^ your definition makes no sense, because a crime is not a hate crime merely because of the race of the people involved.

The intent has to be to offend an entire class of people with the crime.

You do know that a crime against a white person can be a hate crime, if the situation calls for it...?

[Edited on October 12, 2009 at 6:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2009 6:07:47 PM

Burning crosses hasn't traditionally been used against white families (that I know of), so it wouldn't carry the same meaning. You can only determine that it's racially motivated (and a hate crime, as a result) by determining the race of the people that live there. If you have to first figure out what race the victim is, and then adjust the punishment accordingly, I don't think that's equal protection under the law.

I realize that you probably disagree. Burning a cross in someone's yard violates a lot of laws, so it's not like people are doing it and getting off with very limited or no punishment. I just don't think crime motivated by hate should carry a greater punishment than a crime motivated by some other stupid reason. I don't make a distinction between the two motivations.

10/12/2009 6:21:19 PM

It doesn't have to be motivated by hate. It is a threat of violence, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why it deserves greater punishment than petty vandalism.

10/13/2009 1:39:02 AM

so, again, if someone goes to the NC GOP headquarters and breaks some windows and spraypaints "all republicans should be killed" all over the place, would that classify as a hate crime in your book?


wait, a hate crime doesn't have to be motivated by hate? what?

[Edited on October 13, 2009 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/13/2009 8:04:10 PM

holy shit disco_stu is simply saying he doesnt think it should be against the law to burn a cross IN YOUR OWN MOTHER FUCKING YARD as it would be freedom of (very distasteful and racist) expression, but not a crime...he said like 4 times "not on someone else's lawn"

10/13/2009 8:21:03 PM

just for argument's sake, should I be able to burn a cross on the public square?

10/13/2009 8:23:30 PM

you could argue that you should only be charged with public arson, endangerment of the public, and many other crimes and violations, but none of them specifically for the message

10/13/2009 8:27:16 PM

Quote :

"wait, a hate crime doesn't have to be motivated by hate? what?"

Like I said originally, I'm not for hate crimes. This thread reached the point where actions which held a clear threat of violence were being compared to petty vandalism. I simply wanted to make the point that threats do not need to come in verbal or specifically written form to be clear and concise beyond a reasonable doubt.

10/13/2009 10:24:35 PM

would they ever prosecute gang killings under hate crimes? no, of course not...

10/13/2009 10:29:57 PM