Hate crimes against "the homeless"

[Mustang]

May I also add that not all homeless are helpless. Some are dangerous in their own right.

I oppose all unprovoked assaults on people. Let the existing laws handle the disposition of the charges to be applied for each crime.

Yeah, watch out for those roving gangs of homeless!

 

[AmyNation]

Then why is it, I wonder, that so many conservatives DO object to hate crime legislation? Anyone care to hazard a guess? I'll take a shot ...

Because they FAVOR picking on the weak and helpless, humiliating the less fortunate and generally conducting themselves along the lines of the true, authoritarian personalities that so many of them have. The last thing they want is for the government to cut through to one of their favorite pasttimes and punish them more for engaging in it because it is so much more reprehensible tha similar conduct that is not directed against the less fortunate merely because they are less fortunate or weaker.

How can anyone argue AGAINST hate crime legislation and not be FOR the committing of hate crimes?

All right, cons . . . . bring it on . . . .

Or maybe they just favor equal protection under the law.

Hate crime legislation has been held time and time again NOT to violate Equal Protection.

If a law provided for increased punishment for any white person who, for racial reasons, assaulted a person of any other race, such a law would violate Equal Protection, because it would punish members of only one race while allowing members of other races to commit similar crimes without being subjected to any increased punishment.

Hate crime legislation provides increased punishment for crimes committed by ANYONE (regardless of their race) against any other person for racial reasons. It punishes white, black, yellow or green equally - makes no difference.

Therefore, hate crime legislation is not violative of the Equal Protection clause.

Hate crimes are enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

A serial who hates tall women, and seeks them out and murders them, and a serial killer who hates gay women and seeks them out and murders them should face the same punishment.

Lots of crimes are committed out of hate, that doesn't mean it's ok to give people a harsher sentence because you don't agree with their reasons behind the crime.

 

[George Costanza]

George!!!!


I am 100% in favor of getting rid of hate crimes... and just flat out increasing all punishment to the enhanced level.

crime is crime...

No, it isn't. There are all different types of crimes. A parking violation is not the same thing as a torture-murder. There are varying degrees of homicide and of other crimes.

The whole point of hate crime legislation is that some crimes, while of the same general designation (assault), ARE "worse" than others because of the motivation behind their commission. As such, these "worse" types of crimes deserve a stiffer punishment.

It's no different than the well-known classifiction of homicides into degrees. First degree murder is obviously "worse" than second degree murder and it is punished more severely, even though both crimes are homicides. An assault motivated by racial reasons is worse than a "normal" assault and, as such, should be punished more severely.

If you don't see the difference between someone who beats a gay person to a pulp simply because he doesn't like their lifestyle, and someone who beats another guy up because the guy has been banging his girlfriend, then there is little more that we can discuss.

since when can a parking ticket be enhanced to a hate crime George? lol.

assault is assault...murder is murder... and should ALL be punished the same.


push all sentencing to the enhanced level.

(sigh) No, sweet thing, not all "assault is assault" in the context of hate crime legislation. See, this is what I was saying when I said that if you can't see this, there is little point in trying to get you to understand hate crimes and hate crime legislation.

You say "murder is murder." Really? There are basically three different degrees of murder - capital murder, first degree murder and second degree murder. In California, a first degree murder committed under certain circumstances is considered a special circumstances case and bears the death penalty. Plain, old first degree murder without special circumstances is 25 to life. Second degree murder is 15 to life.

Would you lump all three of these type of murder together with the same sentence regardless? And what would that sentence be? Death? That would mean the death penalty for a mass murderer as well as a guy who didn't like the loud music from his neighbor and went next door with a gun. Obviously inappropriate. 15 to life? For the mass murderer as well as the guy who popped his neighbor because of the loud music?

Please.

 

[Dreamy]

May I also add that not all homeless are helpless. Some are dangerous in their own right.

I oppose all unprovoked assaults on people. Let the existing laws handle the disposition of the charges to be applied for each crime.

Yeah, watch out for those roving gangs of homeless!

Never did I define them as such. Address what I posted. Anyone can clearly show crimes committed by homeless, some crimes against persons and some against property and some against both.

If a homeless man assaults me I am not under the hate crime umbrella but if I assault him, he is. Fair and equal under the law? No.

 

[George Costanza]

Or maybe they just favor equal protection under the law.

Hate crime legislation has been held time and time again NOT to violate Equal Protection.

If a law provided for increased punishment for any white person who, for racial reasons, assaulted a person of any other race, such a law would violate Equal Protection, because it would punish members of only one race while allowing members of other races to commit similar crimes without being subjected to any increased punishment.

Hate crime legislation provides increased punishment for crimes committed by ANYONE (regardless of their race) against any other person for racial reasons. It punishes white, black, yellow or green equally - makes no difference.

Therefore, hate crime legislation is not violative of the Equal Protection clause.

Hate crimes are enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

A serial who hates tall women, and seeks them out and murders them, and a serial killer who hates gay women and seeks them out and murders them should face the same punishment.

Lots of crimes are committed out of hate, that doesn't mean it's ok to give people a harsher sentence because you don't agree with their reasons behind the crime.

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

Virtually all crimes are committed out of some degree of "hate." The law has decided that some forms of hate are worse than others and deserve added punishment. You may not agree with that, but it is the law - and I agree with it fully. To me, a cretin who drags a black man behind his pickup truck because he hates blacks is far, far worse than a guy who beats another guy up because he thinks the other guy has been sleeping with his wife.

In the latter case, one can see a rational reason for what happened. In the former, no rational reason at all appears, other than bigotry and prejudice. Don't you see that disctinction?

You never answered my question: How can a person be against hate crime legislation and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

 

[George Costanza]

May I also add that not all homeless are helpless. Some are dangerous in their own right.

I oppose all unprovoked assaults on people. Let the existing laws handle the disposition of the charges to be applied for each crime.

Yeah, watch out for those roving gangs of homeless!

Never did I define them as such. Address what I posted. Anyone can clearly show crimes committed by homeless, some crimes against persons and some against property and some against both.

If a homeless man assaults me I am not under the hate crime umbrella but if I assault him, he is. Fair and equal under the law? No.

Wrong. Not all assaults on the homeless would be classified as hate crimes under the proposed legislation. Example: I look out my window and see a homeless guy kicking my dog. I go out and cold cock the son of a *****. That isn't a hate crime, because I was not attacking him because he was a homeless person, only because he was kicking my dog.

On the other side of the coin, suppose a homeless man assaults you because you are a woman and for no other reason. You haven't been doing anything to him - you were just walking by on the sidewalk. That would be a hate crime. Attacks based in whole or in part on the basis of gender are included in most hate crime statutes.

Read my post, above, about why hate crime legislation does not violate the Equal Protection clause.

 

[syrenn]

No, it isn't. There are all different types of crimes. A parking violation is not the same thing as a torture-murder. There are varying degrees of homicide and of other crimes.

The whole point of hate crime legislation is that some crimes, while of the same general designation (assault), ARE "worse" than others because of the motivation behind their commission. As such, these "worse" types of crimes deserve a stiffer punishment.

It's no different than the well-known classifiction of homicides into degrees. First degree murder is obviously "worse" than second degree murder and it is punished more severely, even though both crimes are homicides. An assault motivated by racial reasons is worse than a "normal" assault and, as such, should be punished more severely.

If you don't see the difference between someone who beats a gay person to a pulp simply because he doesn't like their lifestyle, and someone who beats another guy up because the guy has been banging his girlfriend, then there is little more that we can discuss.

since when can a parking ticket be enhanced to a hate crime George? lol.

assault is assault...murder is murder... and should ALL be punished the same.


push all sentencing to the enhanced level.

(sigh) No, sweet thing, not all "assault is assault" in the context of hate crime legislation. See, this is what I was saying when I said that if you can't see this, there is little point in trying to get you to understand hate crimes and hate crime legislation.

You say "murder is murder." Really? There are basically three different degrees of murder - capital murder, first degree murder and second degree murder. In California, a first degree murder committed under certain circumstances is considered a special circumstances case and bears the death penalty. Plain, old first degree murder without special circumstances is 25 to life. Second degree murder is 15 to life.

Would you lump all three of these type of murder together with the same sentence regardless? And what would that sentence be? Death? That would mean the death penalty for a mass murderer as well as a guy who didn't like the loud music from his neighbor and went next door with a gun. Obviously inappropriate. 15 to life? For the mass murderer as well as the guy who popped his neighbor because of the loud music?

Please.

I know all about it george.

yes.. i would lump all three degrees of murder into .... one sentence. Murder. Enhance it all.


and if your guy who popped his neighbor hated him at the moment of the popping.... then what? I am pretty sure it could be argued that he DID hate the guy at the time of the popping....enough so that he killed someone.

 

[AmyNation]

Hate crime legislation has been held time and time again NOT to violate Equal Protection.

If a law provided for increased punishment for any white person who, for racial reasons, assaulted a person of any other race, such a law would violate Equal Protection, because it would punish members of only one race while allowing members of other races to commit similar crimes without being subjected to any increased punishment.

Hate crime legislation provides increased punishment for crimes committed by ANYONE (regardless of their race) against any other person for racial reasons. It punishes white, black, yellow or green equally - makes no difference.

Therefore, hate crime legislation is not violative of the Equal Protection clause.

Hate crimes are enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

A serial who hates tall women, and seeks them out and murders them, and a serial killer who hates gay women and seeks them out and murders them should face the same punishment.

Lots of crimes are committed out of hate, that doesn't mean it's ok to give people a harsher sentence because you don't agree with their reasons behind the crime.

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

Virtually all crimes are committed out of some degree of "hate." The law has decided that some forms of hate are worse than others and deserve added punishment. You may not agree with that, but it is the law - and I agree with it fully. To me, a cretin who drags a black man behind his pickup truck because he hates blacks is far, far worse than a guy who beats another guy up because he thinks the other guy has been sleeping with his wife.

In the latter case, one can see a rational reason for what happened. In the former, no rational reason at all appears, other than bigotry and prejudice. Don't you see that disctinction?

You never answered my question: How can a person be against hate crime legislation and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

Are you serious?

Because this person recognizes that hate crimes laws are thought crime laws, and it's not acceptable to me to punish thought.

 

[syrenn]

Hate crime legislation has been held time and time again NOT to violate Equal Protection.

If a law provided for increased punishment for any white person who, for racial reasons, assaulted a person of any other race, such a law would violate Equal Protection, because it would punish members of only one race while allowing members of other races to commit similar crimes without being subjected to any increased punishment.

Hate crime legislation provides increased punishment for crimes committed by ANYONE (regardless of their race) against any other person for racial reasons. It punishes white, black, yellow or green equally - makes no difference.

Therefore, hate crime legislation is not violative of the Equal Protection clause.

Hate crimes are enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

A serial who hates tall women, and seeks them out and murders them, and a serial killer who hates gay women and seeks them out and murders them should face the same punishment.

Lots of crimes are committed out of hate, that doesn't mean it's ok to give people a harsher sentence because you don't agree with their reasons behind the crime.

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

Virtually all crimes are committed out of some degree of "hate." The law has decided that some forms of hate are worse than others and deserve added punishment. You may not agree with that, but it is the law - and I agree with it fully. To me, a cretin who drags a black man behind his pickup truck because he hates blacks is far, far worse than a guy who beats another guy up because he thinks the other guy has been sleeping with his wife.

In the latter case, one can see a rational reason for what happened. In the former, no rational reason at all appears, other than bigotry and prejudice. Don't you see that disctinction?

You never answered my question: How can a person be against hate crime legislation and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

yes, that is punishing for thought and opinion.....

 

[Dreamy]

Yeah, watch out for those roving gangs of homeless!

Never did I define them as such. Address what I posted. Anyone can clearly show crimes committed by homeless, some crimes against persons and some against property and some against both.

If a homeless man assaults me I am not under the hate crime umbrella but if I assault him, he is. Fair and equal under the law? No.

Wrong. Not all assaults on the homeless would be classified as hate crimes under the proposed legislation. Example: I look out my window and see a homeless guy kicking my dog. I go out and cold cock the son of a *****. That isn't a hate crime, because I was not attacking him because he was a homeless person, only because he was kicking my dog.

On the other side of the coin, suppose a homeless man assaults you because you are a woman and for no other reason. You haven't been doing anything to him - you were just walking by on the sidewalk. That would be a hate crime. Attacks based in whole or in part on the basis of gender are included in most hate crime statutes.

Read my post, above, about why hate crime legislation does not violate the Equal Protection clause.

My assault at the hands of anyone will not kick in a hate crime. I know for a fact.

I am a white woman with a home. I am not "special" under hate crime legislature. No DA will ever be able to prove he attacked my because of my gender. Can you show me one example of such a prosecution. Man charged with hate crime because he targeted only women?

George, the laws in place are already able to ante up the stakes for those who attack someone for no other reason than their race etc....

 

[Mustang]

May I also add that not all homeless are helpless. Some are dangerous in their own right.

I oppose all unprovoked assaults on people. Let the existing laws handle the disposition of the charges to be applied for each crime.

Yeah, watch out for those roving gangs of homeless!

Never did I define them as such. Address what I posted. Anyone can clearly show crimes committed by homeless, some crimes against persons and some against property and some against both.

If a homeless man assaults me I am not under the hate crime umbrella but if I assault him, he is. Fair and equal under the law? No.

I don't doubt that some homeless commit crimes, but they're generally NOT crimes against people. They're more likely to engage in theft which is a property crime.

As far as a crime committed against a homeless person, not ALL crimes against homeless people could or would be qualified as a hate crime unless a person attacks a homeless person BECAUSE he's homeless.

Likewise, not every crime committed by a white person against a black person (OR vice versa) is a hate crime. Not every crime by a straight person against a gay person is a hate crime. The status (known or suspected) must be a factor. In fact, even a crime perpetrated by a straight person against another straight person can be considered an anti-gay hate crime if the victim was perceived as being gay.

 

[syrenn]

Never did I define them as such. Address what I posted. Anyone can clearly show crimes committed by homeless, some crimes against persons and some against property and some against both.

If a homeless man assaults me I am not under the hate crime umbrella but if I assault him, he is. Fair and equal under the law? No.

Wrong. Not all assaults on the homeless would be classified as hate crimes under the proposed legislation. Example: I look out my window and see a homeless guy kicking my dog. I go out and cold cock the son of a *****. That isn't a hate crime, because I was not attacking him because he was a homeless person, only because he was kicking my dog.

On the other side of the coin, suppose a homeless man assaults you because you are a woman and for no other reason. You haven't been doing anything to him - you were just walking by on the sidewalk. That would be a hate crime. Attacks based in whole or in part on the basis of gender are included in most hate crime statutes.

Read my post, above, about why hate crime legislation does not violate the Equal Protection clause.

My assault at the hands of anyone will not kick in a hate crime. I know for a fact.

I am a white woman with a home. I am not "special" under hate crime legislature. No DA will ever be able to prove he attacked my because of my gender. Can you show me one example of such a prosecution. Man charged with hate crime because he targeted only women?

George, the laws in place are already able to ante up the stakes for those who attack someone for no other reason than their race etc....

if you do get assaulted... make sure form the very first words you speak .... claim that they kept calling you a white gay *****.

then it will be fair....

 

[George Costanza]

Hate crimes are enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

A serial who hates tall women, and seeks them out and murders them, and a serial killer who hates gay women and seeks them out and murders them should face the same punishment.

Lots of crimes are committed out of hate, that doesn't mean it's ok to give people a harsher sentence because you don't agree with their reasons behind the crime.

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

Virtually all crimes are committed out of some degree of "hate." The law has decided that some forms of hate are worse than others and deserve added punishment. You may not agree with that, but it is the law - and I agree with it fully. To me, a cretin who drags a black man behind his pickup truck because he hates blacks is far, far worse than a guy who beats another guy up because he thinks the other guy has been sleeping with his wife.

In the latter case, one can see a rational reason for what happened. In the former, no rational reason at all appears, other than bigotry and prejudice. Don't you see that disctinction?

You never answered my question: How can a person be against hate crime legislation and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

Are you serious?

Because this person recognizes that hate crimes laws are thought crime laws, and it's not acceptable to me to punish thought.

Boy, you're really pulling 'em all out on this one, hey?

No, hate crime legislation does not punish thought. It punishes criminal action based upon thought.

 

[George Costanza]

Hate crimes are enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

A serial who hates tall women, and seeks them out and murders them, and a serial killer who hates gay women and seeks them out and murders them should face the same punishment.

Lots of crimes are committed out of hate, that doesn't mean it's ok to give people a harsher sentence because you don't agree with their reasons behind the crime.

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

Virtually all crimes are committed out of some degree of "hate." The law has decided that some forms of hate are worse than others and deserve added punishment. You may not agree with that, but it is the law - and I agree with it fully. To me, a cretin who drags a black man behind his pickup truck because he hates blacks is far, far worse than a guy who beats another guy up because he thinks the other guy has been sleeping with his wife.

In the latter case, one can see a rational reason for what happened. In the former, no rational reason at all appears, other than bigotry and prejudice. Don't you see that disctinction?

You never answered my question: How can a person be against hate crime legislation and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

Are you serious?

Because this person recognizes that hate crimes laws are thought crime laws, and it's not acceptable to me to punish thought.

Dead serious. Hate crime legislation increases punishment for racially motivated crimes on the theory that increasing the punishment will decrease the commission of hate crimes. Take away the hate crime legislation, and you take away the deterrent to commit the hate crime. More hate crimes will then be committed.

I say again: How can you be against hate crime legislation, knowing that if it is abolished, hate crimes will increase, and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

 

[OKTexas]

It makes the penalty for the crime committed based on hate more severe. Hate cannot be legislated away only the unlawful exhibition of that hatred.

I just love the circular logic of the left. Crime is by definition an action, or exhibition as you put it, that is what is punished, motive should have nothing to do with the punishment, only the act itself. A crime against a person is by definition a hateful act, so I guess all crimes against people should carry enhanced sentences. Right?

The elements of a crime are actus reas(the act) and mens rea(guilty mind/intent). It is neither right or left it is a system the US adopted based on English Common law.

No some crimes are motivated by greed, lust....etc.

So greed or lust are less depraved than hate I guess, and lawyers wonder whay everyone hates lawyers, they have such a wonderful way of screwing up justice.

 

[AmyNation]

Yes, hate crimes provide for enhanced punishment based on how the defendant felt about the victim.

Virtually all crimes are committed out of some degree of "hate." The law has decided that some forms of hate are worse than others and deserve added punishment. You may not agree with that, but it is the law - and I agree with it fully. To me, a cretin who drags a black man behind his pickup truck because he hates blacks is far, far worse than a guy who beats another guy up because he thinks the other guy has been sleeping with his wife.

In the latter case, one can see a rational reason for what happened. In the former, no rational reason at all appears, other than bigotry and prejudice. Don't you see that disctinction?

You never answered my question: How can a person be against hate crime legislation and not be in favor of the commission of hate crimes?

Are you serious?

Because this person recognizes that hate crimes laws are thought crime laws, and it's not acceptable to me to punish thought.

Boy, you're really pulling 'em all out on this one, hey?

No, hate crime legislation does not punish thought. It punishes criminal action based upon thought.

We already have laws that punish the action. Hate crime laws punish the thought behind the action.

 

[George Costanza]

Never did I define them as such. Address what I posted. Anyone can clearly show crimes committed by homeless, some crimes against persons and some against property and some against both.

If a homeless man assaults me I am not under the hate crime umbrella but if I assault him, he is. Fair and equal under the law? No.

Wrong. Not all assaults on the homeless would be classified as hate crimes under the proposed legislation. Example: I look out my window and see a homeless guy kicking my dog. I go out and cold cock the son of a *****. That isn't a hate crime, because I was not attacking him because he was a homeless person, only because he was kicking my dog.

On the other side of the coin, suppose a homeless man assaults you because you are a woman and for no other reason. You haven't been doing anything to him - you were just walking by on the sidewalk. That would be a hate crime. Attacks based in whole or in part on the basis of gender are included in most hate crime statutes.

Read my post, above, about why hate crime legislation does not violate the Equal Protection clause.

My assault at the hands of anyone will not kick in a hate crime. I know for a fact.

I am a white woman with a home. I am not "special" under hate crime legislature. No DA will ever be able to prove he attacked my because of my gender. Can you show me one example of such a prosecution. Man charged with hate crime because he targeted only women?

George, the laws in place are already able to ante up the stakes for those who attack someone for no other reason than their race etc....

Tell me, do you belong to an organized religion? If so, and you are attacked because of that, it's a hate crime. As I said before, gender is considered a protected class under most hate crime statutes. Therefore, like it or not, you ARE "special" under hate crime protection statutes. Didn't know that, did you?

No, the laws in place need to be beefed up when it comes to hate crimes. Bigots who attack others for racial, sexual orientation, religious or gender reasons are much worse than people who attack others for lesser, more rational reasons, and deserve tougher punishment.

 

[George Costanza]

Are you serious?

Because this person recognizes that hate crimes laws are thought crime laws, and it's not acceptable to me to punish thought.

Boy, you're really pulling 'em all out on this one, hey?

No, hate crime legislation does not punish thought. It punishes criminal action based upon thought.

We already have laws that punish the action. Hate crime laws punish the thought behind the action.

Been nice chatting with you. I think we have to agree to disagree at this point,.

 

[jillian]

since when can a parking ticket be enhanced to a hate crime George? lol.

assault is assault...murder is murder... and should ALL be punished the same.


push all sentencing to the enhanced level.

(sigh) No, sweet thing, not all "assault is assault" in the context of hate crime legislation. See, this is what I was saying when I said that if you can't see this, there is little point in trying to get you to understand hate crimes and hate crime legislation.

You say "murder is murder." Really? There are basically three different degrees of murder - capital murder, first degree murder and second degree murder. In California, a first degree murder committed under certain circumstances is considered a special circumstances case and bears the death penalty. Plain, old first degree murder without special circumstances is 25 to life. Second degree murder is 15 to life.

Would you lump all three of these type of murder together with the same sentence regardless? And what would that sentence be? Death? That would mean the death penalty for a mass murderer as well as a guy who didn't like the loud music from his neighbor and went next door with a gun. Obviously inappropriate. 15 to life? For the mass murderer as well as the guy who popped his neighbor because of the loud music?

Please.

I know all about it george.

yes.. i would lump all three degrees of murder into .... one sentence. Murder. Enhance it all.


and if your guy who popped his neighbor hated him at the moment of the popping.... then what? I am pretty sure it could be argued that he DID hate the guy at the time of the popping....enough so that he killed someone.

it's not about hating an individual. it's about one's prejudices, whether racial hatred or hatred of gays or the like is the precipitating factor in the crime. it's not about robbing someone of a different color. it's about victimizing someone BECAUSE of whatever protected class they're a part of. it's really no different from measuring intent in any other act... but if a group of people beat some guy BECAUSE he's gay, (e.g. matthew shepard) then those people deserve an extra punishment...

it's a deterrence issue.

 

[George Costanza]

I just love the circular logic of the left. Crime is by definition an action, or exhibition as you put it, that is what is punished, motive should have nothing to do with the punishment, only the act itself. A crime against a person is by definition a hateful act, so I guess all crimes against people should carry enhanced sentences. Right?

The elements of a crime are actus reas(the act) and mens rea(guilty mind/intent). It is neither right or left it is a system the US adopted based on English Common law.

No some crimes are motivated by greed, lust....etc.

So greed or lust are less depraved than hate I guess, and lawyers wonder whay everyone hates lawyers, they have such a wonderful way of screwing up justice.

I wonder if the members of the various classes protected by hate crime statutes hate lawyers for "screwing up justice." I wonder how many people out there "hate lawyers" for screwing up their fun when it comes to the enactment of hate crime legislation.

Where'd you say you live . . . . . ?