"Hate Crime" Legislation?

[BlueStreak]

What do y'all think of this?

Dave

[d-ray657]

Although they do seem to criminalize ideas or attitudes, they seem to pass constitutional muster with the Supreme Court. If the ideas (no matter how ugly the ideas are) were the sole grounds for the crime, I would be worried. The laws that I have seen, however, involve some other criminal behavior, coupled with racial or religious intimidation.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

If this is in regard to the recent bill passed because of the gay boy who was murdered simply because he was gay it does not get my knickers in a twist. Like it or not gay citizens are still citizens and deserve protection like everyone else. If you want to kill someone simply because you disagree with their sexual proclivities, you get the slammer.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What do y'all think of this?

Dave

No valid reason for such distinctions.

A crime is a crime.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

No valid reason for such distinctions.

A crime is a crime.

First, to answer the concern about "thought crimes", nobody is criminalizing thoughts but actions. What hate crime laws do is infer motive and intent from the circumstances of the crime. The fact of the matter is we already do that. A good example of this is in the various levels of homicide, ranging from involuntary manslaughter to "murder one".

As far as hate crimes are concerned, what distinguishes them from other types of crime is the intended victim. When someone sets fire to a black church, places a bomb in a synagogue or beats and tortures a gay man and leaves him tied to a fence to die we have what I'll call two "categories" of victim.

In the first category you have the people directly affected by the act: the people killed, injured or otherwise traumatized while in the church or synagogue and the gay man left for dead. Then you have the other category of victim. That would be all blacks, all Jews, all homosexuals, all ( ).

The victims of the first category are selected because of who they are as members of an identifiable group. Their identities or actions as individuals are of no relevance to the perpetrators. It's the groups to which they belong that's important and, as a result, the crimes send a message to all the other members of the groups. That message is as follows: "This could have been you and at some future time it might be."

This is purely and simply terrorism and is deserving of increased penalties reflective of the broad ranging effect that it has on groups within our society and on society as a whole. The corrosive effects of hate crimes on our society go far beyond the narrow scope of the mere acts. Our response to hate crimes must reflect that greater peril.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Boreas

First, to answer the concern about "thought crimes", nobody is criminalizing thoughts but actions. What hate crime laws do is infer motive and intent from the circumstances of the crime. The fact of the matter is we already do that. A good example of this is in the various levels of homicide, ranging from involuntary manslaughter to "murder one".

As far as hate crimes are concerned, what distinguishes them from other types of crime is the intended victim. When someone sets fire to a black church, places a bomb in a synagogue or beats and tortures a gay man and leaves him tied to a fence to die we have what I'll call two "categories" of victim.

In the first category you have the people directly affected by the act: the people killed, injured or otherwise traumatized while in the church or synagogue and the gay man left for dead. Then you have the other category of victim. That would be all blacks, all Jews, all homosexuals, all ( ).

The victims of the first category are selected because of who they are as members of an identifiable group. Their identities or actions as individuals are of no relevance to the perpetrators. It's the groups to which they belong that's important and, as a result, the crimes send a message to all the other members of the groups. That message is as follows: "This could have been you and at some future time it might be."

This is purely and simply terrorism and is deserving of increased penalties reflective of the broad ranging effect that it has on groups within our society and on society as a whole. The corrosive effects of hate crimes on our society go far beyond the narrow scope of the mere acts. Our response to hate crimes must reflect that greater peril.

John

Very good explanation. Thank you for making it much clearer.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JJIII]

"The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh no."


Words and music by rick nielsen



It is nobody's business what I think. If I act illegally, that's another story entirely.

[BlueStreak]

[QUOTE=JJIII;7795

It is nobody's business what I think. If I act illegally, that's another story entirely.[/QUOTE]


The only way anyone can control what you think is if you let them.

I believe the law is only intended for those have acted upon their sick, violent thoughts. Although it may have an added psychological deterrent effect.

Dave

[Sandy G]

"It is nobody's business what I think. If I act illegally,that's another story entirely." Exactamundo ! This is a VERY bad precedent, IMHO.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

"It is nobody's business what I think. If I act illegally,that's another story entirely." Exactamundo ! This is a VERY bad precedent, IMHO.

How so? How is it that you think someone is trying to control your thoughts? As I stated above, the only way someone can control your thoughts is if you let them. (IMO)

BTW, I personally think our laws/punishments are far too lenient against anyone who commits violent crime, regardless of their motive.

However, don't you think there might be a difference between a man killing another because he catches the guy humping his wife, goes berserk and a....."crime of passion" occurs, as opposed to someone deliberately seeking out someone/anyone of a different ethnicity or "group" and beating/torturing/killing them based solely on the premise of his hatred for them? (The group, not the individual.) And spending a considerable amount of time planning and executing the crime? Sorry, but I do, I think there is a big difference.

As I see it, one is a momentary impulse (Inexcusable nontheless.), the other is an act of deliberate premeditation, and there should be added consideration.

Those are my thoughts, anyhow.

Dave