Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment

[George Costanza]

Why do we have to muddy the waters with so much red tape?

In order that members of minorities can live in this country peacefully, without being set upon by bigoted louts.

Also, you mention murder and manslaughter as being sufficient subdivisions of the homicide law. In point of fact, both murder and manslaughter have degrees to them, with increasingly severe punishments as the degrees increase. This is precisely what hate crime legislation does.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hate is thought.
Racism is thought. Racism is defined as believing your race is superior to another.
When you ACT on those thoughts and that act is a crime then you get prosecuted.
We already have laws on the books for that.

 

[George Costanza]

Hate is thought.
Racism is thought. Racism is defined as believing your race is superior to another.
When you ACT on those thoughts and that act is a crime then you get prosecuted.
We already have laws on the books for that.

Ah, but hate crime legislation addresses a "special" kind of hate - a kind of hate that is different from the general type of hate that typically motivates a physical attack on another person. The special kind of hate that hate crime leglislation addresses is bigotry and racisim.

Why are you opposed to increased penalties for racists who attack victims solely for racist reasons? Can you answer that one? "Because we already have laws for that," you say? No, we don't. We have laws for attacking another person. Usually, when a "general" attack of that nature takes place, there is some justicifaction for it. The victim said or did something that angered the attacker. What is the justification for a hate crime? Merely that the victim was a member of a minority group.

If you don't see someone who attacks another for solely racial reasons as more culpable than someone who attacks someone because of something they said or did, then there is little I can say to you any further on this topic.

 

[Montrovant]

Hate is thought.
Racism is thought. Racism is defined as believing your race is superior to another.
When you ACT on those thoughts and that act is a crime then you get prosecuted.
We already have laws on the books for that.

Ah, but hate crime legislation addresses a "special" kind of hate - a kind of hate that is different from the general type of hate that typically motivates a physical attack on another person. The special kind of hate that hate crime leglislation addresses is bigotry and racisim.

Why are you opposed to increased penalties for racists who attack victims solely for racist reasons? Can you answer that one? "Because we already have laws for that," you say? No, we don't. We have laws for attacking another person. Usually, when a "general" attack of that nature takes place, there is some justicifaction for it. The victim said or did something that angered the attacker. What is the justification for a hate crime? Merely that the victim was a member of a minority group.

If you don't see someone who attacks another for solely racial reasons as more culpable than someone who attacks someone because of something they said or did, then there is little I can say to you any further on this topic.

Ah, but what about the unusual times where there is no justification? Should we also create laws to further punish people who's motivations aren't clear?

What if the justification is totally ridiculous? Say, the thing that angered the attacker is the color of their shirt, or they said they didn't enjoy the weather, etc.? Do those crimes also need new laws to enhance punishment?

 

[Gadawg73]

Hate is thought.
Racism is thought. Racism is defined as believing your race is superior to another.
When you ACT on those thoughts and that act is a crime then you get prosecuted.
We already have laws on the books for that.

Ah, but hate crime legislation addresses a "special" kind of hate - a kind of hate that is different from the general type of hate that typically motivates a physical attack on another person. The special kind of hate that hate crime leglislation addresses is bigotry and racisim.

Why are you opposed to increased penalties for racists who attack victims solely for racist reasons? Can you answer that one? "Because we already have laws for that," you say? No, we don't. We have laws for attacking another person. Usually, when a "general" attack of that nature takes place, there is some justicifaction for it. The victim said or did something that angered the attacker. What is the justification for a hate crime? Merely that the victim was a member of a minority group.

If you don't see someone who attacks another for solely racial reasons as more culpable than someone who attacks someone because of something they said or did, then there is little I can say to you any further on this topic.

Motivation is thought.
Having a motive is not a 2nd crime in a murder case.
Being mad at someone is not a crime. Killing them is. Do we assign another crime to folks that kill just red haired ladies because they hate red haired ladies? That is a hate crime also.
Can of worms.
Racism is thought. I despise those folks but thought is not criminal unless you act on it.

 

[Wingsofwind]

Just thought I'd stop by and point out that hate crimes aren't actual criminal charges, they are modifiers to the sentencing for other criminal charges.

There are some who get a stronger centence for a hate crime when another who did the same 'action' would not get as strong of a centence. It is called a 'Sentencing Enhancement'. Just because one had a spicific thought should not make a defference. The same action was made by both but because of that one 'thought' of one, he gets a stronger centence. This would mean there ARE actual criminal charges for those 'thoughts' if an action is made along with them.

Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act
(28 U.S.C 994)

Congress enacted a federal complement to state hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes in the 1994 crime bill. This provision required the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for crimes in which the victim was selected "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This measure applies, inter alia, to attacks and vandalism which occur in national parks and on federal property.

In May, 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission announced its implementation of a three-level sentencing guidelines increase for hate crimes, as directed by Congress. This amendment took effect on November 1, 1995.

http://www.adl.org/issue_government/hate_crime_sentencing_act.asp

 

[Wingsofwind]

I have been involved in the criminal prosecution of a number of hate crimes. In every case, the person charged had said something as he was committing the crime (racial slurs in every case), that gave a clear indication as to why he was doing it. Yes - the crime was motivated by racial bias, which is a "thought." But in each case, the "thought" was put into ACTION in the form of a criminal act. Hence, it is much more than a mere "thought" crime.

I don't have any trouble seeing an attack on a black person that is motivated by racial bias as being more culpable than an attack on another person (regardless of the color of their skin) merely out of anger. In both cases, the defendant's actions are motivated by anger. In a hate crime, there is more - there is anger that is caused by racial prejudice or bias.

Hence, a hate crime should be punished more severely.

How many of these cases was the victim white?

None. In all of them, the victims were black and the defendants were white. White skinheads, to be exact. I trust you know about the skinheads. Great bunch of guys. They like to torment black people. See themselves as superior to them. Much like another group of people in Germany a long time ago.

FYI - white people cannot, by definition, be protected by hate crime legislation because they are not protected. Why should they be? As mentioned, they are almost always the people who COMMIT hate crimes.
But, by all means, let's defend their right to do so.

This statement would be why I would NEVER want you as my lawyer. YOU yourself are bias to the so called minorities. I would love to see your license taken away due to this very statement.

Just because you see more so called 'hate crimes' being committed by Whites would not mean that Whites are not protected by the same law. Laws are supposed to be made to protect EVERYONE, not just a certain group or groups. If it is then the laws are committing the same 'hate crime' it is meant to stop.

Giving Whites the same protection is NOT defending their right to commit a crime. If a crime is committed toward a White the criminal should be punished the same way a White criminal would. No one no matter what color they are should have any more rights than any one else when it comes to a crime that has been committed. The law is supposed to be color blind, but we see by what YOU have stated, the law is NOT color blind.

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[2].....

....In the United States, racist anti-black bias is the most frequently reported hate crime motivation. African-Americans constitute the second-largest minority group with Hispanics being the largest.[4] Of the nearly 8,000 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1995, the most frequently reported motivation was bias against blacks, almost 3,000,[5] other frequently reported bias motivations were anti-white, Jewish, Gay, Muslim, Asian, Native American, and Hispanic.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Let me ask you this. If a Black is a member of the Black Panthers kills a White man because he was White, would you say that was a 'hate crime'?

 

[Wingsofwind]

FYI - white people cannot, by definition, be protected by hate crime legislation because they are not protected. Why should they be? As mentioned, they are almost always the people who COMMIT hate crimes.

This is the most inane and idiotic point youve made in the entire discussion. And if true hate crime legislation would be a clear violation of the equal protection clause (which i dont necessarily believe it is).

The question which prompted my comment which you have quoted here was: "In how many of the cases you have seen, was the victim white?" I will concede that my response was not all that clear. Let me present it another way:

In all of the hate crime prosecutions in which I have been involved, the victim was black and the perp was white. But the hate crime laws do not mention race. They only mention "racially motivated crimes." As such, if a black person attacked a white person for racial reasons, the black person would be prosecuted same as a white person would if the roles were reversed.

But the REALITY is that hate crimes usually involve whites attacking blacks, not the other way around. So, no - I have not seen any hate crimes where a white person was the victim. Does this mean that hate crime laws are applied unequally? No. It only means that whites commit them more often than blacks.

My experience has been that hate crimes are generally committed by whites against blacks, not the other way around.

Explain to me how hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause when the hate crime laws do not mention race. If a member of ANY race commits a hate crime against any other person for the reasons listed in the hate crime statute, they are subject to prosecution. That doesn't look like a violation of Equal Protection to me.

I find it a little ironic that, when the majority of hate crimes are committed by whites, the whites use that fact to scream that hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause. It flat does not. You cons can scream that it does until hell freezes over - that is not going to change the fact that it does not.

Whites do not use that fact to scream that hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause. White scream that the lawyers who make statements like you did are violation the Equal Protection clause. There is a difference.

Besides, you tried to clarify your statements but rather you are completely flipping on it. You are saying the complete opposite of what you said before. You were saying that Whites can not be protected by the 'hate crime' law but now they are. So which is it, are Whites protected or not?

 

[Wingsofwind]

Why do you feel that hate crimes are not APPLIED equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Hate crimes make no mention of a specific race, creed, etc. Typically, a hate crime involves "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

If a homosexual attacked a heterosexual, in whole or in part because the homosexual held a bias against heterosexuals, the homosexual person would be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Same if a black person attacked a white person because of racial bias.

And by the way - the correct expression to show an illogical or incorrect comparison is, "apples and ELEPHANTS," not "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and elephants are different things entirely.

When one uses that expression, they are saying: "You are comparing two things that are totally different and, therefore, your comparison is specious. You might as well be comparing apples to elephants."

No extra charge for the linguistics lesson.

Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.

We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.

In order to answer your question, we would have to know why you attacked the homosexual on Monday. If you did not know he was a homosexual, and he had just insulted your wife or some such, then you should not receive any harsher punishment for that than for attacking a heterosexual on Tuesday.

However, if your reason for attacking the homosexual on Monday was motivated in whole or in part by a hatred of homosexuals, then you have committed a hate crime and should receive harsher punishment.

Why? First of all, the legislatures that pass hate crime laws do so because they recognize that someone who attacks another person for reasons of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is more culpable than someone who attacks another person for the usual reasons people attack others - anger, jealousy, retribution, etc. A racial attack on another person is considered a "worse crime" than an attack out of anger, jealousy, etc.

Why is a racial attack considered a "worse" crime than a "regular" or "usual" (if you will) attack? Probably one of the main reasons is that a member of certain racial or ethnic group has no control over his or her being in that group. Furthermore, there is no rational reason to support a racial attack. If someone insults your wife or shoots your dog, there is at least a rational reason for attacking them, even if such an attack would still be prosecuted.

Apologies for appearing pedantic. While what I said there is absolutely true, I did put it in there with tongue in cheek. In fact, I hunted around for a winking Smiley but was unable to find one. Sorry.

Attacking someone is wrong no matter what the reason. Someone with a brain would know that attacking someone is against the law and even if you are mad at them for ANY reason you are not to do it. It still does not matter what your 'thoughts' are. Why would someone attack another because of race one day but didn't do it the day before? Could it be bacause the one that was attacked did something to 'provok' the attack? That could be considered an attack based on 'anger' and thus be a "regular" or "usual" attack.

You see, it can all be twisted by anyone to fit any type of situation. So no matter what the motive is for a crime committed, the person should be punished the same as anyone else who would commit the same crime.



And BTW, to get the winking smiley just type ; and ) together and you get .

 

[Wingsofwind]

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 ******* retarded, or you just now Googled it and now know the guy didn't die- proving you're a retard.

He did say 'a sitting Vice President' not 'that sitting Vice President'.