We must eliminate hate crime laws

[ChrisL]

It's comical how progressives can't comprehend how the government claiming to know what someone was thinking is dangerous. There isn't a government official alive that could possibly know my thoughts. It's impossible. So they introducing fake evidence. If you don't see a problem with the state being allowed to introduce fake evidence, then you really are a special kind of stupid.

It's kind of frightening that people want the government to determine if a person felt "hate" or not when committing a crime. The thought police. The crime is what should be punished, not the thoughts.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Lie down, open your mouth, close your eyes and say please. I have a present for you

What does that even mean? Is this your way of coming out of the closet or something?

LOL, do it retard

Are you going to rape him or something? WTH?

 

[ChrisL]

Damn, people online are fucked up. Lol.

 

[occupied]

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."

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?

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.

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.

We don't need hate crime legislation. A murderer is a murderer.

Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?

 

[ChrisL]

That doesn't make it okay. We have laws to punish crimes. We don't need "hate crime laws."

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?

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.

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.

We don't need hate crime legislation. A murderer is a murderer.

Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?

That is different than trying to read the THOUGHT behind the crime.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

BTW, on the face of it, I agree that we do not need a "hate crimes law". Instead, we need to address the crime, period.

The reason for the hate crimes laws was that white men get away with crimes against women, children, people of color, gays, etc.

That being said, the OP is incorrect (of course). It IS constitutional.

 

[ChrisL]

BTW, on the face of it, I agree that we do not need a "hate crimes law". Instead, we need to address the crime, period.

The reason for the hate crimes laws was that white men get away with crimes against women, children, people of color, gays, etc.

That being said, the OP is incorrect (of course). It IS constitutional.

There is NO hate crime legislation pertaining to women or children.

 

[ChrisL]

If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

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.

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.

We don't need hate crime legislation. A murderer is a murderer.

Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?

That is different than trying to read the THOUGHT behind the crime.

In the case that occupied described, that would be a premeditated crime, or, IMO, should be.

Unless the booze was forced down the throat of the driver.

 

[occupied]

It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm.

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.

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.

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.

Furthermore, where is the value in tacking on "hate crime" if some "Nazi beats some random black guy" (as you say)? Assault is already illegal. Why do we need TWO laws for the same damn crime?!? It's double-jeopardy.

No it isn't, double jeopardy involves being tried a second time for a crime you were formerly acquitted of. A hate crime has to be proven in a court of law, it's not some arbitrary thing. If prosecutors cannot prove the crime was committed out of racial/ethnic/religious/political malice then the conviction is not made.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

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.

We don't need hate crime legislation. A murderer is a murderer.

Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?

That is different than trying to read the THOUGHT behind the crime.

In the case that occupied described, that would be a premeditated crime, or, IMO, should be.

Unless the booze was forced down the throat of the driver.

Okay. I agree with that, but premeditation is also different than giving a person an extra 10 years because they committed a crime and supposedly "hated" while doing it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

BTW, on the face of it, I agree that we do not need a "hate crimes law". Instead, we need to address the crime, period.

The reason for the hate crimes laws was that white men get away with crimes against women, children, people of color, gays, etc.

That being said, the OP is incorrect (of course). It IS constitutional.

There is NO hate crime legislation pertaining to women or children.

I confess I do not know every single law across the country or on federal books so I happily defer to your authoritative expertise. Thanks.

 

[ChrisL]

It's every bit as constitutional as theft<burglary<burglary of an occupied dwelling<burglary in possession of a firearm.

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.

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.

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.

Furthermore, where is the value in tacking on "hate crime" if some "Nazi beats some random black guy" (as you say)? Assault is already illegal. Why do we need TWO laws for the same damn crime?!? It's double-jeopardy.

No it isn't, double jeopardy involves being tried a second time for a crime you were formerly acquitted of. A hate crime has to be proven in a court of law, it's not some arbitrary thing. If prosecutors cannot prove the crime was committed out of racial/ethnic/religious/political malice then the conviction is not made.

It IS an additional charge though. It's really not needed. The laws cover crimes. No need to punish the criminal for his/her thought process during the crime, unless it is something like premeditation (which is obviously not the same thing).

 

[ChrisL]

BTW, on the face of it, I agree that we do not need a "hate crimes law". Instead, we need to address the crime, period.

The reason for the hate crimes laws was that white men get away with crimes against women, children, people of color, gays, etc.

That being said, the OP is incorrect (of course). It IS constitutional.

There is NO hate crime legislation pertaining to women or children.

I confess I do not know every single law across the country or on federal books so I happily defer to your authoritative expertise. Thanks.

There isn't. I'm sure you know that. Lol. A child molester isn't charged with a "hate crime" and neither is a rapist.

 

[P@triot]

Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?

That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.

 

[ChrisL]

So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?

 

[occupied]

If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.

If someone just walked up and assaulted you because you were protesting something they liked it could very well be ruled a hate crime because of the political motivation and the randomness of crime. Not the same as if someone who knew you personally thought you needed a beatdown for some personal reason.

 

[ChrisL]

If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.

If someone just walked up and assaulted you because you were protesting something they liked it could very well be ruled a hate crime because of the political motivation and the randomness of crime. Not the same as if someone who knew you personally thought you needed a beatdown for some personal reason.

Why is it any worse? Explain.

 

[ChrisL]

We should ALL be against the government reading our thoughts.

 

[P@triot]

If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.

If someone just walked up and assaulted you because you were protesting something they liked it could very well be ruled a hate crime because of the political motivation and the randomness of crime. Not the same as if someone who knew you personally thought you needed a beatdown for some personal reason.

Why is it any worse? Explain.

They can't. Because it is irrational. It's not about law and order - it's about using the law to control and imprison anyone that doesn't agree to their ideology.