If you are dead you are dead. I agree 1000%. So we should do away with Murder charges which carry a stiffer sentence than Manslaughter charges?

And as the father, mother, brother, child of the dead person you would be OK with the killer spending less time behind bars?

After all your loved one is dead either way right?

C'mon Hugh, think it through.

It's no the law that's the problem, it's the application of it.

BS! There should be no hate crimes laws. No one should be entitled to more protection under the law than anyone else. It's complete folly for anyone to think an additional hate crimes charge will EVER have the slightest deterrent effect anyway.

You guys forget, you can only be racist if you're white. So, a minority attacking a white man is not a hate crime. Hell, isn't it justifiable homicide?:rolleyes:

Guess it depends on which side of the fence you're on.

So we should do away with capital punishment as well?

Murders happen every day IN states WITH capital punishment.

I can say with 100% certainty that the fear of the death sentence did not have the slightest deterrence on anyone put to death or currently sitting on death row.

If a white man is attacked by someone of another race because they are white or if the attack was done with prejudice then the attacker should be charged with a hate crime and if that does not happen as I said before, go exercise your right to vote and get a new DA.

I never claimed the death penalty has any deterrent effect. It does not and I'd never support it for that reason. I support it because it has absolute 0% rate of recidivism when actually imposed and it's the right thing to do. No one deserves extra punishment for what motivates them to commit a crime. We don't yet have thought police in this country and people should be free to think what they want.

Lots of folks are alive today only because it's illegal to kill them. No one is alive only because it would be a hate crime to kill them.

Aren't these laws written such that it could go both ways and up to the DA to charge?

No one is debating the definition smonkey, we get how one can differentiate the two. The problem comes with the idea that one is more wrong than the other.

Courts already weigh the intent and malice, yes?

The manslaughter/murder argument isn't valid either as the line there is obviously simple...."intent".

Exactly!

"Hate crime" laws are a poor attempt by politicians to pander to specific "greivance groups" in exchange for votes.

The underlying assumption with these laws is that it is somehow worse (and more punishable) to commit a crime because of one's thoughts. The government is now in the business of punishing us because of what we think.

More evidence that race makes some folks more valuable than others.

Obama slams McCain on affirmative action
Jul. 28, 2008 01:06 AM
The Arizona Republic

CHICAGO - Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, took Republican rival John McCain to task Sunday for endorsing an Arizona ballot initiative that would ban the use of race or gender in public hiring, contracts and education.

Obama said McCain's support of the measure represented a change in position for the Arizona senator and presumptive GOP nominee.

In a This Week interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, McCain said Sunday that he supported the proposed measure backed by affirmative-action opponent Ward Connerly. The Arizona senator added that he had not seen details of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative but said he opposes quotas.
Obama, speaking to a gathering of about 1,000 minority journalists in his hometown of Chicago, cautioned that affirmative action is far from a long-term solution to racial and social inequities in America. But the Illinois senator said he is a strong supporter of such programs when they consider some of the "hardships and difficulties" facing minority groups.

"I am disappointed that John McCain flipped and changed his position," Obama said at the "Unity: Journalists of Color" convention.

"I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referendums or initiatives as divisive," Obama added. "The truth of the matter is these (initiatives) are not designed to solve a problem but they are oftentimes designed to drive a wedge between people."

A decade ago, McCain condemned initiatives aimed at dismantling affirmative action.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said the senator has always opposed hiring quotes based on race.

"He believes that regardless of race, ethnicity or gender, the law should be equally applied," Bounds said.

Sunday's forum, televised on CNN from the McCormick Place convention center, marked Obama's first public appearance since his eight-country, nine-day international tour that included stops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and Germany.

The high-profile trip was largely seen as a response to criticism from the McCain campaign that Obama has too little foreign-policy experience to be commander in chief and doesn't fully understand the war in Iraq.

In recent days, opponents have jumped on Obama's overseas tour as a "premature victory lap," something forum moderator Suzanne Malveaux of CNN described as the "audacity of this trip," a play off the title of Obama's best-selling book.

"I basically met with the same folks that John McCain met with after he won the nomination. He met with all these leaders," Obama said. "He also added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Columbia. And no one suggested that that was audacious."

Both President George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry, addressed the last Unity convention in Washington, D.C., held ahead of the 2004 election. Unity is comprised of national organizations representing African-American, Asian-American, Native-American and Hispanic journalists.

McCain received repeated invitations to speak but could not attend due to scheduling conflicts, said Unity President Karen Lincoln Michel, a member of the Native American Journalists Association.

McCain's absence stung many of the more than 4,000 journalists, recruiters and executives who had turned out for the five-day convention.

"I think it is a mistake on his part personally," said attendee Russell LaCour, a copy editor for Tulsa World newspaper in Oklahoma. "It's the best of both worlds - everyone in multicultural media is here. You could throw a big stone and hit a lot of spots. I think he's making an error in judgment."

Obama, who received a standing ovation from journalists when he entered but was met with tempered applause during the forum, reflected on his trip abroad and tackled questions from reporters on topics ranging from America's military presence in Iraq to reparations for Native Americans and African-Americans.

The Illinois senator called efforts by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to set a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal "a positive step" but said military personnel would need to be re-deployed to Afghanistan, where threats from al-Qaida and the Taliban remain strong.

Obama also said America must work with the world community to develop a cohesive "big carrots and big sticks" approach to contain Iran's nuclear threat.

"The world is waiting for the United States to re-engage in the Middle East. Israelis and Palestinians want to see us active and involved," Obama said. "What we need is sustained American engagement."

When asked if there were too many immigrants coming to the U.S., Obama responded that there is still a demand for a hard-working immigrant labor but said a comprehensive immigration policy, including tougher border security and employer sanctions, was needed.

"I think we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws," Obama said. "The problem I see is not number of immigrants that are coming here. . . . The problem is when we have a legal immigration system running parallel with an illegal immigration system."

Wrong, when you commit a crime for no reason other than you "think" they are different then your "thoughts" have just become become actionable and that is what you are being punished for.

Not the "thought", the action.

See the difference?

And for the record I do believe that those kind of crimes are worse.

I don't see the correlation between affirmative action and hate crimes.

That's a whole nother thread.

Quite a few on the board to contribute that to.

I'm outraged by your thoughts. You should be prosecuted for thinking someone it better than someone else.

Basically, hate crimes and affirmative action are two more exceptions in which it's ok to use race as a determining factor. When does it end?

Again, thinking that one kind of lowlife criminal scum is better than another lowlife criminal scum is not an issue.

Now if I act on my thoughts and beat one of them 1/2 to death and the other 3/4 to death than the punishment should fit the crime.

Hate crime laws are not written to "protect" one particular segment of society or racial group. They are universal.

Putting the two in the same group is like saying "you know whites used to get away with beatin and hangin negroes so we're gonna put in some laws that even things out. From now on whites beatin on Blacks get extra jail time and the negras get a pass.:rolleyes:

Just so we are clear what we are discussing here.

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

Rick, do you think that killing a police officer should net a stiffer sentence than killing a regular citizen?