objects of the protection and those that aren't. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to claim that the passage of hate crime legislation would incite attacks by one group on another, instead it would take its place in a long list of supposed abuses that a disaffected group will take to citing as justification for their actions. It highlights the differences between groups instead of highlighting the similarities. You are making the protected groups more "the other" than they are now.

What a civil society needs to be focused on is maintaining order in the vast majority of the society on a daily basis. There aren't enough cops or prosecutors in the world to keep order if that is not the case. Yes, punish the crime. Punish it severely. But, in my view, the continued carving up of America into this and that "group" is done at the peril of continuance of civil society. I don't know which straw will break the camel's back, but I think maybe we should stop shoveling.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

It does protect white people too.

I'm pretty sure that Reginald Denny would have been a perfect example.

I know it does, you know it does...but the perception is out there that it doesn't for whatever reason. So does the problem lay with the talking heads of the world for pretending it doesn't and aren't they actually trying to cause strife by pretending it doesn't and convincing their listeners that it doesn't?

The reason is a thing called prosecutorial discretion. The same reason when you are speeding down the road at 70 mph and the Trooper pulls you over, but doesn't pull over the guy going 85 in front of you and you're pissed. Prosecutorial discretion.

Bottom line is that politically elected prosecutors have to charge some one with a hate crime. Just what do you think the NAACP would have done in the Knoxville torture-murder cases last year if they had charged the 5 blacks who tortured and murdered the white couple with a hate crime? Just how long do you think their political career would be after Jesse and Al got down there and hounded them from office?

That's why people think like that. It isn't because it couldn't happen, it's because it won't. Prosecutors know damn well that charging minorities with hate crimes is a sure way to find yourself unemployed and will more trouble than they care to see in a lifetime. After all, the rationalization will go, it isn't like we aren't going to charge the minority in question with a crime, we just aren't going to go the "hate crime" route.

This sends a message to the community as well.

 

[jillian]

On the motive issue, as I say in a later post, the court takes aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account during sentencing. I just don't think it should be an element of the offense.

Concerning the "why not" question, my fear, as expressed by others on here as well, is that by separating some groups out for 'special protection,' you raise the ire of those seemingly non-protected groups. You have to remember the bulk of this country (or any other) is not made up of the intelligentsia, they are hardly going to be understanding of the finer points of historical discrimination and potential targeting of those groups. (That's assuming they would even buy it if you explained it to them). Instead, they are going to feel disaffected by the law.

You may say, so what, white males aren't a protected class, let them feel disaffected. My point is that it will create more potential for civil unrest and strife between the objects of the protection and those that aren't. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to claim that the passage of hate crime legislation would incite attacks by one group on another, instead it would take its place in a long list of supposed abuses that a disaffected group will take to citing as justification for their actions. It highlights the differences between groups instead of highlighting the similarities. You are making the protected groups more "the other" than they are now.

What a civil society needs to be focused on is maintaining order in the vast majority of the society on a daily basis. There aren't enough cops or prosecutors in the world to keep order if that is not the case. Yes, punish the crime. Punish it severely. But, in my view, the continued carving up of America into this and that "group" is done at the peril of continuance of civil society. I don't know which straw will break the camel's back, but I think maybe we should stop shoveling.

I absolutely see where you're coming from. I think it's a difference in philosophy. I am a believer that people who victimize others for what they are born deserve that extra bit of deterrance. And, if there isn't general deterrance, I'm ok with the specific deterrance inherant of keeping someone off the streets who would victimize someone for the color of their skin or sexuality.

there are those who say that such laws create more strife? do they? i don't know. i think the people who are full of hate are already full of hatred and it isn't going to make a difference.

that of course is just my opinion.

as to a "civil society".... I'm afraid I think a civil society doessn't tolerate beating to death a young man for being gay.... or beating an hispanic person for being hispanic.

it's a different philosophy certainly, but i think as to such things, I'd rather err on the side of protecting those suspect classes of people who have proven to have targets on their back for the lowlives who would attack them.

 

[AllieBaba]

The problem with hate crimes/hate speech and even mandatory sentencing is that it institutionalizes racism and political correctness, which flies in the face of our constitution and declaration of independence.

Hate speech laws are open to interpretation, which puts freedom of speech in peril, as well as freedom of religion.

Mandatory sentencing forces judges to impose sentences without being allowed to use their own discretion, which jeopardizes due process and our legal system. I'm sorry, but a 18 year old kid whose girlfriend's dad is pissed that they're having sex doesn't deserve to be branded as a sex offender for the rest of his life, and serve a mandatory 10 years or whatever the going rate is. He isn't the same as the 45 year old who lured the neighbor's 8 year old daughter into his home and molested her for 5 years running...and yet mandatory sentencing says they are the same.

Killing somebody is killing somebody; assaulting somebody is assaulting somebody. It is equally horrific REGARDLESS of the motive. Someone who gets drunk and slaps around a black kid should not receive a stiffer sentence than the asshole who gets drunk and smashes his wife's face to pieces.

 

[Ravi]

It does protect white people too.

I'm pretty sure that Reginald Denny would have been a perfect example.

I know it does, you know it does...but the perception is out there that it doesn't for whatever reason. So does the problem lay with the talking heads of the world for pretending it doesn't and aren't they actually trying to cause strife by pretending it doesn't and convincing their listeners that it doesn't?

The reason is a thing called prosecutorial discretion. The same reason when you are speeding down the road at 70 mph and the Trooper pulls you over, but doesn't pull over the guy going 85 in front of you and you're pissed. Prosecutorial discretion.

Bottom line is that politically elected prosecutors have to charge some one with a hate crime. Just what do you think the NAACP would have done in the Knoxville torture-murder cases last year if they had charged the 5 blacks who tortured and murdered the white couple with a hate crime? Just how long do you think their political career would be after Jesse and Al got down there and hounded them from office?

That's why people think like that. It isn't because it couldn't happen, it's because it won't. Prosecutors know damn well that charging minorities with hate crimes is a sure way to find yourself unemployed and will more trouble than they care to see in a lifetime. After all, the rationalization will go, it isn't like we aren't going to charge the minority in question with a crime, we just aren't going to go the "hate crime" route.

This sends a message to the community as well.

So basically you, and Editec, are against hate crime laws because of the fear someone will misuse the law.

 

[AllieBaba]

People will use it to silence those who are spreading philosophy they don't approve of. It's already happening with the attempts to silence preachers based on the face that parts of the bible are "hate speech".

 

[Immanuel]

So basically you, and Editec, are against hate crime laws because of the fear someone will misuse the law.

You don't think this is a good reason? Not sure what tone you are taking in your post, so I am asking.

Are you a supporter of the Patriot Act? I am opposed to the Patriot Act specifically because it can be misused and so should everyone in America be.

Immie

 

[Dante]

I can't tell if most people dislike hate crime legislation period or just dislike it because in their perception it doesn't protect white people (or white men, since gender is protected).

So which is it? There should be no hate crime legislation or it should protect white people, too?

People who come out against hate crime legislation usually never have a problem with legal charges and sentences that are modified/extended because of exceptional and not so exceptional circumstances....which is what all hate crime legislation does.

I think the haters of hate crime legislation aren't so much concerned with the protections of 'white men' as they are concerned with the victims of hate crimes being acknowledged as victims under special circumstances.

 

[Ravi]

So basically you, and Editec, are against hate crime laws because of the fear someone will misuse the law.

You don't think this is a good reason? Not sure what tone you are taking in your post, so I am asking.

Are you a supporter of the Patriot Act? I am opposed to the Patriot Act specifically because it can be misused and so should everyone in America be.

Immie

I'm still undecided. While I can certainly understand not wanting a law written because of the potential for abuse I'm not sure if that reason is valid. After all, the law is abused constantly but that doesn't mean we should just not have laws.

I'm against the Patriot Act because it has the potential to abuse the innocent by illegal wiretapping, among other things. But I don't see hate crime legislation in exactly the same way since you cannot be arrested merely for having bigoted thoughts.