Thought Crime Legislation

[ihopehefails]

Hate Crime legislation is nothing more than thought crimes legislation because whenever a crime is committed you punish that person for their action such as beating up a black person because you are a member of the KKK. The crime is not being a KKK member or harboring racist thoughts and motives but assaulting that person but to punish someone beyond the initial crime for what their motives were is punishing those motives themselves.

 

[Diuretic]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

 

[ihopehefails]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

Rich people are more likely to be robbed or stolen from than the poor so should we have a set of laws for crimes against the wealthy and second set of punishments for those who make less money since we have to deter crimes against the rich just like we do for minorities? If we did this wouldn't we be creating two sets of laws for the rich and the poor and since we are doing this for hate crimes are we also not creating two sets of laws for the non-white male and any other group?

So when you beat up someone its a crime but if you beat us someone and you are a racist then its two crimes? One was for beating up someone and the other was for having racist motives behind it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I oppose the modern liberal philosophy bedrocking hate crime legislation, period. The intent of the commission of a crime is hate itself, because no such thing as a victimless crime exists.

 

[alan1]

I oppose the modern liberal philosophy bedrocking hate crime legislation, period. The intent of the commission of a crime is hate itself, because no such thing as a victimless crime exists.

I beg to differ.
There are victimless crimes in my opinion, prostitution comes to mind.
However, crimes that have a victim are all absent of love, thus they are born of hate.

 

[xotoxi]

I oppose the modern liberal philosophy bedrocking hate crime legislation, period. The intent of the commission of a crime is hate itself, because no such thing as a victimless crime exists.

I beg to differ.
There are victimless crimes in my opinion, prostitution comes to mind.
However, crimes that have a victim are all absent of love, thus they are born of hate.

And what about necrophilia?

There is no victim.

 

[alan1]

I oppose the modern liberal philosophy bedrocking hate crime legislation, period. The intent of the commission of a crime is hate itself, because no such thing as a victimless crime exists.

I beg to differ.
There are victimless crimes in my opinion, prostitution comes to mind.
However, crimes that have a victim are all absent of love, thus they are born of hate.

And what about necrophilia?

There is no victim.

Is any rape based upon love?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I am against so-called hate crime laws.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Hate Crimes" Legislation always leads to "Hate Speech" Legislation. This is what has happened in Western Europe and Canada. In my opinion all nations that have so-called "Hate Speech" Laws,no longer have real Freedom of Speech. These types of unnecessary laws always lead to Government abuse and loss of true Freedom & Liberty. Unfortunately our Socialists here are aggressively marching us down that road. Vote out all Socialists,Republican and Democrat!! This is the only logical solution left for Americans who still actually care about our Constitution and Freedom.

 

[editec]

MOTIVE is taken into account in every crime.

Hate crime is no different in that respect.

 

[EriktheRed]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

I don't agree. I support a lot of things the Prez and the Dems are for, but not this.

I think hate crimes legislation will only add an emotional, subjective element to already-existing law that need not be there. I don't see it at all being a deterrence, either. Guys who vandalize or do violence to others based upon their hatred for who they are aren't likely to be "deterred" by this.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In my opinion, Congress has no business passing this kind of legislation per the Constitution.

 

[lawbuff]

In my opinion, Congress has no business passing this kind of legislation per the Constitution.

It is a type of enhancement crime, just as crimes against children or the elderly may have stiffer penalties, stateside here I mean.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In my opinion, Congress has no business passing this kind of legislation per the Constitution.

It is a type of enhancement crime, just as crimes against children or the elderly may have stiffer penalties, stateside here I mean.

I realize that. In my opinion, Congress is usurping power that rightfully belongs to the state(s).

 

[EriktheRed]

In my opinion, Congress has no business passing this kind of legislation per the Constitution.

It is a type of enhancement crime, just as crimes against children or the elderly may have stiffer penalties, stateside here I mean.

I realize that. In my opinion, Congress is usurping power that rightfully belongs to the state(s).

I don't think even the states should be doing this.

 

[Diuretic]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

Rich people are more likely to be robbed or stolen from than the poor so should we have a set of laws for crimes against the wealthy and second set of punishments for those who make less money since we have to deter crimes against the rich just like we do for minorities? If we did this wouldn't we be creating two sets of laws for the rich and the poor and since we are doing this for hate crimes are we also not creating two sets of laws for the non-white male and any other group?

So when you beat up someone its a crime but if you beat us someone and you are a racist then its two crimes? One was for beating up someone and the other was for having racist motives behind it.

Rich or poor they have the same legal protection, it's unlawful to steal their private property. The more someone steals the heavier the sentence. The more violent the robbery, the heavier the sentence. That's the deterrent.

Hate crime legislation, which is just populism, is intended to create a greater deterrent through availability of heavier sentences not so much for the effect of the crime (eg assault) but the propensity of the perpetrator to victimise an indvidual.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It is a type of enhancement crime, just as crimes against children or the elderly may have stiffer penalties, stateside here I mean.

I realize that. In my opinion, Congress is usurping power that rightfully belongs to the state(s).

I don't think even the states should be doing this.

On a personal level I agree. I was offering up my legal opinion as it relates to the Constitution.

 

[lawbuff]

I realize that. In my opinion, Congress is usurping power that rightfully belongs to the state(s).

Here is an outline of such, some are federal elements, some are not.

Civil Rights Division Home Page


Some criminal laws, such as federal murder, MUST have a federal element, period.

 

[Diuretic]

Nope.

It's all about providing stronger deterrence where likelihood of an offence being committed is greater.

I don't agree. I support a lot of things the Prez and the Dems are for, but not this.

I think hate crimes legislation will only add an emotional, subjective element to already-existing law that need not be there. I don't see it at all being a deterrence, either. Guys who vandalize or do violence to others based upon their hatred for who they are aren't likely to be "deterred" by this.

I did say it was populist and I stand by that. Having said that, I think my point is still valid, that a greater potential head sentence is the purported reason for the creation of this legislation. Now my "populism" remark is, I admit, casual cynicism, but in principle I'm not opposed to that greater deterrent being made available.

 

[Diuretic]

Lawbuff made a good point. We see calls for paedophiles who sexually assault children to be executed. We know that there are heavier sentences available for courts to pass on defendants who are convicted of sexual assault against children. Why?