^ they don't deserve a lesser punishment, the second person deserves a harsher punishment. There is a practical difference between the 2 statements.

If you choose to spin it that way though, the second person "deserves" a lesser sentence, because if someone is compelled to randomly commit a crime, there is no deterrent effect from a sentence harsher than societies established minimum punishment. If someone commits the assault against a gay person though, but is otherwise rational, they would be deterred in knowing they would be punished more harshly for acting on their hate.

10/14/2009 5:54:34 PM

Quote :

"they don't deserve a lesser punishment, the second person deserves a harsher punishment. There is a practical difference between the 2 statements."

There's a difference between the statements, yes, but one statement implies the other. Either way, you're saying that the person motivated by hate deserves a harsher punishment than a person motivated by a desire to beat someone. To me, neither of those motivations is a valid reason, and should be treated in exactly the same way under the law.

Quote :

"If you choose to spin it that way though, the second person "deserves" a lesser sentence, because if someone is compelled to randomly commit a crime, there is no deterrent effect from a sentence harsher than societies established minimum punishment. If someone commits the assault against a gay person though, but is otherwise rational, they would be deterred in knowing they would be punished more harshly for acting on their hate."

There have been a lot of studies that suggest that deterrence is not that effective. Like I've said before, I'm not convinced that anyone that was going to beat someone for being gay is going to stop themselves and say "wait, this is a hate crime, I'll get punished more harshly for this!" No one ever expects to get caught. The criminal isn't making a rational decision in the first place.

So, I think random crimes and hate crimes should get the harshest penalty for that specific type of crime (murder, assault, whatever).

10/14/2009 6:25:12 PM

Quote :

"There have been a lot of studies that suggest that deterrence is not that effective. Like I've said before, I'm not convinced that anyone that was going to beat someone for being gay is going to stop themselves and say "wait, this is a hate crime, I'll get punished more harshly for this!" No one ever expects to get caught. The criminal isn't making a rational decision in the first place. "

If your issue with hate crimes is that the supposed deterrent may not exist (im guessing this is not your core issue), then I suppose you’re also against the death penalty? We as a society value vengeance too, which is implicit in our legal system, and “extra” punishment for “hate” is a factor.

It also sends a message to other haters that they need to keep their hate in check. People that would never have committed a crime, but otherwise share the same racist/sexist/bigoted ideology are reminded to continually examine their beliefs.

Quote :

"So, I think random crimes and hate crimes should get the harshest penalty for that specific type of crime (murder, assault, whatever). "

This doesn’t work in the real world though. If I have a seizure while driving and run over someone, should I get punished the same as someone who gets drunk and runs over someone? Or someone who intentionally runs over someone?

Should that guy at UNC who ran over those people be given a harsher sentence because he was a “terrorist” or should be charged with whatever crime you’d normally get charged with for running people over?

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2009 7:00:31 PM

Quote :

"racism in its purest form. prejudging someone based on the color of their skin."

no, that would be prejudice. learn the difference.

Quote :

"It also sends a message to other haters that they need to keep their hate in check."

How does it do that if you have already ceded that there may be no deterrent effect?

Quote :

"People that would never have committed a crime, but otherwise share the same racist/sexist/bigoted ideology are reminded to continually examine their beliefs."

Our gov't should not explicitly being telling what to fucking believe, in any circumstance. Whether it's about religion, guns, sexual positions, or anything. It's not the gov't's job, and that was EXPLICITLY laid out in the 1st Amendment. Thank you, though, for finally admitting the true purpose behind such horrible legislation

Quote :

"Should that guy at UNC who ran over those people be given a harsher sentence because he was a “terrorist” or should be charged with whatever crime you’d normally get charged with for running people over?"

Arguably, yes. They should be treated the same.

10/14/2009 8:06:06 PM

Quote :

"This doesn’t work in the real world though. If I have a seizure while driving and run over someone, should I get punished the same as someone who gets drunk and runs over someone? Or someone who intentionally runs over someone?"

You should know that these two things aren't even comparable in the context of this argument.

You can't compare a case of manslaughter or accidental death (or whatever having a seizure while driving would be, as I honestly have no idea... I'd be amazed if a person were charged for it at all) with some degree of murder or a drunk driving incident and make any sort of point out of it. Besides that, in both of those cases, no one was intending to kill any other person, and neither was premeditated. It has no bearing on an argument about hate crimes.


If you want to be relevant to the discussion instead of contributing to the standard soap-box dick-wagging that usually goes on here, take 1st degree murder (or something like vandalism, theft, whatever) motivated by some malicious desire to hurt someone, and compare it with 1st degree murder (or vandalism/theft/whatever) motivated by hatred. In both of these situations, the criminal was intending to harm another person and did so. They have different motivations, but the same intent and the same action. This is where most of the anti-hate-crime people on TSB seem to be coming from, and it's what you (and others) seem to be failing to grasp -- they think that equal intents and actions ("actions" here also encompasses the idea of premeditation vs heat-of-the-moment crimes) should share equal punishments, regardless of motivation.

Now, in fairness, one *could* make the point that if someone has a clear intent to frighten or intimidate others in the particular community that they hate, then that would warrant additional punishment. For whatever reason the rhetoric used to describe this is a "hate crime", when really in my opinion it should (if legally possible, anyway) be interpreted as a form of harassment (against a large group of people) or some similar sort of thing (I'm not sure what it would be called. I'm no lawyer. For all I know, it classifies as a form of assault... regardless of what it's called, I'm sure there's something applicable to the situation).

So... let's say some asshole stabs a black man who just moved in near him, and paints "niggers get the fuck out" on the door of that person's house (for the sake of argument, it can be a gay man, a white man, an asian woman... the type of person has no relevance to the situation besides that they are being targeted through no fault of their own). Instead of charging him with a "hate crime", just stick a big harassment (or assault, or whatever) charge onto the end of his list (which already would include murder/attempted murder and vandalism). Then, you're not punishing for "thought crimes", or "hate", or even using it as much of a deterrent... you're just adding something quantifiable that is already considered a crime anyway, because it can be reasonably established that this person did commit said crime against whatever group.

Do I think we should be sensationalizing it and passing legislation to designate various things as "hate crimes"? Of course not. That's just plain fucking stupid, and harms everyone even attempting to involve themselves in a rational discussion about it.



*Side note: Additionally, the example I mentioned above could be reasonably applicable to any group, not just sexual orientation/race/religion/commonly protected groups. Someone could spraypaint "I"m going to kill all you motherfuckers living on Oak Street", and they could similarly be charged for targeting/"terrorizing" a group (people living on Oak Street).

**Side side note: Don't expect me to try and rebut any arguments made against the stuff I just said. I barely check TSB at all lately.

***Side side side note: Once again, semantics don't matter. There's a lot of shit that I don't know, by virtue of not having ever studied law. If crime X is committed, it doesn't matter what set of letters we use to name it in the legal system, it is still crime X and has the punishments associated with crime X, whatever it's called. ...I'm just trying to preemptively strike at any complete derailment of the topic at hand, here. I know how TSB gets sometimes most of the time.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 12:34:01 AM

Quote :

"It also sends a message to other haters that they need to keep their hate in check. People that would never have committed a crime, but otherwise share the same racist/sexist/bigoted ideology are reminded to continually examine their beliefs."

Ding ding ding! Hate crime legislation is thoughtcrime bullshit. Quit thinking bad thoughts you racist/sexist/bigoted assholes!

Quote :

"This distinction already exists with manslaughter, murder 1, murder 2, etc. charges."

Oh and we covered this in the other thread already. Premeditation and intent are fine to punish more harshly. Motivation is not.

V

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 9:15 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 8:59:29 AM

Quote :

"Ding ding ding! Hate crime legislation is thoughtcrime bullshit. Quit thinking bad thoughts you racist/sexist/bigoted assholes!"

This is a good thing.

10/15/2009 9:13:10 AM

sounds like nothing really, but might as well post it

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/1003328.html

10/15/2009 10:28:40 PM

Don't you just love how it's already labeled a hate crime just because of the victim? they don't even know *WHO* the perpetrators were, let alone their motivation.

WEEEEE! Oh, and God, you're fucking crazy. I'm glad I don't live in a country founded by people that think like you.

10/15/2009 11:01:56 PM

Quote :

"The bill now says that it's OK to impinge on people's First Amendment freedoms even if they are not conspiring to commit a violent crime or deliberately inciting one, as long as the burden "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.""

Well, Dog must think this is great. Now the prosecutors can go after all those pinko anti-war protesters. Afterall, it is just a bunch of haters protesting in the furtherance of killing Americans. Now they can be arrested and put in jail, safely out of the reach of reporters, "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" to invade Iran.

10/16/2009 1:31:52 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/10/20/snow.latino.hate.crime.cnn

interesting. could help those of you that don't understand the fear it instills into the community.

10/22/2009 12:58:02 AM

Quote :

"interesting. could help those of you that don't understand the fear it instills into the community."

Why do you assume we don't understand?

Is it because in your world, the only reason someone could disagree with you is ignorance? We just don't "understand" and we haven't been properly informed, because if we did we would certainly agree with you, right?

If I could just be properly acquainted with the depth of feelings that people have when such crime happens, then surely I would change my mind. Because, after all, one's principles about the law ought to be derived from how crime makes us (or some other group) feel.

Maybe, just maybe, we believe the law ought to be, as much as possible, based on objective phenomena - what damage was done to the victim? What rights of the victim were violated, and how? Not...hmmm, how much fear was instilled in various demographic groups related to the victim?

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 2:00 AM. Reason : a]

10/22/2009 1:59:47 AM

I'm confused. There seem to be two takes on this hate crime business.

1. I don't like black people so I'm going to beat up this black man.
2. I don't like black people so I'm going to beat up this black man with the intent of frightening other black people.

The second case clearly involves a second crime beyond the beating--attempting to terrorize or incite fear in a community, and people should be charged with that second crime.

In the first case, I thought motive was already a mitigating or aggravating factor. Kill your wife cause she cheats? Mitigating. Kill your wife for the insurance money? Aggravating. Beat up a black man cause he threatens you? Mitigating. Beat up a black man cause he's black? Aggravating. Now, is this not how it was playing out? Was there a prosecutorial deficit where haters weren't getting what they deserved? (I could definitely see this being the case.)


I dunno, this type of law is normally the kind of thing I'd be all for, but it just seems like another one of those bullshit appeasements. Hey, everybody, instead of changing the institutions that perpetuate disparity, we're gonna pass a controversial policy that'll let us nail some dumb drunk vandals as hateful terrorists!!!

But, honestly, I don't care all that much. I'd be pretty pissed off if my kid had to do five years of probation because he vandalized the wrong building. BUT, as long as we're busting men who drag people behind their trucks or jump them in the street and kick their teeth in, I can't say I've got a real problem with it. I'm not worried about some slippery slope where the feds are gonna haul me in for having a bad thought or saying something hateful...

10/22/2009 2:18:08 AM

Quote :

"I don't like black people so I'm going to beat up this black man with the intent of frightening other black people."

One of my largest problem with hate crime legislation is WHO DETERMINES WHETHER THE OFFENDER HAD THIS INTENT? How do you know? Just because the offender's skin is a different color doesn't mean that his intention was to terrorize other people. Fuck, even if someone hates another person because the color of their skin and commits a crime against them because of that hate does not mean that he was trying to scare all black people.

Quote :

"In the first case, I thought motive was already a mitigating or aggravating factor. Kill your wife cause she cheats? Mitigating. Kill your wife for the insurance money? Aggravating. Beat up a black man cause he threatens you? Mitigating. Beat up a black man cause he's black? Aggravating. Now, is this not how it was playing out? Was there a prosecutorial deficit where haters weren't getting what they deserved? (I could definitely see this being the case.)"

In all of these cases motive is not the delineating factor; it's premeditation. Kill your wife because she cheats? You're not going to get off easy if you plan the murder or hire someone else to do it. You're only going to get a lesser sentence if you kill her in the heat of the moment, and maybe not even then.

The "why" you commit crimes should never ever be punished because then the government is telling you what you can and cannot think. We should never be punished for being greedy or racist or hateful, only for committing crimes.

10/22/2009 9:14:20 AM

There doesn't need to be a motive to scare people. The justification for hate-crime laws isn't in the motive, it's in the effects of the crime. A race-based crime has different consequences for a community than a crime that isn't race-based.

We have a system of justice where the severity of the punishment is relative to the severity of the crime. It can be argued that a race-based crime has more severe consequences. Thus, the punishment should be more severe.


A person who commits a crime with the specific intent of scaring people is committing terrorism.

10/22/2009 10:09:57 AM

Quote :

"A race-based crime has different consequences for a community than a crime that isn't race-based. "

A black man assaults a white man.

Given no other information, how do you determine whether it was a hate crime or terrorism? If a group of concerned white mothers comes forward and says that they were unnerved by the act, is the black man a terrorist? Do you think the black man will admit that he was trying to terrorize the entire white community if it means his assault charge gets turned into terrorism?

For that matter, why do race-based crimes affect communities more than non-race based crimes? White person gets murdered and left in the street or black person gets murdered and left in the street. Which has a worse impact for the community at large? Does it matter if the murderer was a different color of skin?

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2009 10:32:12 AM

Quote :

"BUT, as long as we're busting men who drag people behind their trucks or jump them in the street and kick their teeth in, I can't say I've got a real problem with it."

What about the Jena 6?

Quote :

"It can be argued that a race-based crime has more severe consequences. "

Maybe it can be. it hasn't been successfully done, yet.

10/22/2009 10:45:03 AM

I don't know the qualifier for race-based crimes. The point I was making was consequences are affected by the motive (when the motive is known). I don't support hate-crime laws because I don't think motive is always easy to flush out.

But motives DO affect the consequences of a crime.

10/22/2009 10:55:00 AM

Quote :

"In all of these cases motive is not the delineating factor; it's premeditation. Kill your wife because she cheats? You're not going to get off easy if you plan the murder or hire someone else to do it. You're only going to get a lesser sentence if you kill her in the heat of the moment, and maybe not even then. The "why" you commit crimes should never ever be punished because then the government is telling you what you can and cannot think. We should never be punished for being greedy or racist or hateful, only for committing crimes."

So you're telling me that motive has no bearing on sentencing or anything like that?

That's crazy!




If this is the case, then I want at least one hate crime law on the books at all times. I'm willing to get outraged if it gets applied unfairly, but I'll tell you what, it's absolutely absurd that, in a nation like ours with its horrific history of hate, we wouldn't be extra sensitive towards hate-based crimes.

Shit, I'll even add the phrase that always backfires: zero tolerance.

10/22/2009 12:27:35 PM

Pre-meditation: whether you rationally calculated the consequences of your actions and committed the crime anyay.
Intent: whether you meant to commit the crime.
Motive: why you commited the crime.

If we punish more harshly based on motive, then that is seriously fucked up. What message are you trying to send?
Punish based on pre-medition: "Don't purposefully ignore our laws and spend time planning how to purposefully ignore our laws. Laws are what keep our society in an ordered state."
Punish based on intent: "Don't intentionally break laws. It's not as bad if you unintentionally break laws, but it's still a problem, so try not to do that either."
Punish based on motive: "Don't think bad thoughts."

There is already punishment in place for aggravated assault, attempted murder, and murder. What message are you sending to the perpetrators of these crimes by punishing them on their motive? I've yet to get an answer to this question in any of the threads regarding hate crimes.

In terms of the purpose of punishment (why do we punish people for committing crimes), what is the goal of punishing people more harshly for "hate crimes"?

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2009 1:48:31 PM

Quote :

"There is already punishment in place for aggravated assault, attempted murder, and murder. What message are you sending to the perpetrators of these crimes by punishing them on their motive? I've yet to get an answer to this question in any of the threads regarding hate crimes. In terms of the purpose of punishment (why do we punish people for committing crimes), what is the goal of punishing people more harshly for "hate crimes"?"

That's easy. It's a law that sends a message about our values as a society.

A lot of our laws work that way...for instance, nobody thinks giving drug dealers 5 years in prison actually accomplishes anything besides sending the message that drugs are bad and we're gonna be tough on them!! Drugs still a problem? Voting public still concerned? Let's make it 15 years and really send the message that we're serious this time!

Gangs are bad! So let's pass a law that says any crime committed in furtherance of gang activity gets extra punishment. And let's word it loosely so basically any crime a gang member commits, regardless of whether or not it really furthers the goals of the gang, can be met with extra punishment! Send the message that gangs are bad!

This hate crime shit is just another one of those laws. And given our nation's history, it's not the worst one we've come up with yet.

10/22/2009 2:30:15 PM

So following that logic, the idea is in a nutshell:

Hate is bad.

?

That's my problem. I think you should be allowed to hate whomever the fuck you want and not be dissuaded from hating by the government or "the voting public". Maybe I should just enhance my calm.

10/22/2009 2:39:01 PM

^You can hate, hate, hate all day long. But you can't commit a crime with that hate without facing extra punishment.

Just like you can belong to a gang and represent like a motherfucker, but you can't commit a crime with that gang without facing extra punishment.


If you're objecting to the workings of the entire criminal justice system and law-making and whatnot, you've got a good point. But you can't cherry pick hate crimes...you've gotta come strong against the whole bullshit system.

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ?]

10/22/2009 2:55:36 PM

What you're saying is that:
the goal of stricter penalties for drug violations is to eliminate drugs.
the goal of stricter penalties for gang-related crimes is to eliminate gangs.
the goal of stricter penalties for hate-crimes is to eliminate hate.

*for the record, the drug war is bullshit too*

How can you reconcile "You can hate hate hate all day long" with "our government is specifically trying to eliminate hate"?

Quote :

"But you can't commit a crime with that hate without facing extra punishment."

That assault wouldn't have been as bad if you didn't hate black people.

10/22/2009 3:22:28 PM

Then, Bridget, you have not read the law:

Quote :

"The bill now says that it's OK to impinge on people's First Amendment freedoms even if they are not conspiring to commit a violent crime or deliberately inciting one, as long as the burden "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."...the new law could be combined with the federal "aiding and abetting" statute to justify prosecuting people whose speech allegedly influenced others to commit hate crimes, even when that result was unintended. For example, a minister who inveighs against homosexuality could be prosecuted if a member of his congregation assaults gay people. "

The bill is here:http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr2647cr_txt.pdf
the "compelling governmental interest" exception is on page 1488

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/22/2009 3:33:48 PM

I think that's the most frightening phrase in our entire system. Shivers go up my spine whenever I see "compelling governmental interest" as a justification for anything.

10/22/2009 3:38:37 PM

^^We're not talking about this specific law. The recent discussion has clearly been about the notion of hate crimes in general.


^^^The goal isn't to eliminate those things. I doubt lawmakers are that ambitious.

The goal is to express that we think those things are bad, and they are contrary to our values. It's politics...no politician can go wrong by being "tough on crime."


Anyway, we can't arrest people for hating. Freedom of speech kinda gets in the way. But we can pass hate crime laws that show that we believe crimes motivated by hate are more heinous and deserving of more punishment than other crimes.

It's all made-up bullshit. There's no overarching philosophy that dictates how we address the things that society deems are bad. I suspect you've already thought a lot about this so I really shouldn't direct this at you, but other people, perhaps folks in this thread, should reconsider everything if they insist on maintaining that this hate crime business is some brand new, wildly egregious law. It seems to line up with the rest of the system. The only thing new about it is that it gives a nod to minorities like blacks, Jews, and homosexuals...I wonder why people would all of a sudden have a problem with this type of legislation...hmmm...

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM. Reason : sss]

10/22/2009 3:44:58 PM

^^^Okay, fine, I read the bit about the law. And, yeah, I'm still all for it. Nobody is gonna go after ministers so you can tell your spines to stop shivering.

But if you really want to get your shiver on, you can take a gander at the hate-based websites that implicitly encourage violence against others and turn profits off hate-based merchandise, but then they throw up their hands and say, "It's all just freedom of speech. We never meant for anything to happen!"

Yeah, I support lawmakers in their attempt to bust the guys that create, breed, and profit off hate, and then deny any part in the resulting mess.


Again, this is kind of how our laws work. I don't know why y'all are so scared of the slippery slope. Spine shivering? Really?




Wait. I'm trying to read the "compelling government interest" portion, and there doesn't appear to be a page 1488? What am I missing?

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ?]

10/22/2009 4:02:15 PM

That's it!

That's really the purpose of criminalizing anything: to show the populace what we as a society consider bad (ultimately what is contrary to our society functioning). I think it's ok to say that gangs are bad. Gangs are organizations for the sole purpose of committing crimes. Hate is in and of itself not what causes the crime.

If the only reason for hate-crime laws was to eliminate the crime, then we'd also have greed-crime laws, lust-crime laws, jealousy-crime laws, i'm-too-poor-to-feed-my-family-crime laws. Hate-crime laws are adjudicating hatred.

I think it's not ok to say that hate is bad. I think it's not ok to say that crimes based on hate are worse than other crimes because that's basically saying that hate is bad. This isn't a slippery slope argument. The government is already saying "hate is bad". We're already here.

10/22/2009 4:10:37 PM

^I'm confused by the distinction between "we" and the "populace."

The populace determines what is considered bad.

And the people think hate is bad.


So your problem appears to be with the people (the majority).

10/22/2009 4:14:46 PM

Seriously, LoneSnark, where are you getting your info?

We've got one link that says the bill broadens the language to include gays.

And then your assertion that it does something else entirely, except I can't find what you're saying in your link.

Your link has no page 1488.

The first link in this thread says this:

Quote :

"Democrats, however, noted that the bill would specifically bar prosecution based on an individual’s expression of “racial, religious, political or other beliefs.” It also states that nothing in the measure should be “construed to diminish any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”"

So where are you coming from?

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 4:58 PM. Reason : ?]

10/22/2009 4:37:49 PM

In our new modern judicial system (post passing of the hate crime bill)

Criminal A who randomly slaughters 3 victims and rapes their dead bodies is just a petty run of the mill murderer and not as BAD as Criminal B who is some ignorant white-trash redneck who gets into an argument with black guy at a party, calls him a NIGGER, and stabs to death while yelling "die coon die".

Since Criminal B yelled racial slurs the DA can append the murder as a Hate Crime since the victim was black and now Criminal B has the extra level of punishment over criminal A.

10/22/2009 6:02:04 PM

Quote :

""Democrats, however, noted that the bill would specifically bar prosecution based on an individual’s expression of “racial, religious, political or other beliefs.” It also states that nothing in the measure should be “construed to diminish any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”""

And earlier this century, we had laws specifically stating that segregated schools would be separate but equal. Easier to just not allow the hate law in the first place than to try to find the difference between a white guy mugging a black guy, and a white guy mugging a black guy while wearing a confederate flag t-shirt.

Also, if during a Nazi march through <town>, a citizen of said town assaults a marcher because he hates Nazi's and doesn't think they should be allowed to march, is that a hate crime?

10/22/2009 6:58:48 PM

Quote :

"The populace determines what is considered bad. And the people think hate is bad."

So, if the populace thought that homosexuals were bad, you would be A-OK with a law that allowed for the prosecution and imprisonment of any homosexual?

10/22/2009 8:24:57 PM

^A-OK? Of course not.

Just like Im not A-OK with all the other heinous thing the majority of people have supported in the past.

In those instances, the minority protests and pushes as hard as they can possibly push to change the minds of the majority (or at least the politicians).


So good luck to you all in your fight for hate.

10/22/2009 9:52:56 PM

Quote :

"So good luck to you all in your fight for hate."

And to you in your crusade to squelch both freedom of expression, association, and equal protection of the laws.

10/22/2009 10:06:36 PM

I think it would be really cool if we could find some examples of this law gone awry.

It seems like it would be really hard to actually apply the hate crime law cause you've gotta prove it.

If it turns out that it's only been successfully applied to a few obvious and outrageous cases, would you guys still feel threatened by it?

10/22/2009 10:25:45 PM

Isn't that the same argument pro-PATRIOT act people make?

Just saying; those are some mighty strange bedfellows you're inviting in.

10/22/2009 10:30:20 PM

^Nah, I'm not that passionate about this.

It's just we got a lot of nasty history with hate, and it kinda weirds me out to see folks come out against this law. Like, you gotta admit that, while a lot of people on here are relatively sophisticated, most of the contention over this law elsewhere is coming from people who've got some unchecked racism/homophobia/bigotry in their gut. It's the perfect policy for conservatives to trot out and get their race bait on.

Here's a good story that happened in Raleigh...

Dude lost it on a black bus driver outside his kid's school:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=5893325

He was not convicted of a hate crime:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2310821/

He got fired, then he sued and got paid, and then he may have gotten his job back:

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3180481/


Meh, kind of interesting.

10/22/2009 10:43:54 PM

Quote :

"most of the contention over this law elsewhere is coming from people who've got some unchecked racism/homophobia/bigotry in their gut."

How much must it suck to go through life assuming everyone else is a closet bigot?

10/22/2009 10:47:36 PM

^I don't think you guys are, but yeah, I'm suspicious of people who don't have any interest in law or politics who all of the sudden pop out against hate crime laws. Given our history, yeah, just a little fucking suspicious over here.


And, holy shit, homeless people!

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/hatecrimes.html

I forgot about homeless people!


Sorry, guys, the more I read about hate crime legislation, the more I'm loving every bit of it.

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM. Reason : LOVIN' IT!]

10/22/2009 10:49:45 PM

Quote :

"Nah, I'm not that passionate about this."

You may not be, but your argument could be used almost word-for-word for legislation that I could only assume you oppose. I could be wrong, however.

But your lack of passion isn't exactly conveyed when your next line is:

Quote :

"It's just we got a lot of nasty history with hate, and it kinda weirds me out to see folks come out against this law. Like, you gotta admit that, while a lot of people on here are relatively sophisticated, most of the contention over this law elsewhere is coming from people who've got some unchecked racism/homophobia/bigotry in their gut. It's the perfect policy for conservatives to trot out and get their race bait on."

That's an awfully paranoid attitude for someone who says they lack zeal for the matter. Do all people who advocate to protect unpopular speech now advocate the same? Protecting the right of neo-Nazis to spew forth their idiotic message of hate means one is a neo-Nazi now? Does advocating for equal treatment of the laws now mean one has to be sympathetic to everyone the laws protect? Or does this only work one way?

10/22/2009 10:54:50 PM

Quote :

"Just like Im not A-OK with all the other heinous thing the majority of people have supported in the past. In those instances, the minority protests and pushes as hard as they can possibly push to change the minds of the majority (or at least the politicians)."

So then what you are saying is that you are happy to go with what the people want, as long as you like it, too. nice hypocrisy there, baby

10/22/2009 11:14:42 PM

^I was just giving y'all a lesson in the way the law worked and letting you know this hate crime thing isn't some new way doing things. I'm not saying it's right that it works that way.

Quote :

"Do all people who advocate to protect unpopular speech now advocate the same?"

No.

Quote :

"Protecting the right of neo-Nazis to spew forth their idiotic message of hate means one is a neo-Nazi now?"

No. I'm all for free speech, but I'm not all for beating up gay people because they're gay.

And I think I'm comfortable making a point to distinguish where somebody beats up somebody because they're gay.

Quote :

"Does advocating for equal treatment of the laws now mean one has to be sympathetic to everyone the laws protect? Or does this only work one way?"

No, the bit about people with the bigotry in the guts wasn't meant to imply that people sympathize with hate criminals.

They more likely just don't like the idea of black people or homosexuals getting what they perceive to be special treatment even if a need is there.

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 11:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2009 11:15:47 PM

you were "giving us a lesson?" you were practically saying it was a good thing that it worked that way. what a cop-out

Quote :

"They more likely just don't like the idea of black people or homosexuals getting what they perceive to be special treatment even if a need is there."

there is NEVER a need to give people "special treatment" when it comes to justice. That's kind of the whole fucking point of "equal treatment under the law," you know

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 11:18 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2009 11:17:54 PM

Quote :

"No. I'm all for free speech, but I'm not all for beating up gay people because they're gay."

Nor, from what I can tell, is anyone else who has posted in this thread.

Quote :

"And I think I'm comfortable making a point to distinguish where somebody beats up somebody because they're gay."

I don't think carving out exceptions for extra-special scrutiny is a good thing for the law, particularly because it comes dangerously close to criminalizing thought, particularly in the way the law is worded. I think anyone who beats up anyone should swiftly face the wrath of the law; it shouldn't matter who or why you did it.

Quote :

"No, the bit about people with the bigotry in the guts wasn't meant to imply that people sympathize with hate criminals."

It certainly sounded like it, when you pretty much make the claim that much of the opposition is simply a cover for prejudice. Care to wind that one back a little bit?

Quote :

"They more likely just don't like the idea of black people or homosexuals getting what they perceive to be special treatment even if a need is there."

You do realize that it's entirely plausible to be opposed to such a measure for reasons other than being concerned about "special treatment" for "teh blacks and teh gays", right? For reasons other than thinly concealed prejudice?

Look, here's my counter-proposal for you: let's take your premise that the need for hate crimes legislation is completely a given (already contentious). It then makes the assumption that hate crimes are widespread and deserving of particular attention. Wouldn't it make more sense then to devote law enforcement resources to investigating crimes determined to be motivated by hate, to therefore investigate and intervene in factors which may be helping to engender such crimes?

If the need for such protections is as great as you say, it seems like the real need then is the law enforcement resources to investigate such crimes, particularly if they are occurring in an organized/conspiratorial nature.

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 11:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2009 11:31:23 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: you were practically saying it was a good thing that it worked that way. what a cop-out"

I've expressed dissatisfaction with the arbitrary nature of the law.

Quote :

"aaronburro: there is NEVER a need to give people "special treatment" when it comes to justice. That's kind of the whole fucking point of "equal treatment under the law," you know"

As a white, Christian? male, you are protected by hate crimes legislation as well! Everybody is!

However, we gotta be honest and admit that the need for this law applies to some people more than others. But that's just cause white, Christian males are less likely to be victims of hate crimes.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Nor, from what I can tell, is anyone else who has posted in this thread."

I never said anyone else in this thread was all for it, but I guess you never said I said anyone else was all for it.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: I don't think carving out exceptions for extra-special scrutiny is a good thing for the law, particularly because it comes dangerously close to criminalizing thought, particularly in the way the law is worded. I think anyone who beats up anyone should swiftly face the wrath of the law; it shouldn't matter who or why you did it."

I don't think it will criminalize thought.

And I think it should matter.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: It certainly sounded like it, when you pretty much make the claim that much of the opposition is simply a cover for prejudice. Care to wind that one back a little bit?"

I could wind it back, or I could repost what I already said:

They more likely just don't like the idea of black people or homosexuals getting what they perceive to be special treatment even if a need is there. (Edited so aaronburro won't get all uppity)

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: You do realize that it's entirely plausible to be opposed to such a measure for reasons other than being concerned about "special treatment" for "teh blacks and teh gays", right? For reasons other than thinly concealed prejudice?"

Absolutely. In fact, I've already pointed out that I do not believe the people in this thread are opposed based on bigotry.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Look, here's my counter-proposal for you: let's take your premise that the need for hate crimes legislation is completely a given (already contentious). It then makes the assumption that hate crimes are widespread and deserving of particular attention. Wouldn't it make more sense then to devote law enforcement resources to investigating crimes determined to be motivated by hate, to therefore investigate and intervene in factors which may be helping to engender such crimes? If the need for such protections is as great as you say, it seems like the real need then is the law enforcement resources to investigate such crimes, particularly if they are occurring in an organized/conspiratorial nature."

The FBI already does this.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 12:16 AM. Reason : I've gotta go to bed and get a life. Goodnight, guys.]

10/23/2009 12:12:01 AM

Quote :

"As a white, Christian? male, you are protected by hate crimes legislation as well! Everybody is!"

false. I am NOT in a protected class.

Quote :

"However, we gotta be honest and admit that the need for this law applies to some people more than others."

So, we just have to be honest and admit that "equal protection under the law" is totally unnecessary, right? Fuck that shit.

Quote :

"I don't think it will criminalize thought."

It already does. it makes the hate, itself, a punishable offense. Chaos has already explained how beautifully.

Quote :

"The FBI already does this."

Then it either must no longer be a problem, or the FBI is not doing a good enough job. And this law would do nothing to rectify the latter. Rather, as Chaos said, more aggressive enforcement of existing law would do so. Wow, what a crazy idea...

10/23/2009 12:22:25 AM

Quote :

"If I were robbed or beaten up in that kind of situation...would you press it as a hate crime? By your own definition, it puts fear into an entire group of people (whites) to let them know they are not free to travel to certain areas safely. If I were assaulted in such an area, would the perpetrator deserve a greater penalty for having placed on all white people a fear of approaching that community and neighborhood? No. He deserves the penalty for assault. How a crime makes non-victims feel is not relevant to its prosecution or punishment. This is all hippy bullshit."

If you were assaulted because you are white, then it would be a hate crime, and it would be up to your lawyer to make sure it was prosecuted as such.

Quote :

"false. I am NOT in a protected class."

If someone commits a crime against you because of your race, it would be a hate crime.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2009 6:10:56 PM

Quote :

"If you were assaulted because you are white, then it would be a hate crime, and it would be up to your lawyer to make sure it was prosecuted as such."

I would inform my lawyer and the prosecutor that I, the victim, do not want it prosecuted as a hate crime.

BTW, I was well aware that the law would allow for a crime against a white person to be prosecuted that way. I wasn't asking whether the law leaves that possibility open. Of course it does.

I asked that question to probe one individual's consistency, regarding how he would view a particular case in light of others.

10/27/2009 8:05:38 PM