Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.We need them now more than ever since religious/political/racial motivated assaults are way up. Going out to lure a (insert appropriate racial/gender/religous group) person into a beatdown or vandalizing a place of worship or political office are not simple everyday crimes and have the potential to spark civil strife or revenge crimes so they deserve harsher sentences. No one objects to any of the other kinds of laws that lengthen sentences for various circumstances surrounding the crime so why just this?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 were ruled constitutional.
They were ruled constitutional in a case of BLACK on WHITE crime.
That doesn't make it okay. We have laws to punish crimes. We don't need "hate crime laws."
Motive is NOT the crime in itself, nitwit. Motive is simply part of a body of evidence with regards to an actual crime.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.
Making one the ultimate arbiter for all of society wants constitutes "hatred". Only a library could come up with that one.Leniency for hatred. Only conservatives could come up with that one.
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.
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.
You were trying to justify your stupidity by claiming it works equally for black crimes against whites. I asked why that made irrational "hate crimes" ok in your mind? We weren't discussing the hate crimes law, we were discussing your insane rational for it. And of course, you immediately made it about race. The laws are ok because black people will suffer! That's exactly what you just said. Idiot.You think I care about that? I don't want a black person being falsely accused of something any more than I want a white person being falsely accused of something.Hate crime laws were ruled constitutional. They were ruled constitutional in a case of BLACK on WHITE crime.
Why is it always race with you people?
And hate crime laws were never found to be "constitutional". Stop making shit up.
Hate crimes aren't about race?
Are you fucking retarded? Hint, that's a rhetorical question.
Hate crime law is like thought crime law. It's way too presumptuous.
Because most progressives do in fact hate women and they don't want to make the law tougher on themselves. They just want more control over others! You have to start thinking like a progressive Chris!Why isn't rape a "hate crime" against women? Hmm?
Hate crime law is like thought crime law. It's way too presumptuous.
You don't understand how they work.
If there is substantial evidence, testimony, confession, that the pig-fucker racist was motivated by his own ignorant hate, then the statute applies.
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.We need them now more than ever since religious/political/racial motivated assaults are way up. Going out to lure a (insert appropriate racial/gender/religous group) person into a beatdown or vandalizing a place of worship or political office are not simple everyday crimes and have the potential to spark civil strife or revenge crimes so they deserve harsher sentences. No one objects to any of the other kinds of laws that lengthen sentences for various circumstances surrounding the crime so why just this?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 were ruled constitutional.
They were ruled constitutional in a case of BLACK on WHITE crime.
That doesn't make it okay. We have laws to punish crimes. We don't need "hate crime laws."
Second, and much more importantly again, there is absolutely no way for the state to know what the person was thinking when they committed that crime. It's beyond irrational and unconstitutional.
Bingo! The murder laws are already in place to prevent someone from killing. If that doesn't deter them (especially when it can come with capital punishment) then the progressive's silly-ass "hate crime" laws sure as hell won't.Hate crime law is like thought crime law. It's way too presumptuous.
You don't understand how they work.
If there is substantial evidence, testimony, confession, that the pig-fucker racist was motivated by his own ignorant hate, then the statute applies.
So? What is the difference between someone who murders a person because they "felt like it" and someone who murders someone because they are a racist? The end result is the same, and one is not worse than the other.
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.We need them now more than ever since religious/political/racial motivated assaults are way up. Going out to lure a (insert appropriate racial/gender/religous group) person into a beatdown or vandalizing a place of worship or political office are not simple everyday crimes and have the potential to spark civil strife or revenge crimes so they deserve harsher sentences. No one objects to any of the other kinds of laws that lengthen sentences for various circumstances surrounding the crime so why just this?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 were ruled constitutional.
They were ruled constitutional in a case of BLACK on WHITE crime.
That doesn't make it okay. We have laws to punish crimes. We don't need "hate crime laws."
Second, and much more importantly again, there is absolutely no way for the state to know what the person was thinking when they committed that crime. It's beyond irrational and unconstitutional.
It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm. Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.That's an absurd position to hold all the way around. For starters, we already have laws to prevent those crimes. If those existing laws won't prevent the crimes, this certainly won't either.We need them now more than ever since religious/political/racial motivated assaults are way up. Going out to lure a (insert appropriate racial/gender/religous group) person into a beatdown or vandalizing a place of worship or political office are not simple everyday crimes and have the potential to spark civil strife or revenge crimes so they deserve harsher sentences. No one objects to any of the other kinds of laws that lengthen sentences for various circumstances surrounding the crime so why just this?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 were ruled constitutional.
They were ruled constitutional in a case of BLACK on WHITE crime.
That doesn't make it okay. We have laws to punish crimes. We don't need "hate crime laws."
Second, and much more importantly again, there is absolutely no way for the state to know what the person was thinking when they committed that crime. It's beyond irrational and unconstitutional.
Uh...no it's not, genius. A firearm is a physical object which can be unequivocally proven. Thoughts are not physical objets and cannot be proven. How you don't understand the difference between a firearm and thoughts is stupefying.It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm.
It is a big thing. It's a huge thing. Because it is literally impossible to prove. And our judicial system works off of proof. Not speculation. Which is why neither side is allowed to introduce speculation into evidence.Prosecutors consider motive in every crime they try. In most cases motive is an easy thing to ascertain. If some dumbass vandalizes a church or mosque it's more than simple mischief, if some nazi beats a random black, gay or Muslim person the motive is self evident. You act like this is a big thing when in actuality the bar is set pretty high to prove the hate crime enhancement in court and actual convictions are rare.
Ted Bundy hated women. He raped them, tortured them, and killed them. We didn't have "hate crime" laws back then but the system seemed to work just fine. He was captured, tried, convicted, and ultimately executed. All without "hate crime" laws. Gee...imagine that.Why is the motive of hate worse than the motive of anything else when it comes to crime? They are all equally bad.
Lie down, open your mouth, close your eyes and say please. I have a present for youEverything 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.
What does that even mean? Is this your way of coming out of the closet or something?
