We must eliminate hate crime laws

[P@triot]

By reviewing the evidence in a case right ?

Wrong. Dead wrong. In the history of criminal prosecution, what evidence was ever introduced that indisputably proved what someone was thinking? Why do you think someone cannot testify as to what a defendant was thinking?

 

[ChrisL]

The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

Um....isn't that the point of the punishment in the first place?

The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent. That's why someone goes to prison for 25 years for murder instead of 10. It's a deterrent.

. Don't you want to know why the person killed your family member, and is it something that happens a lot ?? You may want to become an activist who seeks out other victims family members in order to join up with them to make a difference in getting the message out that there is something going on that people need to be notified about.

That is what the news is for.

. You trust the news/media ??

For reporting local crimes to the community? Yes. That's news of course.

 

[P@triot]

So what your saying in affect, is that to many times the black (Al Sharpton) screams hate crime in such a case, and due to the liberal run justice system, you might find yourself indicted for a hate crime just because you were in a fight with the black guy, and then due to media bias etc. it wasn't investigated properly where as the system became biased against you ?? Otherwise people's fears are based upon this notion that there has been to much advantage taken by a rigged system that began favoring in many cases one race over another ?

See...this is why nobody takes you seriously. Since when does "media bias" dictate whether or not an incident is "investigated properly"? The media is not part of the state. The state does not rely on the media for investigations. The fact that you don't know something so basic makes you woefully unqualified for this discussion.

 

[P@triot]

And how exactly does a court know what people are thinking?

. By reviewing the evidence in a case right ?

No matter how much nonsensical drivel you spew, here is the bottom line: it is literally impossible for the state to know what a defendant was thinking. That is why speculation cannot be introduced into a court of law.

So hate crimes not only violate the double jeopardy law, but they contradict existing laws that makes speculation impermissible. Sorry Beagle...you lose. This is cut & dry.

 

[Muhammed]

Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.

Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.

And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.

Hate crime laws are by definition anti-white, anti-male. anti-heterosexual loads of bullshit IMNSHO.

Therefore, ALL of the "hate crime" "activists" can suck my neighbor's dog's butthole every single day until she has puppies and then suck those doggies's brown-eyed sphincters for breakfast every morning for ever and ever.


That's my opinion.

 

[The Professor]

Virtually all crime is based on motive you dinks ! Motive = what people are thinking .

It's the difference tween 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide.

You are incorrect.

I think you are confusing "motive" with "intent". With the exception of hate crimes, motive does not determine the level of a crime nor is it an element of a crime. People have been convicted of all types of murder with no proof of motive. It is possible to convict a man of first degree murder and sentence him to death without proving motive. I practiced all types of law, including criminal law, and I know what I am talking about. Since you may doubt my credentials I have selected excerpts from several links for you.

“Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime.”

“In Civil Law a plaintiff generally need not prove the respondent's motive in acting or failing to act. One notable exception to this general rule is the tort of Malicious Prosecution. In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove, in part, that the respondent was motivated by malice in subjecting the plaintiff to a civil suit. The same applies for a malicious criminal prosecution.”

motive

“Intent is an element of just about every crime, meaning that the prosecution must establish that the defendant intended to commit the criminal act. (Sometimes it’s enough to prove that the defendant didn’t act intentionally, but was reckless or criminally negligent.) But motive usually isn’t a criminal element—the prosecution doesn’t have to prove the defendant had it. Instead, prosecutors try to establish motive in order to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty.”

“Example: Rob is on trial for theft by larceny. (See Theft & Robbery Laws.) The prosecution has to prove that he took someone else’s property while intending to permanently deprive the owner of it. Rob claims that he took Joe’s wallet so he could have it cleaned—then he was going to return it. In order to show that Rob intended to keep the wallet for his own purposes, the prosecution offers evidence that Rob has a drug habit that he’s had trouble financing.”

Is motive required for a criminal offense? | Nolo.com

Even though motive isn't an element of a crime sometimes it is necessary to provide motive in order to convince a jury of a defendants guilt. This is especially true when the evidence is circumstantial. Now I am going to give you my own examples to show that motive does not determine the level of a crime.

EXAMPLE 1: Bob and Bill know each other but are not friends. One day Bob walks into a bar and sits next to Bill. As soon as he does, Bill turns to him and says, “Hows that slut of a wife of yours doing?” Bob immediately pulls a gun out of his pocket and shots Bill through the heart.

EXAMPLE 2: The circumstances are the same in the example above except that Bob leaves the bar and goes home. He thinks about Bill's comment for two days and decides he is going to kill him. Bob goes to the same bar, walks up to Bill and shoots him in the back of the head.

The motive is exactly the same in both cases (Bob killed Bill because Bill insulted his wife); however, the charges will be different. The first example will not result in a first degree murder charge because the act was not premeditated (planned beforehand). The second example would result in a first degree murder charge because Bob had the opportunity to reflect upon what he was going to do. In criminal law different motive can produce the same outcome and identical motives can produce different outcomes.

Conclusion. Motive does not determine the level of a crime, including murder. With the exception of hate crimes motive is not even an element of a crime meaning that the prosecution does not have to prove motive in order to gain a conviction. Generally, only hate crimes require motive.

PS: Before you call people dinks, you should be sure what you say is right.

CAUTION: THE LAW IS COMPLICATED, AND THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE. MY INTENT WAS SIMPLY TO SHOW THAT HATE CRIMES ARE NOT TREATED THE SAME AS OTHER CRIMES. MOTIVE MUST BE ALLEGED TO BRING A HATE CRIME CHARGE AND MUST BE PROVED TO CONVICT. IN OTHER CRIMES MOTIVE IS NOT EVEN AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME.

 

[P@triot]

I salute you The Professor. That was an exceptional post.

 

[beagle9]

By reviewing the evidence in a case right ?

Wrong. Dead wrong. In the history of criminal prosecution, what evidence was ever introduced that indisputably proved what someone was thinking? Why do you think someone cannot testify as to what a defendant was thinking?

. So your saying that after reviewing the evidence, a judge can't make a determination of motive ??

 

[kaz]

It'll happen. Hell depending on how many SC judges Trump is able to nominate, segregation may even be back on the table for you guys. Congratulations.

I don't know what that means, we have that in common.

So, explain how if someone bashes your sorry white ass in with a brick, you're better with that if it wasn't because you're white. Go ahead and explain that

Because if they only bashed me because I'm white, which I'm not, the next guy who wants to bash someone just because they're white will have to think twice because of the extra punishment.

If the existing punishment is not enough of a deterrent, then nothing will be. And if you feel as if the existing punishments are not enough, then make them tougher on ALL perps. A victim is no less harmed by a crime because of the motive.

Simple minds, come up with simple solutions for complex situations.
Do you think if someone is hunting and a shot goes astray and kills someone, they should receive the same punishment as someone breaking into a home, shoots someone and kills them?

What a stupid post.

Chris was saying it doesn't matter what your intent is when you have intent

You come back with a case where there is no intent.

It's not the point, and clearly so. As Michael Jordan said when he blocked a shot, get that shit out of here ...

 

[kaz]

It'll happen. Hell depending on how many SC judges Trump is able to nominate, segregation may even be back on the table for you guys. Congratulations.

I don't know what that means, we have that in common.

So, explain how if someone bashes your sorry white ass in with a brick, you're better with that if it wasn't because you're white. Go ahead and explain that

Because if they only bashed me because I'm white, which I'm not, the next guy who wants to bash someone just because they're white will have to think twice because of the extra punishment.

Yes, obviously that's what they'd be worried about. Damn, I'd bash a white guy in the head, but this time I could be punished.

My Gawd you people are stupid

The point, squirt, is imagine the punishment you think someone should get for bashing someone over the head for being white (or any other color), then apply that to everyone bashing other people over the head.

This just flies over your head over and over ...

 

[beagle9]

And how exactly does a court know what people are thinking?

. By reviewing the evidence in a case right ?

No matter how much nonsensical drivel you spew, here is the bottom line: it is literally impossible for the state to know what a defendant was thinking. That is why speculation cannot be introduced into a court of law.

So hate crimes not only violate the double jeopardy law, but they contradict existing laws that makes speculation impermissible. Sorry Beagle...you lose. This is cut & dry.

. Oh we're having a contest instead of an open discussion of minds here eh ?

 

[beagle9]

So what your saying in affect, is that to many times the black (Al Sharpton) screams hate crime in such a case, and due to the liberal run justice system, you might find yourself indicted for a hate crime just because you were in a fight with the black guy, and then due to media bias etc. it wasn't investigated properly where as the system became biased against you ?? Otherwise people's fears are based upon this notion that there has been to much advantage taken by a rigged system that began favoring in many cases one race over another ?

See...this is why nobody takes you seriously. Since when does "media bias" dictate whether or not an incident is "investigated properly"? The media is not part of the state. The state does not rely on the media for investigations. The fact that you don't know something so basic makes you woefully unqualified for this discussion.

. I notice that you try and turn yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your position here. Don't you recognize it ?

 

[P@triot]

By reviewing the evidence in a case right ?

Wrong. Dead wrong. In the history of criminal prosecution, what evidence was ever introduced that indisputably proved what someone was thinking? Why do you think someone cannot testify as to what a defendant was thinking?

. So your saying that after reviewing the evidence, a judge can't make a determination of motive ??

Exactly. It is literally impossible to know the thoughts and feelings of another human being. Which is why nobody is allowed to testify as to what a defendant was thinking other than the defendant (if they so chose to take the stand).

 

[P@triot]

Oh we're having a contest instead of an open discussion of minds here eh ?

How can you pretend to have an "open discussion of minds" when your position is that the state can read minds?

 

[Borillar]

Hate crime laws were created to make the far left feel good about themselves.

We're mandatory minimum sentences created to make the far right feel good about themselves?

 

[P@triot]

Hate crime laws were created to make the far left feel good about themselves.

We're mandatory minimum sentences created to make the far right feel good about themselves?

Uh...wasn't that created by the bleeding heart liberals as well?

 

[Tilly]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare Americans

'Scaring' people should not be a crime. Dear God, save us from libtards

 

[P@triot]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare Americans

'Scaring' people should not be a crime. Dear God, save us from libtards

You have to remember Tilly - these precious progressive snowflakes can't deal with being "scared". Look at how they are falling apart over being scared of President Donald Trump!

 

[anotherlife]

It's the end of the world! The sky is falling! Trump is going to kill black people!

As long as he doesn't kill the Jews ... that would be a hate crime won't it? . Hehehe.

 

[ChrisL]

It's the end of the world! The sky is falling! Trump is going to kill black people!

As long as he doesn't kill the Jews ... that would be a hate crime won't it? . Hehehe.

He isn't going to kill anyone. Most of these libs are out of their minds.