No. They should both be capital offenses. But I'd rather have killing a cop get a stiffer sentence than killing a minority. At least the cop wrap would not be based on race. Anyway, cop killers have a strange habit of not making it to trial. Murder is murder and should be punished by death. Race should not even be mentioned in the report or trial. In fact, the only time I can think of when race should ever be used as a detrmining factor is in organ transplants, where ethnicity really does sometimes matter in whether a donor is a match for a recipient. Otherwise, it has no place in society and certainly not in law.

It ends as soon as it stops being beneficial to the special interest group or groups.

The politicians and governent officials are pandering to these groups and will continue to as long as these special interest groups continue to be vocal and accusatory.
If the non-special interest groups get fed-up and make as much noise as everyone else, the politicians and DAs will have to start applying the law equally.

At that time the special interest groups will no longer support hate crimes because the original reward will become punishment more often than not.
If the built-in benefit ceases, there will be no reason to continue to support the status quo.

Anyone recognize this figure?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1217275785.jpg

It's lady justice. Notice that she is depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of the identity, power, or weakness: blind justice and blind impartiality.
Hate crimes do not do that. They do just the opposite.
Hate crimes are a token vigilanty action to keep the special interest groups happy and keep them off the politician's back. They are unfairly written and administered by design.

so making a new law that is unconstitutional is the answer, come on, you are smarter than that, why don't you think it through a little more.
QED
In theory the laws apply equally to all, I have never even heard of them being used as such.

Good laws are not unconstitutional. This does not mean all is copacetic if a law is constitutional, but at least there is a better chance they are fair.

Help me think it through.

How is it an unconstitutional law?

Please help me think through why it is constitutional.

No green ink. Others have stated their case, state yours.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Reread that last part.

I have not claimed it to be one way or the other.

Not up to me to make the distinction.

If someone claims it' unconstitutional then it's up to them to make their case.

Up to know we have been discussing a law that protects specific demographic groups which in itself is a wholly incorrect interpretation.

Should there be harsher penalties for sexually assaulting a child of 9 versus sexually assaulting an adult of 19?

A law has been passed, based on our Constitution, one which you seem to agree with. One which I do not.

Why do think it was passed and do you think it was Constitutional?

Any crime in which an adult victimizes a kid should be punished more harshly, preferably by death or castration. People who victimize kids are never cured or rehabilitated. They need to be permanently shut down. Best would be to let the victim's dad have some alone time with the perp.

Rick,
for the record, I'm actually on your side of this debate. That being said, can't the devil's advocate side of me restate your quote to be

"Any crime in which a person victimizes another person based on their race/gender/orientation/etc should be punished more harshly, preferably by death or castration. People who victimize other people based on their race/gender/orientation/etc are never cured or rehabilitated. They need to be permanently shut down."

I know I'm just stirring the pot here... in all honesty, I have internally inconsistent views with this stuff which I am trying to reconcile. I think hate crime laws are wrong because they arbitrarily add "weight" to a crime based solely on some relationship between the perp and the victim, which seems tertiary to the issue of the crime. Yet the same could be said of the "relationship" between adult and child (or citizen and police officer) and in those cases my gut says the relation ought to have "weight" and the perp deserves extra punishment.

Sorry. Kids are different. They don't have a fraction of the judgment or physical ability to deter, resist or sometimes even recognize crimes against them. Not saying that any special laws will deter crimes against kids. I don't believe they do. But the larger issue is that adults who commit such crimes against kids cannot be deterred or rehab'ed. It just doesn't happen. No one kidnaps and rapes a little girl and then, while sitting in prison for 10-20 yrs., decides he won't do it again when he gets out. Such people are predisposed to those crimes and so they need to be locked up like the animals they are.

BTW, one of my fraternity brothers was just released after a seven year stint in the joint for having sex with two girls he coached in cheerleading. He went to the trouble of arranging a total scam of a competition in England, where he could more easily get them drunk and have their parents not be anywhere nearby. I haven't talked with him since before he went in. But let's just say none of it was a surprise to any of us who knew his antics in college. He didn't go after little kids, but rather under-18 girls. Now he has a felony conviction, a seven year gap in his resume, a name a lot of folks in his state recognize and not much in the way of employment opportunities. What are the odds he'll never have another brush with the law?

Stirring the pot is always good.

The difference in your example between a hate crime and a crime between an adult and a child should be clear...at least I hope so.

The child is a child, and you know what that means. Should we now enact child hate crimes?

I altered my original statement to (hopefully) clarify what I'm trying to needle out. There is no doubt in my mind that crimes against children should be punished more harshly than crimes against adults. But if that's true, am I not agreeing that an identical act (say, a 50 year old man breaking someone's arm) is deserving of different punishment based solely upon the identity of the victim? Perhaps the act/crime itself is permanently tied to the victim in this case? Anyway, it leaves me in the position of examining my own internal inconsistencies... which is perhaps something I should do offline.

As a side note, I apologize if anyone is unhappy or offended that I brought children into the equation (even I find it distasteful) but extremes help when I'm trying to figure something out.

The kids question is simple: Kids are different because we all start out as kids- therefore, it is equal across the board.

You have merely stated that you disagree with it. Same as I have stated that I am ok with them.

Rick opened this thread with the position that Hate Crime laws were created to give unfair advantage to specific segments of our society which is simply not true. That they may be used that way is the fault of those charged with enforcing the laws.

If you want to change the direction of the discussion to one of constitutionality then state your position.

I think your logic is on track since the focus should not be on the verb or the noun, rather on the definition of crime or the crime committed.

Here again, the argument swings back: Are hate crime wrong as legislated?

Let me try this again: A law was passed, which you are ok with, that cites, "hate" as a quantifiable measure.

You are then surprised that it is the fault of those charged with enforcing said legislation if they, "use" it that way.

So what are you "ok" with?

Honestly, no sarcasm here, you have me more confused.

Rick has an issue with a law. He feels it provides additional "protection" to certain segments of our society.

I say that is not correct. It applies, (with the exception of some states and gays) to everyone.

If a _____ guy is walking down the street and a group of _____ guys yell, hey ______
and then proceed to beat him to a pulp simply because he is a _______ then that is a hate crime.

I am OK with that.

That is just so outrageous in every way. Beating the guy to the pulp is the only crime here. That it's an additional crime for calling him a name or having hate in your heart is nothing short of criminalizing thought and speech.

The cool thing is the law would prosecute in any case, hate or not. Adding "hate" to the equation is meaningless and should not be additive, which is the crux of your position.

It appears we'll have to agree to not agree...which I'm more then ok with.

That is so spot on.

Furthermore, if "hate" is in itself a crime you had better bring out the thought police.

The idea that we are going to assess the amount of hate that drove someone to steal, hit, kill ... just so ridiculous.

Police: Church shooting suspect angry over liberals, job hunt

* Story Highlights
* NEW: Police: Man apparently targeted church because of its liberal stances
* NEW: Suspect accused in 2000 of threatening to kill then-wife
* Suspect's letter says he couldn't find job, hated liberals, police say
* Man, 58, arrested and charged after 2 killed, seven others injured in Unitarian church

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- A man suspected of fatally shooting two adults at a Knoxville church Sunday was motivated by frustration over being unable to obtain a job and hatred for liberal stances, police said Monday.

A four-page letter found in the vehicle of Jim Adkisson -- who also is accused of injuring seven other adults -- indicated he may have targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because of recent publicity about the church's liberal policies.

"He did express that frustration, that the liberal movement was getting more jobs," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV told reporters Monday. "And he felt like he was being kept out of the loop because of his age."

Police said Adkisson, 58, of Powell, Tennessee, walked into the church's sanctuary during a children's musical performance and fired a shotgun before being overpowered by congregants. Adkisson -- who police said wasn't a member of the church -- has been charged with one count of first-degree murder.

Killed in the shooting were Linda Kraeger, 61, and Greg McKendry, 60, police said. Witnesses said McKendry, an usher and board member at the church, tried to shield others when he was shot, according to The Associated Press.VideoWatch scene at church after shooting »

Four of the seven surviving wounded were still in the University of Tennessee Medical Center on Monday evening. Officials there said two patients were in critical condition and one was "stable." The hospital would not release information about the fourth person.

Owen said the case is being investigated as a hate crime. He said the letter, signed by Adkisson but not addressed to anyone, expressed hatred for gay people.

According to Out & About, a Tennessee gay newspaper based in Nashville, TVUUC was home to several gay and gay-friendly groups and recently posted a "gays welcome" sign "as part of its long-range planning to conduct more outreach and welcome" to gay men and lesbians.

The church, on its Web site, describes itself as a community that has worked for social change -- including desegregation, women's rights and gay rights -- since the 1950s.

Authorities also discovered a letter from the state government telling Adkisson he was having his food stamps reduced or eliminated, police said.

Owen said Adkisson has resided in the Knoxville area for three or four years and his last known employment was in 2006. Neighbors told The Associated Press that Adkisson had been a truck driver, and Owen added that Adkisson has an associate's degree in mechanical engineering. See map »

"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Owen said. VideoWatch police chief describe latest findings »

Adkisson's letter also indicated "that he expected to be there shooting people until the police arrived and he fully expected to be killed by the responding police," Owen said.

Investigators found 76 shotgun shells in the church, Owen said. Three rounds were fired from a 12-gauge shotgun that was brought into the church hidden in a guitar case, police said.

There is "an indication he was not targeting the children," but that has not been conclusively determined, Owen said. iReport.com: Are you there? Share photos, video, accounts

The shooting came eight years after Adkisson, according to divorce documents, threatened to kill his fourth wife and himself.

In a 2000 complaint filed in Tennessee's Anderson County, his then-wife, Liza Alexander, said she was "in fear for my life and what he might do." She also claimed that Adkisson "drinks heavily every day, and becomes belligerent, and makes threats."

"My husband, Jim David Adkisson told a friend of mine that one of his options is to blow my brains out and then blow his own brains out (I heard him say this)," Alexander wrote in her petition for a protection order, which she was granted.

The only criminal record authorities have found of Adkisson shows two instances of driving under the influence -- one in California "a number of years ago" and one "more recently" in Tennessee, Owen said.

Authorities have been told that Adkisson was once in the military, a member of the 101st Airborne Division, Owen said.

Lt. Col. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman, said there is a record of a Jim David Adkisson who served beginning in 1974. He was released from active duty in 1977 and discharged in 1980. He was a helicopter repairman with the 163rd Aviation Co. at Fort Campbell, Kentucky -- part of the 101st Airborne Division.

Adkisson's military record shows that in 1977 he was demoted from a specialist 4th class to private. Information about why Adkisson was demoted wasn't available.

Neighbors said Adkisson was quiet and kept to himself.

"He never went anywhere. He never had anybody over. Just, it was really quiet. He rode a motorcycle and you know he would go out on the weekends on his motorcycle, but other than that, you never heard from him," Melissa Coker told WVLT-TV.

Coker told the AP that Adkisson had been a truck driver, but she didn't think he'd been working steadily in the past six months.

"He's just a really, really nice guy," Coker told the AP.

Adkisson's landlord said she did not know him well enough to make any comments on his character but said he was a good tenant who paid his bills, according to CNN affiliate WBIR-TV.

Bail was set at $1 million late Sunday.

Police said people were recording videos of the children's performance when the shooting happened, and investigators were reviewing the videos. Information on what, if anything, the videos show of the shooting wasn't immediately available.

Three of the wounded were relatives who were visiting the church for the first time Sunday. WVLT identified the three as Joe Barnhart, 76; Jack Barnhart, 69; and Betty Barnhart, 71, who was treated and released Sunday.

A statement released by the family Monday said: "The entire Barnhart family would like to thank our friends and the community for their calls, visits and prayers. ... Our family members continue to recover and we ask that your prayers continue for all that have been involved in this tragic event."

I couldn't care less why that nutcase did it. He committed two counts of capital murder. Fry him.

Remember the guy who, on 9/11, just ran out and wanted to kill the first Muslim he saw and actually killed a 7/11 clerk who was a Sikh? Same thing. Fry him. Who cares why he did it? He murdered an innocent person. Fry him.

how many types of homicide are there and how are they delineated?

BTW, do you realize your first 2 sentences are incongruous?

I believe there are three degrees of murder, not to be confused with manslaughter or negligent homicide, and the two cases I just mentioned were about as cut and dry premeditated as it gets, which means first degree and is usually a capital offense.

Killing someone while telling them to hold your beer and watch this is not murder. It's prosecutable for sure, but it ain't murder.

Actually murder (and its many classes) are part of homicide.

One determinant of degree of homicide is motive or intent. Our justice system cares a great deal about WHY people do things. it sets the parameters for arguing a case as well as assigning punishment.

WHY people commit crimes is as important, in our justice system, as the crime itself.

if I had not posted the entire article, just that two people were shot dead in a church, how would YOU know how to prosecute the shooter? The WHY in the crime helps you judge the initial severity of the crime itself. Put another way, if the Mr. Adkisson were merely showing his gun to others at a church function, and it accidentally went off killing 2 people, he would be charged with some type of negligent manslaughter. he didn't mean to kill them, but he showed great negligence in bringing in a loaded gun.

Our society, for better or worse, places a premium on WHY.

Name one person who killed anyone else after paying the price??? Sounds like it works very well to me, the fact that criminals are stupid (main reason dem want them to be able to vote without taking the steps required in many states, says so, and the defending of criminals on this board by liberals also shows that) doesn't give them a break for killing someone:mad:

\ Fixed it for you:p

liberal already do that, it is called PC.

Hate crime is spraypainting a swastica on someone's garage or church, burning a cross in someone's yard, etc.

Murder is murder and should pre-empt all others. You shouldn't get both, it perverts the original intent of "hate crime" IMHO.

And if they get shot while doing it, I have no problem with it either.

I do have to laugh about this one.... they just put a guy down here in VA for killing a guy with a lamp. His final words were "tell the governor he lost my vote, can we hurry this up, I'm dying to get out of here..."

This is "probably" a hate crime, IMHO, though would probably fall under some older law about inciting a riot or something:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/422004-critical-mass-not-cool.html

Wrong. They place a premium on requisite intent. If you kill someone with no intent, you won't get charged with murder. Sure, they may throw that charge at you to get you to plead to a lesser one. But killing someone by accident is not murder. It's just about impossible to kill two people with a gun by accident. One maybe, not two. And there's no question whatsoever that the church nut intended to kill people. He left his house with his gun and was on a mission to kill. I don't know how you get any more clear cut a case of premeditated murder than that. Did he know the politics of the individuals he shot? Did he go after people with CA plates on their cars and assume they were liberals? Doesn't matter. He intended to kill complete strangers and took several deliberate steps before doing so. Murder one, period.

Go ahead, Shaun. Just come out and say some people's lives are more important than others and that's why we have hate crimes laws. Liberals love to view people as groups and not individuals.

I view that as no more than vandalism. I don't care what the reason is. Same as flag burning. You can't just go around starting fires in public or on someone's front lawn. Reason doesn't matter. Fires are bad. Vandalism is bad. It's arson and probably reckless endangerment. Lock em up for as long as that will allow. Hate should have nothing to do with the sentence.

I'd have a very hard time not shooting someone I saw starting a fire on my property. Such shootings are probably encouraged in AZ.

I think the intent is that you're intimidating the person. There's a big difference if someone paints a happy face on a black guy's garage and paints "go back to africa, ******". It's personal. Then again if the guy's name was Bob and they painted "go back to africa, Bob" would that count as a hate crime? :D

The one thing that really bothers me about the way you argue Rick is that you reply with your own agenda, you don't reply to the post at hand and it makes debating with you tiresome. Politicians do this. First, part of intent is WHY. From there you go off on tangents, and you mix terminology dissolving your argument into nothingness about whether or not you can kill 2 people accidentally. But starting here:

"If you kill someone with no intent, you won't get charged with murder."

there is so much wrong with this statement, that you can't argue against it. and it only gets worse.

Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act, to fail to do so (i.e. an omission) or to achieve a state of affairs. Our justice system cares WHY people do things. it helps to set the initial charge and ultimately the punishment.

Why did the driver hit the bicyclist: he was drunk

Why did man 1 kill man 2: Man 2 threatened man 1; self-defense

Why did the woman drown her children: she is mentally ill

Why did the boy shoot and kill his friend: he didn't know the gun was loaded

All of these people above will be charged, or not charged, differently in the death of another person.

WHY is important in our justice system. Please accept that as fact given my examples above.

In WA it is called Malicious Harrassment and it goes all ways. Except for the 2 cases specifically called out: Cross Burning on a Black person's property and Swastica painting on Jewish property, which I think we could agree is not kosher. Big thanks to my HS Civics class for this info :)

The constitution is a living document as are the laws written based on it. Society evolves and from time to time we need to re-evaluate what laws reflect the social norms and what do not. Remember, it was not that long ago that Women were not allowed to vote. Perhaps it is time we revisit Hate Crime laws to reflect the times, or have our DAs apply it evenly regardless of the perp's race.

What if you burn a cross on Obama's lawn?

How about if you accidentally burn it on a Black guy's neighbor's (who's not black) lawn instead? Simple vandalism? What if the neighbor was Black too, but he wasn't the intended target?

Ok, I'll stop now. :D

A "hate crime" would be a more serious version of the same crime.
-The only difference would be the element that the actions coud be attributed to a premeditated disposition through a inherent bias, rather than base animalistic instinct reacting to an opportunistic situation.
-This premeditated disposition would be the cumulation of direct experiences and an ideological standpoint based upon higher conceptualization of moralistic values.

So, in essense, a hate criminal is infered by the courts to be of higher intelligence, basically the crime of being intelligent, but we needn't go into demographical enforcement statistics....