Hate Crime Laws are Stupid
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Why bother with a new law? Why call it "hate crimes law"?
Why not just tell the local authorities to investigate all crimes? And how can a local law enforcement authority refuse to investigate a crime?
And, yes, Bells, I have a major problem with the feds trying to involve themselves into local jurisdictions. But if that's what it is, why not just call it something like "Feds Will Take Over Now" law? Why have local authorities at all?
Baron Max
Originally Posted by Baron Max: "But "hate crimes" designations are NOT applied equally. In fact, they're so blatantly discriminatory that everyone on Earth should stand up in protest against them."
Don't have to back it up, Tiassa. The very ideal of "hate crimes" is that it specifically discriminates crimes into either hate crimes or not. That's discrimination, Tiassa.
Baron Max
Don't have to back it up, Tiassa. The very ideal of "hate crimes" is that it specifically discriminates crimes into either hate crimes or not. That's discrimination, Tiassa.
Baron Max
Mod Hat - The new standard
Mod Hat — The new standard
Perhaps you're not aware that there's a new standard in town. You can thank James R for it. Essentially, get honest or get out. Easy enough?
If you are simply going to repeat yourself over and over without ever addressing the counterpoint, you can stop mucking up EM&J with your presence.
Don't like the standard? Take it up with the administration. Now try writing a useful post, or just don't bother.
That's the way it goes now, regardless of whether or not we like it that way.
This is your only warning.
Mod Hat — The new standard
Baron Max said:
Perhaps you're not aware that there's a new standard in town. You can thank James R for it. Essentially, get honest or get out. Easy enough?
If you are simply going to repeat yourself over and over without ever addressing the counterpoint, you can stop mucking up EM&J with your presence.
Don't like the standard? Take it up with the administration. Now try writing a useful post, or just don't bother.
That's the way it goes now, regardless of whether or not we like it that way.
This is your only warning.
With regard to the above warning, are you going to warn Bells not to make any personal comments about me in her response to my post? If I can't respond, then it seems only fair that you warn her of the rules, too, huh?
Baron Max
It still reeks of Orwellian Thought Crime in my mind, but many people have made some good points in this thread and I'll admit that such laws are not quite as ridiculous as I had thought.
I think this post should get a sticky and be saved. I mean seriously, how often does this happen? A person acknowledged that the points made by people he initially disagreed with entirely
changed his mind to some degree. Seriously, this deserves our respect and emulation, if possible.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
What on earth are "local authorities" even good for except giving people traffic tickets..?
Bells
Staff member
Are you saying that it has been "blind" in the past? Non-discriminatory? Do you think the police officers who beat Rodney King were being 'non-discriminatory'? How about their initial trial, where they were acquitted? Do you think that was discriminatory?
Do you even know the history of your own hate crime laws? I am willing to bet that you do not. Do you even know what your hate crime laws are about? Again, I am willing to bet that you do not.
And it is. Do you know why or how it is illegal? Your hate crime laws ensure that it is illegal for everyone. It covers what your local laws does not cover or fail to cover.
Justice is supposed to be blind. Law enforcement officers should not dismiss crimes against those they feel bigoted towards, but they do. Did you know, for example, that the man who taped the King beating video had origionally gone to the police, who dismissed it and it was then that he went to the media with it because the police refused to do anything about it? And you think justice is blind? How about the Jim Crow laws? Was that "blind"? Did those laws treat all men, regardless of colour, as being equal?
Did you also know, there was a spike in hate crimes against Muslims after the 9/11 attacks? The sheer level of discrimination and crimes committed against them as a whole in the US rose dramatically..?
Hate crime laws cover what local laws do not cover. Many States in the US offer no legal protection to homosexuals or homeless people (as one example) against 'hate crimes'. The hate crime laws ensure all individuals are protected equally. You think that is discriminatory?
You're accusing me of being dishonest? You?
Ha!
You made a funny.
Now, please explain to me how you think making it illegal to incite violence or commit against particular individuals because of their race, colour, religion, sex, disability, homelessness, sexuality, etc, is somehow discriminatory? Cite some sources.
Anything aside from your current pathetic responses.
How do the hate crime laws use discrimination to apparently provide a harsher sentence?
Hate crime laws are their own entity. They offer protection to all citizens that your normal criminal codes and laws do not cover.
Do you think it is discriminatory to investigate why two white supremacist guys dragged a black guy behind their truck until he was decapitated? Do you think investigating their motive is discrimination? Why do you think that is discriminatory?
Ah, you are upset that they don't fit in with other laws? That they sit outside of the 'regular ol' laws'. Maybe if your 'regular ol' laws' provided better protection for all citizens, you would not need hate crime laws. But they do not, hence why hate crime laws were deemed necessary.. since the 1960's by the way.
How are the laws "blatantly discriminatory"?
To know the 'why's'. Why did the two white men drag the black man behind their truck until he was decapitated.. Why would two men torture and beat a homosexual man to death.. Why would a man drive a truck full of explosives and park it outside of a federal building..
Motive explains the crime.. I would have thought it was quite self-explanatory.
What in the hell are you on about?
Do you think hate crime laws are used to sway the opinion of the jury? Do you think a prosecutor citing the motive of a criminal's crime is discrimination?
Heh.. That's hilarious..
Why?
No. It provides potection for all people and entities, which is supported by your Constitution.
Okay. Let me explain something to you, which you don't seem to grasp.
Your local (State) criminal codes do not offer protection to all individuals against crimes that are motivated by bigotry. Hate crime laws ensure that protection for everyone. They have existed for a long time. The ammended laws now ensure protection for homosexuals and for homeless people and the disabled (as one example).
So when someone beats or kills a person or incites violence against a person or group because of their race, sex, colour, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc, they are then prosecuted under the hate crime laws of your country. Do you know why? Because your state laws do not offer protection to all individuals. For example, in some states, it was not illegal to incite violence against homosexuals. You have stated yourself that you think inciting violence against anyone should be illegal. Hate crime laws now ensure that it is illegal to do so. So, how or why is that discriminatory in your opinion?
Mod Hat - Don't waste my time
Mod Hat — Don't waste my time
Did I say anything about people's personal remarks, Max? That warning was about your dishonesty and refusal to support your assertions. Is that really so difficult to understand?
Like I said, get honest or get out. You "can't respond"? Actually, Max, I want you to respond, but I want your responses to be useful to the discussion and the community. If that means you "can't respond", that's your own damn problem.
If you don't like it, take it up with the administration. And stop mucking up EM&J bitching at me. We've been through this before, and you damn well know how it ends.
Mod Hat — Don't waste my time
Baron Max said:
Did I say anything about people's personal remarks, Max? That warning was about your dishonesty and refusal to support your assertions. Is that really so difficult to understand?
Like I said, get honest or get out. You "can't respond"? Actually, Max, I want you to respond, but I want your responses to be useful to the discussion and the community. If that means you "can't respond", that's your own damn problem.
If you don't like it, take it up with the administration. And stop mucking up EM&J bitching at me. We've been through this before, and you damn well know how it ends.
Motive and culpability
Is motive irrelevant to culpability, in your opinion?
That is, if you get in a car and accidentally kill someone, you're charged with manslaughter. But if you get into a car and intentionally mow someone down, you're charged with murder. Either way, dead is dead, right? So would you argue the same charge applies? That is, does measuring a person's intent count as Orwellian to you? Or does this just apply to hate crimes?
As it is, you should be complaining about differing degrees of murder charges, too. After all, we have different standards for someone who kills in the heat of passion and one who kills coldly with calculation. Would it be Orwellian to consider the difference?
Perhaps it would just be easier to ask where you draw the Orwellian line in examining a person's motive. It seems to me that if the hate crime standard is wrong for policing thought, so is any other calculation of motive. Is bigotry somehow excepted? Or should we simply do away with calculating motive?
I would suggest that, while a one-size-fits-all justice system might seem easier, society would suffer for such a regression.
Madanthonywayne said:
Is motive irrelevant to culpability, in your opinion?
That is, if you get in a car and accidentally kill someone, you're charged with manslaughter. But if you get into a car and intentionally mow someone down, you're charged with murder. Either way, dead is dead, right? So would you argue the same charge applies? That is, does measuring a person's intent count as Orwellian to you? Or does this just apply to hate crimes?
As it is, you should be complaining about differing degrees of murder charges, too. After all, we have different standards for someone who kills in the heat of passion and one who kills coldly with calculation. Would it be Orwellian to consider the difference?
Perhaps it would just be easier to ask where you draw the Orwellian line in examining a person's motive. It seems to me that if the hate crime standard is wrong for policing thought, so is any other calculation of motive. Is bigotry somehow excepted? Or should we simply do away with calculating motive?
I would suggest that, while a one-size-fits-all justice system might seem easier, society would suffer for such a regression.
Because all you do is stuff straw men, Max.
Because it singles out those individuals/victims by race, color, religion, sex, etc. Prior to any "hate laws", was it illegal to incite violence or commit violence against people?
If there were already laws in place making incitement, etc. illegal then laws already existed to cover the crimes. Thus, when the "hate crimes" laws are added, they are, indeed, discriminatory since the law singles out certain people or victims for special treatment under the law.
Huh? What are you saying here, Bells? Are you saying that in some states of the USA, laws don't cover violence against homeless people and homosexuals? They're people, aren't they? I'm just sure that there existed laws to protect them from violence, just the same as regular folks.
But now, see, with the "hate crimes" laws, the homeless and homosexuals are afforded special treatement under the law ...which is illegal according to the Constitution of the USA.
Because even before the "hate crimes" law, it was illegal to incite or commit violence against people. Now, with the "hate crimes" designation, some people are singled out to be treated special under the law. That means that law is discriminatory.
How can you not see that as discriminatory, Bells? Some people, because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., are being singled out ...are somehow being placed above and beyond normal citizens, and being afforded special protection under the law. That's discriminatory, Bells.
Because if it's used in the courtroom, which it will be, it will influence the jury and make it seem as if the crime was somehow different ...ONLY because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. That use in the courtroom is essentially using discrimination as a tool to incite the jury to find the suspect guilty and to apply a harsher sentence.
Please note, Bells, that you, yourself, just now used discrimination to even ask that question. You shouldn't have asked it that way. You should have asked "Is it discriminatory to investigate why two men would drag another man behind their truck until he was decapitated?"
Yes, Bells, it's discriminatory to investigate that crime in such a discriminatory way as you've suggested. It's also discriminatory to have used such investigation in the court to incite the jury.
People are equal under the law or they aren't. Hate crimes designations assure that people are NOT equal under that law ....they're singled out as special, to be treated special. Just like you did with the James Byrd case above.
You don't need "hate crimes" designation to investigate those crimes, Bells. Where did you get that idea? Crimes are investigated all the time, all kinds of crimes.
And I'm wondering why we need motive at all. Did the men drag the man to death or not. Simple case ...why they did it has nothing to do with anything. And beating a man to death is a crime. Singling him out as a homosexual is just being discriminatory and that's illegal according to the Constitution.
If that's true, then that's a crime according to the Constitution and should be investigated accordingly. But that's a distinct issue from the "hate crimes". If the locals are not doing their job, then the FBI should step in. But there's no need for any special "hate crimes" designations. What it should be is "Stupid Law Enforcement" laws ....NOT "hate crimes" laws.
Hate crimes designation is discriminatory in that it singles out people as special under the law because of their race, religion, sexual oritentation, etc. And that is most definitely discriminatory ...which is illegal according to our Constitution.
Baron Max
Bells
Staff member
There weren't. That was the whole issue.
That is what you aren't grasping. Not everyone was covered.
The laws now grant protection to everyone.
Yes Baron. That is exactly what I am saying. When a crime is committed, the police will normally look for motive. And crimes have been committed where the motive was bigotry. The Shepard crime comes to mind. Wyoming had no laws that granted homosexuals protection against hate crimes and the Shepard murder was a hate crime. Torturing and murdering someone because they are a homosexual is a hate crime.
The Shepard murder showed a huge gap in the protection it offered homosexuals (as one example). Hence why the Hate Crime laws now cover homosexuals as well, in all States.
They are not afforded special treatment. Are you saying that if someone kills or incites violence against a homosexual or a homeless person, they should not be tried for that particular act? That their motive should not be considered? Hate crime laws look at the motivation behind the crime and if 'hate' (as in bigotry) is found to be the prime motivating factor in the crime, where State laws do not apply, then they will be charged under the federal statute.
You seem to view offering protection for all groups and citizens as being discriminatory and you still have not offered a valid reason as to why that is so.
Quite the contrary. Before the original hate crime laws, it was not illegal to incite or commit violence against African Americans (as one example). Hell, lynchings were advertised and hateful propaganda against blacks were the norm.
So you think it is discriminatory to offer all people, because of their race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc, protection against hate crimes but you don't think it is discriminatory if someone incites violence or hatred or commits acts of violence against those individuals?
/Facepalm...
If someone is tried under a hate crime, then that is what they are tried under. The court, judge and jury, will be provided with evidence for and against and it is up to them to determine if a hate crime occured. For example, lets look at the Byrd killing. Do you think bigotry was the main reason that they dragged him behind a car for miles until he was decapitated?
Do you think that his killers were discriminated against when it was proven in court that their prime motivation for the crime was their hatred of blacks? Do you actually believe that their white supremacist beliefs and their known hatred of blacks should not have been taken into consideration during that trial?
Okay. I will say it slowly..
The prime motivator for the Byrd killing was racism. They tied him to the back of their truck and dragged him for miles because he was black. How you think it is discriminatory to look at the motive for that crime is beyond me.
I cannot believe you think telling the jury the truth about their motive.. providing evidence for why they committed their crime.. that they dragged him until he was decapitated because he was black.. is somehow discrimination..
It is because of people like you that hate crime laws exist.
Err Baron. Many crimes have been discounted because of the bigotry of the local police force.. I already cited you one case where that was the case..
You are wondering why you need motive at all?..
..Are you serious?
Why a crime is commited has everything to do with it. For example:
Crime A:
Woman kills husband because he was abusing her for 20 years.
Crime B:
Woman kills husband because she wanted all his money.
Do you think motive should be ignored in either of those examples? Motive is looked at to determine the extent of a crime and whether a person should be charged with a crime. Woman kills husband because he was abusing her for 20 years.
Crime B:
Woman kills husband because she wanted all his money.
In some states, it was not illegal to single someone out because of their sexuality.
Hang on. Didn't you say before that you did not want the FBI to step in?
Hate crime laws give the FBI the power to step in to investigate. Good grief man! That is why the hate crime laws are there.
Incorrect. Again.
Tiassa, you bring up some very important points about the role of "motive" in crime investigation and prosecution. Although you addressed this to someone else, I felt the need to respond to it.
As you've noted in the car death above, motive is one of, if not the, main factor in deciding which crime to charge the man with. That's important by any standards of normal/usual law.
No. Motive is distinct from the usual and legal meanings of "hate crimes". Motive is simple, plain and investigated equally under the law. "Hate crimes", by the very idea and principle, is singling out individuals as special in view of the law. Under normal law, someone is simply brutally murdered. But ...under the "hate crimes" law, that same simple, brutal murder has been changed solely because of the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. That's discriminatory, Tiassa.
It is a brutal murder or not? Is brutally murdering a black man somehow more brutal than if the victim was white? Ditto for religion or sexual orientation or whatever. Singling out the victim or the suspects according to race, religion, etc. is purely discriminatory and is not permitted according to the Constitution .....where we're all to be considered equal under the law.
Perhaps, but isn't that exactly, precisely, what the Constitution says? That all men are to be considered equal under the law? As soon as we single out the racists and the bigots, then we're basically reneging on the promise made in the Constitution.
It seems to me that "one-size-fits-all" is exactly the way the Constitution intended. And it also seems to me that anything else, like singling out races or religions, etc, as special in accordance with the law, then that's wrong and discriminatory.
It's funny, but it seems to me that we're going in the other direction with regards to race, religion, etc. Where we should be trying our best to ignore those things in our lives, we're actually going to great lengths to bring it all out into the open ....so that there'll just be more division and more hatred.
Baron Max
Intent and motive aren't necessarily the same thing.
Joe intends to kick Bill's ass. There are many possible motives for Joe wanting to kick Bill's ass. Maybe he dislikes Bill because of his race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever? Maybe Bill is married to Joe's sister and just committed domestic violence against her? Maybe Bill vandalized Joe's house? Maybe Joe is drunk in a bar and looking for a fight, and Bill, a total stranger, was the first person he saw?
See what I mean?
And the "hate laws" designation did all that? When? How? Bells, I'm going to have to ask you for some further evidence of that statement. I'm just so sure that there were already laws in place for all of that. If you can show otherwise, then I'm definitely going to be damned surprised.
So in Wyoming, prior to the Shepard crime, there were no laws against a bunch of people torturing and killing another person??? ...we had to add a new federal law against it?
So you think homosexuals are somehow special, and we should give them special treatment under the law? Why? What makes homosexuals so much more special than just regular ol' people?
And no laws covered homosexuals before the new "hate crimes" law was passed? Before the law, anyone could od anything to a homosexual and it was permitted under the law???
If the victim had been white, would that killing have been permitted? It was okay to drag white guys to death in Jasper, Texas, but when you drag a black guy to death, then .....we must call it a "hate crime"?
Yes, I think it was racism and discrimination that prompted the attack and the murder. But it's also racism and discrimination to use racism and discrimination in the trial ...which should be completely clear of racism and discrimination.
Or perhaps, Bells, you want to use racism, bigotry and discrimination in order to fight racism, bigotry and discrimination? Is that it? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?
I think to have brought it up in the trial would have been prime examples of using bigotry and racism and discrimination to unduly influence the jury.
Bells, do you think that it's okay to use racism and bigotry to fight racism and bigotry? Please, if you answer no other question or point, please answer that one. Do you think that it's okay to use racism and bigotry to fight racism and bigotry?
Does it, did it, matter? The suspects were already found guilty of the vicious, cruel, horrendous murder.
Bells, do you think that it's okay to use racism and bigotry to fight racism and bigotry?
Baron Max
Does Wyoming have laws against murder? Is it illegal to murder a gay man in the state of Wyoming? If the answer to those questions is yes, then charging the murderer with a hate-crime serves no purpose other than to punish him or her for having unpopular social views.
Your acting as if there are vast areas of America where people of certain races and sexual orientations aren't covered by the same laws that protect everyone else. Is there some place in America that officially classifies crimes against certain groups of people as less serious simply because of their race, sexual orientation, etc.? If so, where is it?
Did such an event occur? If so, was it categorized as a hate crime or race crime?