Are hate crime laws wrong?

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Liberals love to view people as groups and not individuals.

Got a good laugh out of that one, Rick. Read it again.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

"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.

I'm missing your example in which someone gets charged with murder for an accidental death.

[Hugh R]

From this link http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm

So of the approximately 2 million black on white crimes in 2002, and the approximately 1,700 white on black crimes, most of those 2 million had nothing to do with hate, or because they were white? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

Almost 1,200 TIMES more black on white crime than the reverse, and virtually none of its is hate crime. And when you consider that blacks make up about 15% of the US population that makes an effective rate of closer to 8,400 TIMES the white rate of interracial crime.

But as BHO said today, we still have a long way to go on racism in this country. Boy is that an understatement.

[DavidI]

In America, we place different values on individual's lives based upon that person. For example, if the President was attacked and at the same time a homeless man was attacked, who would the public invest their time in solving?
Domestic Violence covers a spouse, exspouse, girlfriend, exgirlfriend, cohabitant, former cohabitant and is most often a felony account. The injuries can be minor in nature or severe. If the husband slaps his wife and leaves a red mark, he is going to jail for a felony. If he slapped his friend with the same strength, he may not even go to jail.
Another example is "Terrorist Threats." The law was created mostly to arrest gangsters when they threatened others with the backing of their gang. Now it is used on any threats of GBI or death for anyone.

There is a "letter of the law" and a "spirit of the law." The "letter of the law" is applied directly as it is printed. The "spirit of the law" allows the officer to use his discretion in the application of the law. For example, a known gangmember walking down the street carrying a "Dodger bat" (miniature baseball bat given out at Dodger games) in case there is a problem is much different, at least in my mind, from an elderly woman carrying the same "Dodger bat" in case something happened going out on a walk. The crime for each could be 12020PC, but the elderly woman does not fall within the "spirit of the law."

Hate Crimes do not defend defend groups, they defend the same principals that our founding fathers defended. The malice attached to the actions has everything to do with the intent and subsequent punishment.

Someone earlier posted victimizing a 9 year old and a 19 year old as being the same. Absolutely not because the crime "shocks the conscience."

For political reasons, the DAs select particular cases to charge hate crimes in. I would like to add gangsters killing gangsters as a hate crime. Think about it, they shoot, maim, and kill each other based upon a group affiliation and belief. Under the specific definition, it seems to fit.

David

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

From this link http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm

So of the approximately 2 million black on white crimes in 2002, and the approximately 1,700 white on black crimes, most of those 2 million had nothing to do with hate, or because they were white? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

Almost 1,200 TIMES more black on white crime than the reverse, and virtually none of its is hate crime. And when you consider that blacks make up about 15% of the US population that makes an effective rate of closer to 8,400 TIMES the white rate of interracial crime.

But as BHO said today, we still have a long way to go on racism in this country. Boy is that an understatement.

Whoa!

Hugh, you might want to cross reference those facts with a reliable source like the National Inquirer first.

Exactly how many hours did it take you to find a grossly exagerated inflamatory number like that?

Hard to imagine google is that bad as to give you THAT as the 1st hit.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by DavidI

In America, we place different values on individual's lives based upon that person. For example, if the President was attacked and at the same time a homeless man was attacked, who would the public invest their time in solving?
Domestic Violence covers a spouse, exspouse, girlfriend, exgirlfriend, cohabitant, former cohabitant and is most often a felony account. The injuries can be minor in nature or severe. If the husband slaps his wife and leaves a red mark, he is going to jail for a felony. If he slapped his friend with the same strength, he may not even go to jail.
Another example is "Terrorist Threats." The law was created mostly to arrest gangsters when they threatened others with the backing of their gang. Now it is used on any threats of GBI or death for anyone.

There is a "letter of the law" and a "spirit of the law." The "letter of the law" is applied directly as it is printed. The "spirit of the law" allows the officer to use his discretion in the application of the law. For example, a known gangmember walking down the street carrying a "Dodger bat" (miniature baseball bat given out at Dodger games) in case there is a problem is much different, at least in my mind, from an elderly woman carrying the same "Dodger bat" in case something happened going out on a walk. The crime for each could be 12020PC, but the elderly woman does not fall within the "spirit of the law."

Hate Crimes do not defend defend groups, they defend the same principals that our founding fathers defended. The malice attached to the actions has everything to do with the intent and subsequent punishment.

Someone earlier posted victimizing a 9 year old and a 19 year old as being the same. Absolutely not because the crime "shocks the conscience."

For political reasons, the DAs select particular cases to charge hate crimes in. I would like to add gangsters killing gangsters as a hate crime. Think about it, they shoot, maim, and kill each other based upon a group affiliation and belief. Under the specific definition, it seems to fit.

David

Thanks David, that's the point I have been trying to, (rather poorly in comparison to your post) make.

The malice attached to the actions has everything to do with the intent and subsequent punishment.

[stomachmonkey]

Oh and Byron,

Don't alter my posts and put words in my mouth that you know are not true.

I have no problem letting you know next time I'm in Fla. We can discuss in person if you want.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Thanks David, that's the point I have been trying to, (rather poorly in comparison to your post) make.

My earlier point was just that though. Malice and intent are already factors in charge and sentencing so why does this specific horror warrant a unique mantle?

Again I say it's just a ploy to paint right wingers as racists/homophobes knowing full well they'll actually appose the idea on principle.

Conservative are not without guilt though either, the cop-killer laws mentioned earlier are a good example. They bait liberals to oppose them allowing them allowing us topoint and say "look how they favor killers over police". It's all part of the game, it's all wrong.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

My earlier point was just that though. Malice and intent are already factors in charge and sentencing so why does this specific horror warrant a unique mantle?

Again I say it's just a ploy to paint right wingers as racists/homophobes knowing full well they'll actually appose the idea on principle.

Conservative are not without guilt though either, the cop-killer laws mentioned earlier are a good example. They bait liberals to oppose them allowing them allowing us topoint and say "look how they favor killers over police". It's all part of the game, it's all wrong.

Len,

For ME this is not a left wing/right wing thing.

I think I have been very clear in the past re: my lineage. My father is black, my mother white.

I have seen bias from BOTH sides and have been a victim of bias from EVERY side.

The first girl I was going to marry, her father did not give a crap that I was half black, his problem was I was not Jewish. Never did tell him that the white part of me is pure Aryan. Poor guy would a had a coronary.

Racism, IE, hate sucks. It does not matter which side it comes from. It sucks.

No individual group is immune to racism, not crackers, niggers, spics, kikes, wops, chinks, or anyone else.

It's ugly. It's vile. It is the lowest form of human nature.

I have been picked on for being a nigger, a honky and mistakenly a spic, pork chop and other "undesirable" latino.

You think hate has no long term effect?

Try growing up being taught to hate everything you are.

I'm older and have gotten past it but you never forget what it feels like to be hated for being who you are.

So the rest you can frankly kiss my nice firm round hairy ass.

[stomachmonkey]

Wow, was a bit more buzzed than I thought last night.

[alf]

Originally Posted by VaSteve

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.

Oddly, they got that covered and was quite clear on it. As long as you did it believing that it was to intimidate a black person you are guilty. Your stupidity is not an out

It would be interesting to see how often these statutes are used, under what circumstances and with what result.

What does green text signify btw?


whoa: What is that hariy thang? I go off leaving a post unattended press submit after an episode of shark week and i see hairy thing. Must cleanse eyes, where is grid girl thread.

[lendaddy]

My eyes! My eyes!

[Rick Lee]

That photo was a hate crime against all straight men. It shocked the conscience.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

That photo was a hate crime against all straight men. It shocked the conscience.

lol, indeed it did.

[stomachmonkey]

Sorry guys.

Got home last night and wound up doing an impromptu tailgate with a bunch of the neighbors.

I think it was the bottle of port that clouded my better judgement.

I only half remember doing it and was a bit shocked myself this morning.

[stomachmonkey]

Sorry guys.

Got home last night and wound up doing an impromptu tailgate with a bunch of the neighbors.

I think it was the bottle of port that clouded my better judgement.

I only half remember doing it and was a bit shocked myself this morning.

[Mule]

OJ killed Nicole 'cause of love. Do we need a "love crime" law?

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Oh and Byron,

Don't alter my posts and put words in my mouth that you know are not true.

I have no problem letting you know next time I'm in Fla. We can discuss in person if you want.

All I did was fill in the blanks, You left them blank, it could have been anyone, I just filled in the ones who are the victems the most. I guess you missed my responce about cross burning & punishment.

[stomachmonkey]

Didn't you get the memo?

I was trashed last night.

Don't make me put back the pic of my naked hairy ass.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Don't make me put back the pic of my naked hairy ass.

So tell us why you even had such a photo on your computer. If you found it online, it must have taken some searching and thus multiple clicks through other such photos to find "just the right one". That photo was just beyond the pale.