Hate crime laws! Should it be tossed from the law books?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The government spends tax dollars in your communities why not theirs? Bush spent a lot of money on defense contractors and weapons makers. Biden spends money and creates jobs in chicago. Got a problem with that?

I think that we know who the racist is here

 

[Oddball]

Hate crime laws! Should it be tossed from the law books?​

Without question......They're a mockery of equal justice.

 

[dblack]

Every time I hear about somebody being charged with a hate crime law 99% of the time it’s a white man.
almost all daily murders and horrific crimes are usually not done by a white person in America. yet nobody has charged with a hate crime..
If someone killing someone isnt hate what is it? Why is it only Administratted to just white men? Thanks

The development of hate crimes is instructive. Like many things, it started with a sound - if subtle - concept. But it got dumbed down into something else.

The original conception of a hate crime, as I understood it, made sense: a crime (something that was already illegal) intended to inspire hatred or violence against the target(s). Think burning crosses in someone's yard, etc .... that kind of hate crime is along the lines of inciting a riot, and to me makes sense.

But people aren't very bright and tend to gloss over subtleties (and sadly, judges and lawyers are people). Soon enough, hate crime was understood to be any crime motivated by hatred for some protected minority. Basically just a way to punish bigots for being bigots. And that, to me, is wrong. It's essentially thought crime. If you murder someone, you should to jail. It shouldn't matter whether you killed them because they were black, because they followed a different religion, or because they had red hair.

And, there are some who even take it a step further, insisting that the expression of hatred alone should be a crime.

 

[Maxnovax]

The development of hate crimes is instructive. Like many things, it started with a sound - if subtle - concept. But it got dumbed down into something else.

The original conception of a hate crime, as I understood it, made sense: a crime (something that was already illegal) intended to inspire hatred or violence against the target(s). Think burning crosses in someone's yard, etc .... that kind of hate crime is along the lines of inciting a riot, and to me makes sense.

But people aren't very bright and tend to gloss over subtleties (and sadly, judges and lawyers are people). Soon enough, hate crime was understood to be any crime motivated by hatred for some protected minority. Basically just a way to punish bigots for being bigots. And that, to me, is wrong. It's essentially thought crime. If you murder someone, you should to jail. It shouldn't matter whether you killed them because they were black, because they followed a different religion, or because they had red hair.

And, there are some who even take it a step further, insisting that the expression of hatred alone should be a crime.

So we should get rid of it?

 

[dblack]

So we should get rid of it?

Get rid of it, or refine it to only include crimes intended to inspire hatred and violence. Like I said, the original concept was sound, but it's morphed into something else.

 

[Maxnovax]

Get rid of it, or refine it to only include crimes intended to inspire hatred and violence. Like I said, the original concept was sound, but it's morphed into something else.

So we should charge democrat mayors with hate crimes? How many blacks are going to die under there policies

 

[dblack]

So we should charge democrat mayors with hate crimes? How many blacks are going to die under there policies

"So" no. I didn't say anything like that.

 

[BackAgain]

Hate speech shouldn’t be prosecuted at all. It’s disgusting and based on vile notions, but it’s still just speech. Protected speech.

“Hate crimes” involving other things, like picking a target based on race, is not needed, either. If some racist asshole decides to kill a person of the “other” race, that’s his fucking “motive.” It helps to show what his “intent” was. That matters because it is an element of the crime of intentional murder.

In such a case, the crime is the murder. If you kill a person in order to rob him, the victim is just as dead as if you killed him because he was the “other” race.

That said, if society says it is criminally a “worse” crime to commit murder because of “hate” than it is to commit murder for robbery (or whatever), then “hate” crimes might make some sense.

 

[Maxnovax]

"So" no. I didn't say anything like that.

The policies are meant to genocide African-Americans is that not hate?

 

[dblack]

The policies are meant to genocide African-Americans is that not hate?

Oh shit - I didn't realize who you were. Nevermind.

 

[Maxnovax]

Oh shit - I didn't realize who you were. Nevermind.

Truth teller, good citizen

 

[BlackSand]

I have made many points, all of which have been lost on you. The one that you seem to have the most trouble with is your apparent inability to grasp the fact that I am NOT saying that hate itself is a crime. Rather I am saying that criminals who commit crimes that are motivated by hate deserve harsher treatment. You do not seem to think so but you have not stated a coherent reason for that view

You have been dancing around that by repeating your view that all crimes are equal and that hate is not a crime. I KNOW that hate is not a crime. You are either extremely obtuse, or playing a sick game.

As I said before, I think that you people who oppose hate crime/bias laws that enhance penalties really do not care if minority communities are terrorized, or worse, you want them to be targeted. Prove me wrong. Until you do I will hold your feet to the fire on that point

.

I didn't suggest you haven't made points and only requested if you had a point you hadn't already attempted to make.
The answer was no you don't ... Since you were too stupid to understand the question ...

.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The development of hate crimes is instructive. Like many things, it started with a sound - if subtle - concept. But it got dumbed down into something else.

The original conception of a hate crime, as I understood it, made sense: a crime (something that was already illegal) intended to inspire hatred or violence against the target(s). Think burning crosses in someone's yard, etc .... that kind of hate crime is along the lines of inciting a riot, and to me makes sense.

But people aren't very bright and tend to gloss over subtleties (and sadly, judges and lawyers are people). Soon enough, hate crime was understood to be any crime motivated by hatred for some protected minority. Basically just a way to punish bigots for being bigots. And that, to me, is wrong. It's essentially thought crime. If you murder someone, you should to jail. It shouldn't matter whether you killed them because they were black, because they followed a different religion, or because they had red hair.

And, there are some who even take it a step further, insisting that the expression of hatred alone should be a crime.

I have to disagree. I do not think that the intent of hate crime laws or the way in which they are applied is any different now than before

Then and now, they are applied only to acts that are already a crime. No one is being prosecuted for their thoughts.

Then and now they were/ are not used to punish bigots for being bigots. They punish bigots who commits crimes in the name of bigotry. Hate crimes were always understood to mean any crime motivated by hate. I have no problem with that

Lastly, for now, the intent of the laws may have been to protect minorities , but then and now the are applied equally to everyone who is victimized one that basis of race, sexual orientation, gender identity etc.

 

[dblack]

Then and now they were/ are not used to punish bigots for being bigots. They punish bigots who commits crimes in the name of bigotry. Hate crimes were always understood to mean any crime motivated by hate.

That wasn't how they were originally introduced. They were originally meant to curb crimes intended to inspire hatred in society. That's how they were originally justified. But these days, most people, even most judges from what I read, interpret them as you do. And I do have a problem with targeting specific motivations for extra punishment. It smacks of thought crime.

Lastly, for now, the intent of the laws may have been to protect minorities , but then and now the are applied equally to everyone who is victimized one that basis of race, sexual orientation, gender identity etc.

Well, the protected classes nonsense is a whole 'nother argument. Suffice it to say I think it's horseshit.

 

[Maxnovax]

86% say get rid of hate crime laws

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, the protected classes nonsense is a whole 'nother argument. Suffice it to say I think it's horseshit.

The protected class status with regards to hate crimes, is race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Not Blacks, gays, transgender, Muslim etc. If a Black person attacks a white person because of race, or a Muslim attacks a Christian because of religion it's a hate crime

The protected class status for specific groups generally come into play in matters of discrimination and determines the level of scrutiny afforded by a court when the plaintiff is part of a group that has been historically discriminated against- but that is not what we are talking about here

 

[sealybobo]

The protected class status with regards to hate crimes, is race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Not Blacks, gays, transgender, Muslim etc. If a Black person attacks a white person because of race, or a Muslim attacks a Christian because of religion it's a hate crime

The protected class status for specific groups generally come into play in matters of discrimination and determines the level of scrutiny afforded by a court when the plaintiff is part of a group that has been historically discriminated against- but that is not what we are talking about here

These brothers I mentioned earlier who were serial killers. It was determined they were targeting white couples. They would rape the white woman in front of the boyfriend or husband. Talk about cuckold.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That wasn't how they were originally introduced. They were originally meant to curb crimes intended to inspire hatred in society. That's how they were originally justified. But these days, most people, even most judges from what I read, interpret them as you do. And I do have a problem with targeting specific motivations for extra punishment. It smacks of thought crime.

They are still meant to curb crimes intended to inspire hatred in society. My saying that they are justified because an attack on someone because of the group or community that they are part of is an attack on the entire community does not change that. You do not know that was not also the intent and purpose of the laws when passed. In any case, if anything, it further justifies the need for them.

You and https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/blacksand.45717/ have both been struggling to find reasons to trash hate crime laws and are both failing miserably. I can only conclude that you people have no problems with allowing bigots to terrorize those who they disapprove of, along with their communities, while not facing any additional penalties. A crime that involves an attack to rob someone is not that same as an attack because someone is Asian or Black.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

86% say get rid of hate crime laws

I say get rid of you. The USMB is by far not representative of the public, and people do get to vote on the rights of others. The rule of law and the Constitution prevail. Now isn't it time for you speci education class?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

These brothers I mentioned earlier who were serial killers. It was determined they were targeting white couples. They would rape the white woman in front of the boyfriend or husband. Talk about cuckold.

I don't recall. What happened. Why were they targeting white couples? Were they hit with a hate crime? It goes to motivation.