Are hate crime laws wrong?
 

It really chaps my hide that this passes Constitutional muster, that some grievance groups are entitled to more equal protection under the law than others. This nutcase who just shot up the church in TN is now being called a hate-criminal. Yeah, like anyone who shoots random innocent people has something other than hate in his heart. What kind of person (lawmaker) thinks that criminals who think nothing of committing murder or egregious bodily harm will then be deterred by an additional sentence for a hate crime? I'm not sure which is more insulting - that your attacker faces a stiffer sentence if you're a member of a grievance group or that we have such stupid, pandering lawmakers. If I beat my wife, do I get slapped with a hate crime in addition to domestic violence because she and I are of different races? Seems to me I would be the victim since Han Chinese far outnumber all the white people in the world combined.

"stupid, pandering lawmakers."

+1

btw, nice write up.

Yes, they are absolutely wrong...unless you can figure out how to make me part of a "grievance group"... ;)

All crime is hate crime.

+1

I justy don't get it. If I shout a racial slur at someone, I'm protected by the First Amend. But if I do it while shooting them, it escalates to a hate crime, my First Amend. right is then conditional and I could get an additional five years tacked on under federal law. Has this been tested by the SCOTUS yet?

is it a crime to hate stupid, pandering lawmakers?

Self loathing Suicide - do they get tagged for a hate crime?

Yep. A crime is a crime, no matter the motivation.

These laws were not enacted to actually reduce crime or foster a greater sense of justice. These laws were created by leftist politicians to give them the ability to label proper thinking conservatives as racists/homophobes.

In a very recent case here in Seattle, an elderly gentleman was out watering his garden that he had planted in the middle circle of a traffic roundabout. His hose was running accross the road, and apparently he was trying to pullit back, or whatever. Some one in a car got angry because they felt they were being delayed. A young man (either getting out of a car, or passing by - I'm not clear on this) clocks this older man, knocking him to the ground, killing him.

Police knew from witnesses who the young man (who fled) was. They asked for help in finding him. Only one news source that I saw published a photo of him. The rest only listed his name. Other than that one news source, none mentioned the race of the attacker or of the victim. You have probably guessed by now that the attacker was black and the victim was white. Had the roles been reversed, I'm relatively sure the races would have been mentioned and the photo would have been widely published and aired.

I wonder if the prosecutor will add "hate crime" to the charges. Typically, when it is black (or any minority) on white violence, these charges are not added. There have been a couple of other infamous cases accross the nation recently of black on white murder or assault where they were not filed. Wonder why.

The result of legislation that stems from knee-jerk, sensationalist, "get-your-name-in-the-papers-its-an-election-year" mentality on the part of our elected officials.

Kind of like "zero tolerance", "domestic terrorism" or similar pablum.

+1

Pathetic pandering.

NEWS SOURCE COMMENT:

The FBI was assisting in case the shooting turned out be a hate crime, Police Chief Sterling Owen said. Police said they would hold a news conference Monday morning.

The church promotes progressive social work, including advocacy of women and gay rights. The Knoxville congregation also has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site.

__________________________

His parents made him attend church, he didn't like it.

Or perhaps he just hates God? If you can't get to the 'Big Man'...you take out his surrogates.:p

Yep!
 

Yep!

C'mon, you guys are smarter than this.

Crime is crime.

When you commit crime for no other reason than the person is a particular ethnicity, sex or sexual persuasion then it is a hate crime and deserves a stiffer sentence.

It's a way to upgrade something like a simple assault charge, (which will usually result in a fine, slap on the wrist) so it has more teeth. Does it work, I don't know, but I have no issue with the concept.

Everyone can be a victim of a hate crime including AWM. It is not limited to any particular segment of society. The motivating factor of the antagonist makes the determination.

Is it any different than the distinction between Manslaughter and Murder?

Victim is dead either way right.

Now admittedly the application of these laws may be faulty. Blame the local DA's.

Most interracial crime is black on some other race. Yet virtually none is considered a hate crime.

What's the motivation for those that are not?

Car jacking, mugging, rape, murder?

Not a hate crime unless it was done specifically because the victim was ________.

And if it was simply because the victim is _______ but hate crime charges were not brought then you need to exercise your rights and vote in a DA that will apply the law correctly.

Same as if hate crime charges are brought where none are warranted.

Get yourself a new DA.

Yeah, but you're dead, you're dead, you're raped you're raped. IF the criminal did the crime on you because of your race, does it make it worse?

I guess it's sort of like the terrorist, versus criminal prosecution of people like the 9/11 bombers.

OMG ...just think of the irony, if:

It becomes a 'Hate Crime' because of his utterances he made before opening fire
and then an ACLU lawyer is provided ...that the very same church helped fund!

Who says God has no humor?

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?