Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you can't see a difference between someone vandalizing a synagogue with the words "John loves Mary" and swastikas with "GET THE FUCK OUT JEWS" I can't help you.
One is a less serious crime than the other. Both involve vandalism.
If the kind of world you want to live in involves being able to get away with intimidating minority groups, so be it. It's not mine, and luckily, the American public agree. It's the law now.
Isn't that why there is trial and a sentencing phase. Yes, both involve vandalism. One might get probation and 500 hours community service at the Synagogue. There other might be a year in prison with 5 years probation.
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.Without a hate crime law, hate crime will not be reported. Without rape law, rape is not reported, and even now, it is still underreported.
You guys don't get it. That's fine. I hope none of you are ever so "special" as to be singled out for a bias motivated crime.
I am thinking of the fear that is engendered by blacks when some black is "lynched". Hate crime is "message crime". The message is, "YOUR KIND IS NOT WANTED. GET THE FUCK OUT".
I haven't been singled out for a "bias motivated crime" since high school, but no doubt people still hate. The difference here is that we shouldn't make laws that give special protections for some people based on race, gender, religion or some other "special difference". That violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.
If a person is lynched, shouldn't the criminals go to prison for premeditated murder of a human being? If a person is beat up or raped, shouldn't the perpetrators be tried and sentenced for that crime regardless of the specific person who was the victim?
It's biased for you to think that it's okay to let a criminal receive a lesser sentence because, even though I was beat up and required six months of recovery, since I wasn't gay or black, then it wasn't a "hate crime". Sorry, but all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. This "special rules for special people" crap has to stop.
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.Without a hate crime law, hate crime will not be reported. Without rape law, rape is not reported, and even now, it is still underreported.
You guys don't get it. That's fine. I hope none of you are ever so "special" as to be singled out for a bias motivated crime.
I am thinking of the fear that is engendered by blacks when some black is "lynched". Hate crime is "message crime". The message is, "YOUR KIND IS NOT WANTED. GET THE FUCK OUT".
I haven't been singled out for a "bias motivated crime" since high school, but no doubt people still hate. The difference here is that we shouldn't make laws that give special protections for some people based on race, gender, religion or some other "special difference". That violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.
If a person is lynched, shouldn't the criminals go to prison for premeditated murder of a human being? If a person is beat up or raped, shouldn't the perpetrators be tried and sentenced for that crime regardless of the specific person who was the victim?
It's biased for you to think that it's okay to let a criminal receive a lesser sentence because, even though I was beat up and required six months of recovery, since I wasn't gay or black, then it wasn't a "hate crime". Sorry, but all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. This "special rules for special people" crap has to stop.
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.I haven't been singled out for a "bias motivated crime" since high school, but no doubt people still hate. The difference here is that we shouldn't make laws that give special protections for some people based on race, gender, religion or some other "special difference". That violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.
If a person is lynched, shouldn't the criminals go to prison for premeditated murder of a human being? If a person is beat up or raped, shouldn't the perpetrators be tried and sentenced for that crime regardless of the specific person who was the victim?
It's biased for you to think that it's okay to let a criminal receive a lesser sentence because, even though I was beat up and required six months of recovery, since I wasn't gay or black, then it wasn't a "hate crime". Sorry, but all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. This "special rules for special people" crap has to stop.
Of course, none of them have any ulterior motives or anything like that......
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.
Then what are you worried about? Why all the hair pulling, ranting and raving?
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.
Then what are you worried about? Why all the hair pulling, ranting and raving?
Go back to the OP and you will see why I started the thread. The ones who are pulling hair and ranting and raving are the anti-hate crime fanatics, not me.
You deny that hate crime exists.
You are against minorities being protected from hate crime, IDIOT. My friends ask me why I bother talking to any of you. They know I won't get through. You're hopeless.
The murder of Mulugeta Seraw was one of the most shocking crimes in Portland history. In response, hundreds of people turned out for rallies against racism.
I have provided example, after example, after example of hate crime and still, you folks deny it exists, and that the law is needed.
The three skinheads who murdered Seraw have all been released from prison.
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.Without a hate crime law, hate crime will not be reported. Without rape law, rape is not reported, and even now, it is still underreported.
You guys don't get it. That's fine. I hope none of you are ever so "special" as to be singled out for a bias motivated crime.
I am thinking of the fear that is engendered by blacks when some black is "lynched". Hate crime is "message crime". The message is, "YOUR KIND IS NOT WANTED. GET THE FUCK OUT".
I haven't been singled out for a "bias motivated crime" since high school, but no doubt people still hate. The difference here is that we shouldn't make laws that give special protections for some people based on race, gender, religion or some other "special difference". That violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.
If a person is lynched, shouldn't the criminals go to prison for premeditated murder of a human being? If a person is beat up or raped, shouldn't the perpetrators be tried and sentenced for that crime regardless of the specific person who was the victim?
It's biased for you to think that it's okay to let a criminal receive a lesser sentence because, even though I was beat up and required six months of recovery, since I wasn't gay or black, then it wasn't a "hate crime". Sorry, but all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. This "special rules for special people" crap has to stop.
So someone that beats up somebody because they're gay should have a longer sentence than someone that beats up my wife for her purse?
Got it.
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.
Of course, none of them have any ulterior motives or anything like that......
I point out that all three branches of our government have supported hate crime law. The USMB right wing is out of step with the rest of the country.
MOTIVE is and has always been one of the factors that are important in determining the nature of a crime.
Ergo we have ALWAYS really recognized that HATE CRIMES and different than crimes motivated by other passions.
You're wrong. Most of the emoting done on this thread has been from the anti-bias crime crowd.
You don't get it. Congress, the Supreme Court and the President do.I haven't been singled out for a "bias motivated crime" since high school, but no doubt people still hate. The difference here is that we shouldn't make laws that give special protections for some people based on race, gender, religion or some other "special difference". That violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.
If a person is lynched, shouldn't the criminals go to prison for premeditated murder of a human being? If a person is beat up or raped, shouldn't the perpetrators be tried and sentenced for that crime regardless of the specific person who was the victim?
It's biased for you to think that it's okay to let a criminal receive a lesser sentence because, even though I was beat up and required six months of recovery, since I wasn't gay or black, then it wasn't a "hate crime". Sorry, but all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. This "special rules for special people" crap has to stop.
And they are also the ones who say marriage is for a man and a woman. Are you saying that they are always right and always "get it"?
Myth: All crimes are about hate. Hate crime law is redundant and unnecessary.
Fact: What we unfortunately label "hate crime" is bias crime. Without this law, bias crime goes unreported and perpetrators go free.
Myth: A murder is a murder. A murder committed out of bias is no different than any other murder.
Fact: Not all murders are treated equally under the law. The difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder is intent. The intent in a hate crime murder is more serious than an ordinary murder because the intent is to terrorize an entire community.
Myth: Bias crime laws favor the agenda of "special interest" groups.
Fact: The law protects EVERYONE equally. Bias crime law sends the message that it is not acceptable to victimize ANYONE on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender or sexual orientation.
