Hate Crime

[Immanuel]

You're wrong. Most of the emoting done on this thread has been from the anti-bias crime crowd.

Seems to me like you have called plenty of people ignorant on this thread. In fact, you have called everyone who disagrees with you ignorant. You don't call that ranting or being emotional?

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In order for laws to be righteous, they must be applied equally and fairly to all people. Hate crimes have become a bargaining tool for the prosecuters when it comes to plea deals. The more crimes they can charge you with the less the prosecuter has to work.

Think about it...A white male walks into a 7-11 and holds up the store, he kills the clerk in the robbery, who happens to be gay. How many crimes do you figure the criminal is charged with?

1) Larceny 2) larceny with the use of a firearm 3) Hate crime because the clerk was gay 4) computer crime because the criminal looked up the location of the 7-11 on line 5) resisting arrest because he tried to escape from the police. So on and so on and so on.

Now the prosecuter says I'll drop everything but the hate crime if you plead guilty? The criminal is overwhelmed and agrees. Prosecuter get his conviction and does not have to actually do any work. The problem with this type of deal is that innocent people end up in prison because they don't want to risk a lengthy jail stay. This is not justice.

This post is an example of people not understanding the Hate Crime law. He would not be charged with a hate crime UNLESS there was witness or document evidence that he committed the crime BECAUSE the victim was gay. And it would still have to be proved as such in a court of law.

Not quite true.

If the prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself, and the guy in question had a Facebook page talking disparagingly about gays, he could be charged with a hate crime even if he did not know the victim was gay. In fact, he could be charged with one if he thought the guy was gay and he really wasn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a stupid, irrational law.

Example:

Thug beats up some guy gets 2 years in prison

Thug beats up some gay guy gets 2 years + whatever for a 'hate' crime.

Is either victim less beaten up? No.

Is either victims 'special'? No.

The law is ridiculous and panders to 'special interest' groups. I disapprove of any pandering to any group.

I agree....

crime is crime...period. Motivation does not change the degree of the crime committed.

Yes, it does. When a black church is burned down in order to send a message to the black community that YOUR KIND are not wanted, it is not simple arson. It is a crime against the entire black community. It is domestic terrorism.

Motivation is important.

Luckily, Congress, the President and the courts are on our side, not yours. I will stand up for minorities for the rest of my life.

If it is terrorism it can be charged as terrorism. If, on the other hand, it was a black teenager that burned down the church because he did not like going to church, and a white guy was found near the church, you would have no problem charging him with a hate crime, even though he is innocent.

Tell you what, you make sure no innocent person ever spends a day in jail for anything he had nothing to do with, and I will give you hate crimes. Until then, it just makes it easier for the state to lock up people without any real evidence, and I oppose that on principle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

We ended lynching without hate crime laws, we can end other things without them.

 

[California Girl]

You're wrong. Most of the emoting done on this thread has been from the anti-bias crime crowd.

Seems to me like you have called plenty of people ignorant on this thread. In fact, you have called everyone who disagrees with you ignorant. You don't call that ranting or being emotional?

Immie

Sky is an individual who thinks with her emotions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They support it because it gets them votes and power.

 

[Immanuel]

In order for laws to be righteous, they must be applied equally and fairly to all people. Hate crimes have become a bargaining tool for the prosecuters when it comes to plea deals. The more crimes they can charge you with the less the prosecuter has to work.

Think about it...A white male walks into a 7-11 and holds up the store, he kills the clerk in the robbery, who happens to be gay. How many crimes do you figure the criminal is charged with?

1) Larceny 2) larceny with the use of a firearm 3) Hate crime because the clerk was gay 4) computer crime because the criminal looked up the location of the 7-11 on line 5) resisting arrest because he tried to escape from the police. So on and so on and so on.

Now the prosecuter says I'll drop everything but the hate crime if you plead guilty? The criminal is overwhelmed and agrees. Prosecuter get his conviction and does not have to actually do any work. The problem with this type of deal is that innocent people end up in prison because they don't want to risk a lengthy jail stay. This is not justice.

This post is an example of people not understanding the Hate Crime law. He would not be charged with a hate crime UNLESS there was witness or document evidence that he committed the crime BECAUSE the victim was gay. And it would still have to be proved as such in a court of law.

Not quite true.

If the prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself, and the guy in question had a Facebook page talking disparagingly about gays, he could be charged with a hate crime even if he did not know the victim was gay. In fact, he could be charged with one if he thought the guy was gay and he really wasn't.

Hell, if he posted on a site like this and spoke up in favor of civil unions rather than "gay marriage" they could pin a hate crime on him.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

This post is an example of people not understanding the Hate Crime law. He would not be charged with a hate crime UNLESS there was witness or document evidence that he committed the crime BECAUSE the victim was gay. And it would still have to be proved as such in a court of law.

Not quite true.

If the prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself, and the guy in question had a Facebook page talking disparagingly about gays, he could be charged with a hate crime even if he did not know the victim was gay. In fact, he could be charged with one if he thought the guy was gay and he really wasn't.

Hell, if he posted on a site like this and spoke up in favor of civil unions rather than "gay marriage" they could pin a hate crime on him.

Immie

That is complete crap. That is NOT bias crime.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You're wrong. Most of the emoting done on this thread has been from the anti-bias crime crowd.

Seems to me like you have called plenty of people ignorant on this thread. In fact, you have called everyone who disagrees with you ignorant. You don't call that ranting or being emotional?

Immie

Sky is an individual who thinks with her emotions.

Sky is an individual who is passionate about civil rights and fighting bias crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not quite true.

If the prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself, and the guy in question had a Facebook page talking disparagingly about gays, he could be charged with a hate crime even if he did not know the victim was gay. In fact, he could be charged with one if he thought the guy was gay and he really wasn't.

Hell, if he posted on a site like this and spoke up in favor of civil unions rather than "gay marriage" they could pin a hate crime on him.

Immie

That is complete crap. That is NOT bias crime.

It is if he beats up a gay right after he does it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Hell, if he posted on a site like this and spoke up in favor of civil unions rather than "gay marriage" they could pin a hate crime on him.

Immie

That is complete crap. That is NOT bias crime.

It is if he beats up a gay right after he does it.

Yes, especially if he does it in order to make the gay people move out of his neighborhood.

 

[Immanuel]

Not quite true.

If the prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself, and the guy in question had a Facebook page talking disparagingly about gays, he could be charged with a hate crime even if he did not know the victim was gay. In fact, he could be charged with one if he thought the guy was gay and he really wasn't.

Hell, if he posted on a site like this and spoke up in favor of civil unions rather than "gay marriage" they could pin a hate crime on him.

Immie

That is complete crap. That is NOT bias crime.

I know it isn't but radicals don't care whether or not it is a bias crime. If they can destroy a person that doesn't obey their will they will do so.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Hell, if he posted on a site like this and spoke up in favor of civil unions rather than "gay marriage" they could pin a hate crime on him.

Immie

That is complete crap. That is NOT bias crime.

I know it isn't but radicals don't care whether or not it is a bias crime. If they can destroy a person that doesn't obey their will they will do so.

Immie

Let's see. It's ok if you and your friends burn a cross on the lawn of the Buddhist center. It's ok with you if a black church is burned down. It's ok that Mathew Shepard is murdered or that a RADICAL lesbian activist is gang raped, brutally beaten and stabbed 25 times. That will teach her not to be radical.

As long as it's not YOUR group, who cares?

You label me a radical. Yeah, equal rights is radical.

You want me for an enemy? YOU got it.

 

[Immanuel]

That is complete crap. That is NOT bias crime.

I know it isn't but radicals don't care whether or not it is a bias crime. If they can destroy a person that doesn't obey their will they will do so.

Immie

Let's see. It's ok if you and your friends burn a cross on the lawn of the Buddhist center. It's ok with you if a black church is burned down. It's ok that Mathew Shepard is murdered or that a RADICAL lesbian activist is gang raped, brutally beaten and stabbed 25 times. That will teach her not to be radical.

As long as it's not YOUR group, who cares?

You label me a radical. Yeah, equal rights is radical.

You want me for an enemy? YOU got it.

There you go putting words in my mouth again. It is almost like you are deliberately lying. You would never do that would you?

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

I know it isn't but radicals don't care whether or not it is a bias crime. If they can destroy a person that doesn't obey their will they will do so.

Immie

Let's see. It's ok if you and your friends burn a cross on the lawn of the Buddhist center. It's ok with you if a black church is burned down. It's ok that Mathew Shepard is murdered or that a RADICAL lesbian activist is gang raped, brutally beaten and stabbed 25 times. That will teach her not to be radical.

As long as it's not YOUR group, who cares?

You label me a radical. Yeah, equal rights is radical.

You want me for an enemy? YOU got it.

There you go putting words in my mouth again. It is almost like you are deliberately lying. You would never do that would you?

Immie

Rather I be an enemy than a friend? You got it.

 

[spectrumc01]

In order for laws to be righteous, they must be applied equally and fairly to all people. Hate crimes have become a bargaining tool for the prosecuters when it comes to plea deals. The more crimes they can charge you with the less the prosecuter has to work.

Think about it...A white male walks into a 7-11 and holds up the store, he kills the clerk in the robbery, who happens to be gay. How many crimes do you figure the criminal is charged with?

1) Larceny 2) larceny with the use of a firearm 3) Hate crime because the clerk was gay 4) computer crime because the criminal looked up the location of the 7-11 on line 5) resisting arrest because he tried to escape from the police. So on and so on and so on.

Now the prosecuter says I'll drop everything but the hate crime if you plead guilty? The criminal is overwhelmed and agrees. Prosecuter get his conviction and does not have to actually do any work. The problem with this type of deal is that innocent people end up in prison because they don't want to risk a lengthy jail stay. This is not justice.

This post is an example of people not understanding the Hate Crime law. He would not be charged with a hate crime UNLESS there was witness or document evidence that he committed the crime BECAUSE the victim was gay. And it would still have to be proved as such in a court of law.

Don't have much expierience with the criminal justice system do you? You don't have to commit a crime to be charged with a crime. We have a "Let's make a deal" criminal justice system that prosecuters use quite liberally. The way laws are written and the way they are applied are usually quite different. Judges are not hte problem, prosecuters are the problem, they are the gate keepers of our system. They decide who goes before the judge and who doesn't.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In order for laws to be righteous, they must be applied equally and fairly to all people. Hate crimes have become a bargaining tool for the prosecuters when it comes to plea deals. The more crimes they can charge you with the less the prosecuter has to work.

Think about it...A white male walks into a 7-11 and holds up the store, he kills the clerk in the robbery, who happens to be gay. How many crimes do you figure the criminal is charged with?

1) Larceny 2) larceny with the use of a firearm 3) Hate crime because the clerk was gay 4) computer crime because the criminal looked up the location of the 7-11 on line 5) resisting arrest because he tried to escape from the police. So on and so on and so on.

Now the prosecuter says I'll drop everything but the hate crime if you plead guilty? The criminal is overwhelmed and agrees. Prosecuter get his conviction and does not have to actually do any work. The problem with this type of deal is that innocent people end up in prison because they don't want to risk a lengthy jail stay. This is not justice.

This post is an example of people not understanding the Hate Crime law. He would not be charged with a hate crime UNLESS there was witness or document evidence that he committed the crime BECAUSE the victim was gay. And it would still have to be proved as such in a court of law.

Don't have much expierience with the criminal justice system do you? You don't have to commit a crime to be charged with a crime. We have a "Let's make a deal" criminal justice system that prosecuters use quite liberally. The way laws are written and the way they are applied are usually quite different. Judges are not hte problem, prosecuters are the problem, they are the gate keepers of our system. They decide who goes before the judge and who doesn't.

The prosecutor asked me if I wanted the crime reported as a hate crime, and I declined. I feared retaliation.

As it turns out, my perpetrator was plead down to "disturbing the peace".

 

[SW2SILVER]

No, it's not the same. On September 13, 2001, a man took a couple of gallons of gas to a mosque and burned it down to protest 9/11. No one at the Seattle mosque had anything to do with the terrorism on the East coast. This is an example of a hate crime.

This is NOT a simple arson.

Theo Van Gogh, made films critical of Islam. He was murdered by a Muslim because of his beliefs. This is a hate crime. It sends a message to an entire group. Terrorism is hate crime.

A Jewish cemetery is vandalized in Portland, Oregon. "Die Jew" and swastikas are painted on the cemetery gates. This is NOT simple vandalism.

Good point. But, I would like to back up here a step. If a guy burns down a building, it’s still arson. Doesn’t matter if it was insurance fraud or for revenge or the arsonist was a pyromaniac. Or “hate”.

And, to make hate a category, they are going to have to actually KNOW what the mindset of the perpetrator was. Then, they are going to have to define HOW that differs from mental illness. That itself is speculative. Our justice system doesn’t allow speculation . No matter how fine a point put on a law…

What is the point of any law? Deterrence? As a moral guide? What? I am not a scholar, but laws never stopped anyone, either, if they are motivated. Is this meant to be punitive? What good is creating a new category of crime going to accomplish anyway? Does it make us feel more civilized? It won’t do anything more than make more opportunities for lawyers, and I feel little else will change.

 

[Immanuel]

No, it's not the same. On September 13, 2001, a man took a couple of gallons of gas to a mosque and burned it down to protest 9/11. No one at the Seattle mosque had anything to do with the terrorism on the East coast. This is an example of a hate crime.

This is NOT a simple arson.

Theo Van Gogh, made films critical of Islam. He was murdered by a Muslim because of his beliefs. This is a hate crime. It sends a message to an entire group. Terrorism is hate crime.

A Jewish cemetery is vandalized in Portland, Oregon. "Die Jew" and swastikas are painted on the cemetery gates. This is NOT simple vandalism.

Good point. But, I would like to back up here a step. If a guy burns down a building, it’s still arson. Doesn’t matter if it was insurance fraud or for revenge or the arsonist was a pyromaniac. Or “hate”.

And, to make hate a category, they are going to have to actually KNOW what the mindset of the perpetrator was. Then, they are going to have to define HOW that differs from mental illness. That itself is speculative. Our justice system doesn’t allow speculation . No matter how fine a point put on a law…

What is the point of any law? Deterrence? As a moral guide? What? I am not a scholar, but laws never stopped anyone, either, if they are motivated. Is this meant to be punitive? What good is creating a new category of crime going to accomplish anyway? Does it make us feel more civilized? It won’t do anything more than make more opportunities for lawyers, and I feel little else will change.

To go along with that, the selectivity that this opens up on the side of the prosecutor. If they can choose who they are going to charge with a hate crime, then in some counties only whites will be charged with hate crimes while another prosecutor who believes like SD may only charge Christians or straight people with hate crimes. In another county, only Muslims may be charged. In another only blacks. So long, "justice for all".

This is BS.

Immie

 

[spectrumc01]

No, it's not the same. On September 13, 2001, a man took a couple of gallons of gas to a mosque and burned it down to protest 9/11. No one at the Seattle mosque had anything to do with the terrorism on the East coast. This is an example of a hate crime.

This is NOT a simple arson.

Theo Van Gogh, made films critical of Islam. He was murdered by a Muslim because of his beliefs. This is a hate crime. It sends a message to an entire group. Terrorism is hate crime.

A Jewish cemetery is vandalized in Portland, Oregon. "Die Jew" and swastikas are painted on the cemetery gates. This is NOT simple vandalism.

Good point. But, I would like to back up here a step. If a guy burns down a building, it’s still arson. Doesn’t matter if it was insurance fraud or for revenge or the arsonist was a pyromaniac. Or “hate”.

And, to make hate a category, they are going to have to actually KNOW what the mindset of the perpetrator was. Then, they are going to have to define HOW that differs from mental illness. That itself is speculative. Our justice system doesn’t allow speculation . No matter how fine a point put on a law…

What is the point of any law? Deterrence? As a moral guide? What? I am not a scholar, but laws never stopped anyone, either, if they are motivated. Is this meant to be punitive? What good is creating a new category of crime going to accomplish anyway? Does it make us feel more civilized? It won’t do anything more than make more opportunities for lawyers, and I feel little else will change.

The point of the law is to give the prosecuters who run for governor or have other public office to pander to certain groups. If a prosecuter needs the black vote and wants to endear himself to them and prove he's looking out for them he needs to charge someone with a hate crime against blacks. Or any other group depending on who you need to win over.