Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment

[ihopehefails]

They should not be punished because of any beliefs they hold about other people. They should be punished for the crime itself.

btw, to clarify...I do not usually agree with most hate crime legislation, but for different reasoning than yours.

And what reasons are those?

 

[ihopehefails]

A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.

Are you really as dumb as this post suggests, or simply blinded by your own bias?

Dumb people are people that respond with insults instead of something intelligent to say because if they could think of something intelligent to say they would but since they can't they scream insults at other people.

 

[ihopehefails]

Didn't you spend some time saying that this was not a thought crime legislation but then say that this punishes people for crimes with racial bias in them. In other words, you are punishing the motive behind it.

Motive can be the difference between a homicide charge and getting off scot free even if there weren't hate crime laws.

For example say I shoot someone in the back of the head. Murder right?

Well supposing I was doing it to stop them from stabbing someone else.

Now suppose I did it because he wouldn't share his ice cream.

Different motives, and different charges.

Not sure how I feel about hate crime laws, just saying.

You are confusing motive with intent. Intent is an element of murder and must be proven. Motive is not an element and a person can be convicted of murder without any proof of motive.

Are you saying that intent is the intent do murder someone vs accidently shooting them with a shotgun? The reason why I ask is that I had an accident an hour ago that might involve the authorities. Just kidding...

 

[George Costanza]

Motive can be the difference between a homicide charge and getting off scot free even if there weren't hate crime laws.

For example say I shoot someone in the back of the head. Murder right?

Well supposing I was doing it to stop them from stabbing someone else.

Now suppose I did it because he wouldn't share his ice cream.

Different motives, and different charges.

Not sure how I feel about hate crime laws, just saying.

You are confusing motive with intent. Intent is an element of murder and must be proven. Motive is not an element and a person can be convicted of murder without any proof of motive.

Are you saying that intent is the intent do murder someone vs accidently shooting them with a shotgun? The reason why I ask is that I had an accident an hour ago that might involve the authorities. Just kidding...

Yes. For example, when a sitting Vice President of the United States shoots his hunting partner in the head with a shotgun, the question immediately arises - was the shooting accidental or intentional? If intentional, the Vice President should be charged with murder. If accidental, the Vice President could be charged with manslaughter or could be released.

In either event, the Vice President is a Dick.

 

[Dante]

They should not be punished because of any beliefs they hold about other people. They should be punished for the crime itself.

btw, to clarify...I do not usually agree with most hate crime legislation, but for different reasoning than yours.

And what reasons are those?

I think most laws are adequate to deal with the criminal aspects of hate attacks. (I say 'hate attacks' because the primary impulse is hatred of the victim's very being. which is a distinction with a difference)

Many sentences can have extenuating circumstances added as a factor.

One big issue I personally have with hate crime laws is what I view as the potential for abuse which outweighs the protections granted.

I think sentencing structures need to be reevaluated. Mandatory sentencing needs to take a walk.

 

[George Costanza]

Look - PEOPLE - (and in particular, ihopehefails). It is very simple. The legislatures of various states have determined that crimes motivated by racism are worse than the same crime not motivated by racism. Accordingly, crimes motivated by racism should be punished more severely. That is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Hate crime legislation does NOT involve issues of eqaul protection. ANYONE who commits a hate crime will be prosecuted for it.

Hate crime legislation DOES protect one group more than other groups - by design. That is what hate crime legislation is all about: affording additional protection to groups that the legislature feels NEEDS additional protection (blacks, gays, etc.) because they have been (and are continuing to be) set upon by members of the majority.

What's the REAL problem here, folks? Hmmmmm?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Hate crime legislation does NOT involve issues of eqaul protection. ANYONE who commits a hate crime will be prosecuted for it.

Hate crime legislation DOES protect one group more than other groups - by design. That is what hate crime legislation is all about

Self-refutation in a single post. That takes great skill in the art of dumbassery. You could be a Congressman.

 

[Father Time]

You are confusing motive with intent. Intent is an element of murder and must be proven. Motive is not an element and a person can be convicted of murder without any proof of motive.

Are you saying that intent is the intent do murder someone vs accidently shooting them with a shotgun? The reason why I ask is that I had an accident an hour ago that might involve the authorities. Just kidding...

Yes. For example, when a sitting Vice President of the United States shoots his hunting partner in the head with a shotgun, the question immediately arises - was the shooting accidental or intentional? If intentional, the Vice President should be charged with murder. If accidental, the Vice President could be charged with manslaughter or could be released.

In either event, the Vice President is a Dick.

You know the guy Dick Cheney shot didn't die.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

FT, it should be clear by now that G doesn't know anything about anything he's talking about.

 

[George Costanza]

Are you saying that intent is the intent do murder someone vs accidently shooting them with a shotgun? The reason why I ask is that I had an accident an hour ago that might involve the authorities. Just kidding...

Yes. For example, when a sitting Vice President of the United States shoots his hunting partner in the head with a shotgun, the question immediately arises - was the shooting accidental or intentional? If intentional, the Vice President should be charged with murder. If accidental, the Vice President could be charged with manslaughter or could be released.

In either event, the Vice President is a Dick.

You know the guy Dick Cheney shot didn't die.

I do.

 

[Dante]

Look - PEOPLE - (and in particular, ihopehefails). It is very simple. The legislatures of various states have determined that crimes motivated by racism are worse than the same crime not motivated by racism. Accordingly, crimes motivated by racism should be punished more severely. That is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Hate crime legislation does NOT involve issues of eqaul protection. ANYONE who commits a hate crime will be prosecuted for it.

Hate crime legislation DOES protect one group more than other groups - by design. That is what hate crime legislation is all about: affording additional protection to groups that the legislature feels NEEDS additional protection (blacks, gays, etc.) because they have been (and are continuing to be) set upon by members of the majority.

What's the REAL problem here, folks? Hmmmmm?

The problem is you are unable or unwilling to see that all those opposed do not disagree with you in principle, only in practice.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yes. For example, when a sitting Vice President of the United States shoots his hunting partner in the head with a shotgun, the question immediately arises - was the shooting accidental or intentional? If intentional, the Vice President should be charged with murder. If accidental, the Vice President could be charged with manslaughter or could be released.

In either event, the Vice President is a Dick.

You know the guy Dick Cheney shot didn't die.

I do.

So either you think people can be charged with murder when noone dies- proving your claim to be an attorney a lie and proving that you're fucking retarded, or you just now Googled it and now know the guy didn't die- proving you're a retard.

 

[George Costanza]

Look - PEOPLE - (and in particular, ihopehefails). It is very simple. The legislatures of various states have determined that crimes motivated by racism are worse than the same crime not motivated by racism. Accordingly, crimes motivated by racism should be punished more severely. That is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Hate crime legislation does NOT involve issues of eqaul protection. ANYONE who commits a hate crime will be prosecuted for it.

Hate crime legislation DOES protect one group more than other groups - by design. That is what hate crime legislation is all about: affording additional protection to groups that the legislature feels NEEDS additional protection (blacks, gays, etc.) because they have been (and are continuing to be) set upon by members of the majority.

What's the REAL problem here, folks? Hmmmmm?

The problem is you are unable or unwilling to see that all those opposed do not disagree with you in principle, only in practice.

How do you see those opposed to my view as agreeing with me in principle? What is the principle that both sides of this argument agree upon, according to you?

 

[George Costanza]

Look - PEOPLE - (and in particular, ihopehefails). It is very simple. The legislatures of various states have determined that crimes motivated by racism are worse than the same crime not motivated by racism. Accordingly, crimes motivated by racism should be punished more severely. That is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Hate crime legislation does NOT involve issues of eqaul protection. ANYONE who commits a hate crime will be prosecuted for it.

Hate crime legislation DOES protect one group more than other groups - by design. That is what hate crime legislation is all about: affording additional protection to groups that the legislature feels NEEDS additional protection (blacks, gays, etc.) because they have been (and are continuing to be) set upon by members of the majority.

What's the REAL problem here, folks? Hmmmmm?

The problem is you are unable or unwilling to see that all those opposed do not disagree with you in principle, only in practice.

How do you see those opposed to my view as agreeing with me in principle? What is the principle that both sides of this argument agree upon, according to you?

Hey, Danti! You never got back to me on this. Once again: How do you see those opposed to my view as agreeing with me in principle? What is the principle that both sides of this argument agree upon, according to you?

 

[ihopehefails]

Look - PEOPLE - (and in particular, ihopehefails). It is very simple. The legislatures of various states have determined that crimes motivated by racism are worse than the same crime not motivated by racism. Accordingly, crimes motivated by racism should be punished more severely. That is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Hate crime legislation does NOT involve issues of eqaul protection. ANYONE who commits a hate crime will be prosecuted for it.

Hate crime legislation DOES protect one group more than other groups - by design. That is what hate crime legislation is all about: affording additional protection to groups that the legislature feels NEEDS additional protection (blacks, gays, etc.) because they have been (and are continuing to be) set upon by members of the majority.

What's the REAL problem here, folks? Hmmmmm?

Then if you want protect people against more violent crimes then why not write a piece of legislation that says commit this level of violence and the crime will be punished harder? What you are saying is that if you commit a violent crime on the level that you say hate crimes are committed then it should only be punished more severely for that but only if their is racism involved in it. What about violent crimes committed on that level where there are no racial motives? Those crimes would not be punished as harshly as racially motive crimes which does not provide equal protection to all its citizens.

 

[George Costanza]

Then if you want protect people against more violent crimes then why not write a piece of legislation that says commit this level of violence and the crime will be punished harder? What you are saying is that if you commit a violent crime on the level that you say hate crimes are committed then it should only be punished more severely for that but only if their is racism involved in it. What about violent crimes committed on that level where there are no racial motives? Those crimes would not be punished as harshly as racially motive crimes which does not provide equal protection to all its citizens.

I can't tell you how intrigued I am by your posts. Just getting into a position where I can even BEGIN to figure out what you are trying to say is always a challenge. Let's try, however . . .

Then if you want protect people against more violent crimes then why not write a piece of legislation that says commit this level of violence and the crime will be punished harder?

I kind of think that's what hate crime legislation IS - legislation that says, if you commit a crime of violence for racially motivated reasons, you will be punished harder. A hate crime is considered to be a higher level of crime than the same crime not committed for racially motivated reasons.

What you are saying is that if you commit a violent crime on the level that you say hate crimes are committed then it should only be punished more severely for that but only if their is racism involved in it.

I'm not sure I would phrase it quite this way but, yes - that is what hate crime legislation does. It says that racially motivated crimes should be punished more severely.

What about violent crimes committed on that level where there are no racial motives? Those crimes would not be punished as harshly as racially motive crimes which does not provide equal protection to all its citizens.

(Sigh) Could I ask you to read back, through my posts on this thread, which cover this point in minute detail?

In any event: Hate crimes do not mention a specific race. They only say: "Commit a crime for racial reasons and your punishment will be harsher than the same crime not committed for racial reasons." Therefore, a member of ANY race could be prosecuted for committing a racially motivated crime against a member of any other race. Hence, hate crimes, per se, do not violate Equal Protection.

If it is shown that hate crime legislation is not being ENFORCED equally - only whites are being prosecuted, while members of other races who commit hate crimes are not - then that would be a denial of Equal Protection in the ADMINISTRATION of the statutes.

You see, Equal Protection, in the context of criminal statutes, has two aspects. The first is whether or not a statute denies Equal Protection due to its WORDING (a per se violation) and the second is whether an otherwise Constitutionally valid statute is being ADMINISTERED or APPLIED equally.

Hate crime legislation does not violate Equal Protection under either of these tests.

The Cons like to scream that it does, simply because, in actual fact, it is almost universally WHITE folks who are committing hate crimes. Hey - luck of the draw. Don't like it, white folks? Stop committing hate crimes. Simple as that.

Probably the best answer to the question you are asking here has to do with the law of homicide. A homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another. Homicides can be lawful or unlawful. The unlawful homicides are broken down generally into murder and manslaugher. The punishment for muder is much more severe than for manslaughter and yet, in both situations, the basic crime is the same - the killing of a human being by another human being.

The difference between murder and manslaughter has mainly to do with the intent of the actor - a THOUGHT process.

Do we hear any intelligent legal argument being made that the law of homicide denies Equal Protection because it punishes the same act (the killing of another human being) more severely in one case than in the other solely based on the thoughts (intent) of the actor? Of course not.

Well, it's the same with hate crime legislation.

On a purely social level, what's WRONG with punishing some jerk skinhead more severely for putting a black kid in the hospital just because he's black? Doesn't that offend you more than a guy who puts another guy in the hospital just because he got mad at him? It sure offends me more.

Surely you aren't in FAVOR of hate crimes, are you?

 

[George Costanza]

Just curious, how many rights are violated by the VAWA and its state counterparts?

Innocent Americans are being penalized based on false accusations which require no proof.

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 was signed into law in January 2006 to reauthorize the VAWA legislation originally passed in 1994. Since VAWA first became law in 1994, more than 660 state laws regarding domestic violence have been passed, and VAWA 2005 has an even more pervasive effect on the rights of an accused man.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia allow women to apply for Ex Parte orders of protection (Temporary Restraining Orders), which are almost always granted and most ofetn extended or made permanent at subsequent hearings.

An order of protection:

1. Prohibits the accused from contacting his accuser directly or indirectly in any manner;
2. Forces the accused to move from a residence shared with the accuser even if the residence is the property of the accused;
3. Orders the accused to stay at least 100 yards away from the accuser, her place of residence, and place of employment;
4. Orders the accused to attend counseling; and
5. Compels the accused to immediately surrender any firearms or ammunition he owns to the police.

All of these actions take place immediately upon service of the order without the accused being given an opportunty to defend himself.

Millions of these restraining orders are issued each year, often without any allegation of
physical violence by the complainant, who is usually identified as the "victim" in court documents.

As a result, accused men (who are normally identified as "abusers" in the court's documents - even though they have been convisted of no crime) summarily lose access to their children, home, and financial assets with devastating consequences.

Over one million men are arrested each year due to unproven allegations of domestic violence.

The standard of evidence is extremely lax. All a woman has to do is state that she is "afraid", and the Clerk of the Court will file the TRO. After a judge rubberstamps the order, the man will be served.

Unconvicted men's lives are being irreparably damaged by unproven (and often false) allegations, and billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted.

I feel for you - and I agree with you. But this thread is about hate crime legislation.

 

[ihopehefails]

"It says that racially motivated crimes should be punished more severely."

Number one reason why it is does not protect citizens equally. All crimes are punished equally no matter who the victim is or the motives behind the attacker. Whenever you start staggering the crimes punishment depending on the motive of the offender the state provides less protection to people who are victims of criminals who don't have that motive. In other words, a black man who selects an old white lady to rob because he hates white people knows he will be charged with a hate crime so he then selects an old black lady to rob. Can you say that these two people were equally protected by that law?

 

[George Costanza]

All crimes are punished equally no matter who the victim is or the motives behind the attacker.

Let's take two crimes: Misdemeanor battery and first degree murder. These are both crimes. Yet, they are not punished equally. Misdemeanor battery can get you up to a year in county jail, max. Murder one can get you life in state prison or even the death penalty if special circumstances appear.

So here are two crimes that are not punished equally - obviously.

I think what you are trying to say here is your belief that all crimes of the same type are, or should be, punished equally. Let's consider assault with a deadly weapon (ADW). Your argument is that all people convicted of ADW should be punished equally. Within certain parameters, your argument is correct - although, in most states, felonies have sentencing ranges (low term, mid term and high term), any one of which can be imposed on the defendant by the judge, depending on the facts and circumstances of the crime.

Hate crimes are not considered the same type of crime as simple assaults. They are simply a different crime and, as such, do not have to have the same punishment.
There is nothing "unequal" about that. The punishment fits the crime. If it's a more serious crime, then the punishment is (and should be) more severe.

You cons just cannot accept the fact that a racially motivated crime (a hate crime) is more serious than the same crime committed for reasons other than racial ones. The interesting question is why - why do conservatives have such a problem with making this distinction?

Whenever you start staggering the crimes punishment depending on the motive of the offender the state provides less protection to people who are victims of criminals who don't have that motive. In other words, a black man who selects an old white lady to rob because he hates white people knows he will be charged with a hate crime so he then selects an old black lady to rob. Can you say that these two people were equally protected by that law?

In your example here, the black man hates white people, so he robs them. Presumably, he does not hate black ladies, so why would he want to rob them at all?

 

[faros15]

The simple logic of this discussion is that more laws cost more money. Lawmakers are paid to enact more laws, that in turn cause more paperwork, more manpower to enact them..hence more money!!
We do not need a more expensive legal system...we need a more effective one.
The law states that to kill another is unlawful....period. We have the basic counts in place...murder and manslaughter. We do not need extra punishment for hate crimes. We need to punish the gulty in an effective manner so as to set an example to others who may have thoughts of commiting crimes. That is the basis of our legal system...pretty simple really. Why do we have to muddy the waters with so much red tape? Why is murder while commiting a rape, not a hate crime against women?
The laws are already in place, as has aready been stated again and again. Enact them!!