"Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family."
pecanpie said: hate crime is redundant. a crime is a crime.
I agree, crime is crime regardless of the motivation. "Hate crime" legislation is nothing more than Big Brother getting in your head. HOWEVER, as long as there are hate crime laws under which people are actually prosecuted, then it should apply here and these guys should be punished.
BTW, sweeping new "hate crime" legislation is in the works, something you may want to pay attention to. This centers around the St. Louis girl who committed suicide after being duped by a friend's mother. The new law would make it a FEDERAL CRIME to hurt someone's feelings on the internet! Say WHAT?!!! Look, I think it was reprehensible what happened to the St. Louis girl, but Missouri declined to prosecute becuse we have no such law covering it. The Federal court in the L.A. District picked it up and criminally prosecuted her anyway. I'm glad Missouri has no law covering but I WOULD like to have seen her get sued into the poorhouse in a MO court, or any other for that matter, she deserved to get some kind of punishment. The point is, there were no criminal laws to cover the matter so it became a civil matter at that point, one that looks "open and shut".
formattc said: BTW, sweeping new "hate crime" legislation is in the works, something you may want to pay attention to. This centers around the St. Louis girl who committed suicide after being duped by a friend's mother. The new law would make it a FEDERAL CRIME to hurt someone's feelings on the internet! Say WHAT?!!! Look, I think it was reprehensible what happened to the St. Louis girl, but Missouri declined to prosecute becuse we have no such law covering it. The Federal court in the L.A. District picked it up and criminally prosecuted her anyway. I'm glad Missouri has no law covering but I WOULD like to have seen her get sued into the poorhouse in a MO court, or any other for that matter, she deserved to get some kind of punishment. The point is, there were no criminal laws to cover the matter so it became a civil matter at that point, one that looks "open and shut". I think you are using typical talk radio style hyperbole here. This case involved an adult duping and terrorizing a minor child into committing suicide. If this had been a teacher using their influence to convince minor children they were responsible for to commit suicide they would have been buried under the jail. This is a case of the law not keeping up with technology and the law is being updated based upon what happened in this case.
Just a quick example here for you... Ever since Ecstasy was outlawed, law enforcement and the Federal government have been in an ongoing battle with chemical analogs of the drug. Chemists change one little thing molecularly about the drug and it's legal. So the government is continually updating the law to cover all of the new drug analogs as they are introduced.
turtlebug said: Whether or not I think it's a "hate crime," I believe that hate crime laws promote double jeopardy, which is unconstitutional.I do not think hate crimes fit the definition of double jeopardy. Now maybe you can claim that a particular hate crime should not even be a crime but that is another matter altogether.
pecanpie said: hate crime is redundant. a crime is a crime.Some crimes do not involve hate unless you really stretch the definition of hate. A lot of crimes, for example, involve indifference and/or lack of respect.
BTW, a question for those of you who are against hate crime laws: are you also against "possession with intent to distribute" as a distinct crime from "possession" too? (Is possession with intent also a double jeopardy?)
katx said: BTW, a question for those of you who are against hate crime laws: are you also against "possession with intent to distribute" as a distinct crime from "possession" too? (Is possession with intent also a double jeopardy?) Having a little trouble with this example....
Possession with intent to distribute means someone has been caught with something, and "clearly" intends to distribute said something, presumably by already having copious amounts packaged for retail sale. Selling something illegal to own, and owning something illegal seem to me like two different things.
There is no Possession with Intent to Distribute Hatefully, much like there shouldn't be "Severe Ass Kicking" laws standing alongside "Severe Ass-Kicking due to Ideological Differences" laws.
DevilMonkey said: katx said: BTW, a question for those of you who are against hate crime laws: are you also against "possession with intent to distribute" as a distinct crime from "possession" too? (Is possession with intent also a double jeopardy?) Having a little trouble with this example....
Possession with intent to distribute means someone has been caught with something, and "clearly" intends to distribute said something, presumably by already having copious amounts packaged for retail sale. Selling something illegal to own, and owning something illegal seem to me like two different things.
There is no Possession with Intent to Distribute Hatefully, much like there shouldn't be "Severe Ass Kicking" laws standing alongside "Severe Ass-Kicking due to Ideological Differences" laws.Hmm. Maybe I was too brief. Here: often people who are against hate crime laws invoke the claim that hate crimes punishes INTENT.
If we are ok with punishing intent then what is wrong with distinguishing among crimes based on intent?
katx said: If we are ok with punishing intent then what is wrong with distinguishing among crimes based on intent?I think I'm ok with punishing based on what-was-or-was-going-to-be-done (g.e. "murder" or "attempted murder") but maybe not punishment for why-they-did-it, or what-they-were-thinking. Maybe those things are mitigating factors, but by and large I don't see a need for "hate murder" over murder murder.
Wineaux said: I think you are using typical talk radio style hyperbole here. This case involved an adult duping and terrorizing a minor child into committing suicide. If this had been a teacher using their influence to convince minor children they were responsible for to commit suicide they would have been buried under the jail. This is a case of the law not keeping up with technology and the law is being updated based upon what happened in this case.
It's nice in theory to look at a law like this and say "well, it's on the books only so it can be used in a really egregious case" but the reality is you get some police officer or prosecutor with a vendetta or a desire for publicity and it ends up being applied in a case where things aren't so clear-cut. I don't like when people are found guilty on a technicality or of something that most people agree shouldn't be a crime anymore than I like when people get off on a technicality or get away with something that most people think should be a crime.
DevilMonkey said: katx said: If we are ok with punishing intent then what is wrong with distinguishing among crimes based on intent?I think I'm ok with punishing based on what-was-or-was-going-to-be-done (g.e. "murder" or "attempted murder") but maybe not punishment for why-they-did-it, or what-they-were-thinking. Maybe those things are mitigating factors, but by and large I don't see a need for "hate murder" over murder murder.I understand your point and I can't say I disagree with it. But here is a line of argument:
When a person paints a swastika his intent is not to merely deface a property. His intent is to terrorize a whole group of people.
To prosecute a person who burns a cross on someone's lawn for violating a city ordinance is an insult to law and order and justice. What was "going-to-be-done" when a cross is burned or a swastika is painted is to terrorize and otherwise deprive of civil liberty a whole group of people. I think it is very reasonable to say burning a tire on someone's lawn is a violation of city ordinance but burning a cross on someone's lawn is a felony or at least a misdemeanor.
Punishment for crimes should be proportional to the damage that they inflict on a society and not on the combustion process that they create. This is a tried and old principle in crime and punishment. For example we punish inserting an object is someone's ear (no permanent damage) or say licking someone's ear differently than inserting an object in someone's (or licking someone's) vagina. Why? Because of the tremendous (psychological) damage that the latter causes. Therefore it would be disingenuous to punish burning a card board box and burning of a cross at the same level same as if we punished giving someone a wet willy and finger raping someone at the same level. Does that make sense?
Wineaux said: I think you are using typical talk radio style hyperbole here. This case involved an adult duping and terrorizing a minor child into committing suicide. If this had been a teacher using their influence to convince minor children they were responsible for to commit suicide they would have been buried under the jail. This is a case of the law not keeping up with technology and the law is being updated based upon what happened in this case.
Just a quick example here for you... Ever since Ecstasy was outlawed, law enforcement and the Federal government have been in an ongoing battle with chemical analogs of the drug. Chemists change one little thing molecularly about the drug and it's legal. So the government is continually updating the law to cover all of the new drug analogs as they are introduced.
No, it's not hyperbole, look it up. The bill itself was spelled out on my TV screen the other night and while I don't remember it word for word, it said stuff like "...any electronic communication.....causing emotional distress...etc, etc", language that would basically make it illegal to hurt someone's feelings on the internet. REALLY scary stuff for people that want to keep the government out of their heads. "Hate crimes" amount to Thought Police, very Orwellian. The Ecstasy isn't a great example either, IMO. For one, sometimes a minor molecular change can make a big difference to what a chemical does or doesn't do. Second, if people really want to get high then they're going to find a way, we can't outlaw all household chemicals becuase some dumbass might use it to get high, that's just Darwinism in action anyway. I HATE IT when we're willing to throw the Constitution down the toilet in order to keep our laws "timely". "That's OK to give up more freedom because it'll stop this behavior I don't agree with". What was that about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."? This law would do exactly that.
DevilMonkey said: katx said: If we are ok with punishing intent then what is wrong with distinguishing among crimes based on intent?I think I'm ok with punishing based on what-was-or-was-going-to-be-done (g.e. "murder" or "attempted murder") but maybe not punishment for why-they-did-it, or what-they-were-thinking. Maybe those things are mitigating factors, but by and large I don't see a need for "hate murder" over murder murder.
kind of like double-indemnity insurance for crimes. you get twice the penalty if your reason is hate. doesn't really make sense since hating is not illegal.
pecanpie said: DevilMonkey said: katx said: If we are ok with punishing intent then what is wrong with distinguishing among crimes based on intent?I think I'm ok with punishing based on what-was-or-was-going-to-be-done (g.e. "murder" or "attempted murder") but maybe not punishment for why-they-did-it, or what-they-were-thinking. Maybe those things are mitigating factors, but by and large I don't see a need for "hate murder" over murder murder.
kind of like double-indemnity insurance for crimes. you get twice the penalty if your reason is hate. doesn't really make sense since hating is not illegal.Speeding in work-areas also gets you double fine. This seems logical to me even if driving in work-areas is not illegal.
katx said: pecanpie said: DevilMonkey said: katx said: If we are ok with punishing intent then what is wrong with distinguishing among crimes based on intent?I think I'm ok with punishing based on what-was-or-was-going-to-be-done (g.e. "murder" or "attempted murder") but maybe not punishment for why-they-did-it, or what-they-were-thinking. Maybe those things are mitigating factors, but by and large I don't see a need for "hate murder" over murder murder.
kind of like double-indemnity insurance for crimes. you get twice the penalty if your reason is hate. doesn't really make sense since hating is not illegal.Speeding in work-areas also gets you double fine. This seems logical to me even if driving in work-areas is not illegal.
Not the same. The double work zone fine doesn't attempt to outlaw thought. That would be "double fine in work zones because you're speeding because you don't like road crews".
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France
larrymoencurly said: pecanpie said: hate crime is redundant. a crime is a crime.Fallacies.
One person steals a loaf of bread because he's poor and starving.
Another person steals a loaf of bread because he hates the owner of the bakery.
So, how is the victim harmed more in the second case? The crime is that the victim lost a loaf of bread, why should what the thief was thinking at the time even enter into it?
formattc said: larrymoencurly said: pecanpie said: hate crime is redundant. a crime is a crime.Fallacies.
One person steals a loaf of bread because he's poor and starving.
Another person steals a loaf of bread because he hates the owner of the bakery.
So, how is the victim harmed more in the second case? The crime is that the victim lost a loaf of bread, why should what the thief was thinking at the time garner them more punishment?Let's apply your logic to two Jewish men: John's front door is defaced with the word "love" while Peter's is defaced with a swastika. Is Peter, and his wife and children, "hurt" more than John and John's?
katx said: formattc said: larrymoencurly said: pecanpie said: hate crime is redundant. a crime is a crime.Fallacies.
One person steals a loaf of bread because he's poor and starving.
Another person steals a loaf of bread because he hates the owner of the bakery.
So, how is the victim harmed more in the second case? The crime is that the victim lost a loaf of bread, why should what the thief was thinking at the time garner them more punishment?Let's apply your logic to two Jewish men: John's front door is defaced with the word "love" while Peter's is defaced with a swastika. Is Peter, and his wife and children, "hurt" more than John and John's?
No, the crime there is vandalism and should be charged accordingly regardless of the vandal's train of thought. The effort required for Pete to remove the paint is no more than John's. I'd be just as mad if someone sprayed anything on my house, whether it's a pleasant word or not. Swastika or "Love", the effort to remove it is the same and it'd piss me off either way, I don't care what the vandal was thinking.
Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.
Example: A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face.
viperlance
Crotch-tastic
posted: Jul. 9, 2009 @ 11:46p
I agree with formatcc. Crime is crime and should be charged regardless of the motivation behind it.
I do believe that motive should be a factor at the time of sentencing, in light of potentially increased probability of repeat offenses; however, there shouldn't be any differences in the minimum/maximum penalties faced by 2 people convicted of essentially the same crime.
katx said: When a person paints a swastika his intent is not to merely deface a property. His intent is to terrorize a whole group of people. Depends which swastika you are talking about.
formattc said: Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.
Example: A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face. Am I correct to then conclude that you would/should be against the Civil Right Act and similar laws that forbid discrimination based on race, religion, etc? Are others who have spoken against "punishing hate" in this thread also against such civil rights measures?
katx said: formattc said: Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.
Example: A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face. Am I correct to then conclude that you would/should be against the Civil Right Act and similar laws that forbid discrimination based on race, religion, etc? Are others who have spoken against "punishing hate" in this thread also against such civil rights measures?
curvesahead said: katx said: formattc said: Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.
Example: A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face. Am I correct to then conclude that you would/should be against the Civil Right Act and similar laws that forbid discrimination based on race, religion, etc? Are others who have spoken against "punishing hate" in this thread also against such civil rights measures?
No you are incorrect to conclude that.
Absolutely and no, I'm not a racist! I don't believe in treating anyone ANY different based on what they look like, who they worship, etc. If someone is more qualified for a particular job than I am then it's completely understandable why they'd get the job over me, regarless of any other factors. What bothers me is when it goes past equal treatment into the territory of special treatment. The seemingly pervasive notion that caucasians can't be discriminated against sends me to the moon!
formattc said: curvesahead said: katx said: formattc said: Hate is a thought and like it or not, it's an American's right to hate if they want to, as long as they don't act on it.
Example: A guy comes up to me and punches me in the face and says "fark you, you Irish/Native-American, I hate Irish/Native-Americans"! He IS guilty of assault but NOT a hate crime because IMO, it's his right to hate Irish/Native-Americans if he wants to, as long as he doesn't punch them in the face. Am I correct to then conclude that you would/should be against the Civil Right Act and similar laws that forbid discrimination based on race, religion, etc? Are others who have spoken against "punishing hate" in this thread also against such civil rights measures?
No you are incorrect to conclude that.
Absolutely and no, I'm not a racist! I don't believe in treating anyone ANY different based on what they look like, who they worship, etc. If someone is more qualified for a particular job than I am then it's completely understandable why they'd get the job over me, regarless of any other factors. What bothers me is when it goes past equal treatment into the territory of special treatment. The seemingly pervasive notion that caucasians can't be discriminated against sends me to the moon! Please explain this to me. You say hate+defacing should be treated like defacing because in America we are allowed to hate. So why isn't hate and discrimination treated the same as discrimination (which is not even illegal by itself).
In my opinion there is a gaping hole (nay, holes) in the argument against hate crimes.
katx said: Please explain this to me. You say hate+defacing should be treated like defacing because in America we are allowed to hate. So why isn't hate and discrimination treated the same as discrimination (which is not even illegal by itself).
In my opinion there is a gaping hole (nay, holes) in the argument against hate crimes.
So I can't be against hate crime legislation without being a racist? Quite the contrary, I think hate crime legislation encourages racism because it makes distinctions by race.
I'll say it again, it's about trying to ban thoughts, not behavior. I do think that antidicrimination laws are abused, however. In a minority of cases, they're used to garner special treatment where none was deserved.
Example:
When I worked at HRB I was in charge of hiring for my department after the tax season was over. We got budgeted for a couple of permanent (non seasonal) positions and were told to hire from the best of the seasonal staff. Now keep in mind, a mantra that was constantly repeated during hiring of seasonals was that "you should have no expectation of permanent employment with H&R Block" and they even signed a form to that effect. Well, I did my evaluations and made my decision, and both people accepted the permanent positions. Well, someone else got a lawyer to take their case and sued for discrimination! The funny part: The people I hired were an Asian man and a Hispanic woman!
FTR, I think people can be against hate crime legislation without being racist. Nice discussion and have a great day.
Skipping 1 Messages...
Bankgeek
Senior Member
posted: Jul. 10, 2009 @ 6:14p
The government has the authority to create laws that give more punishment to certain criminals because of their motivation. This crime fits the definition of a hate crime.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
