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.