’)Sometimes we need things like this to remind us that even with all the drama a Democratic congress is far preferable to a Republican one thanks to this sort of legislation:
The 68-to-29 vote sends the legislation to President Obama, who has said he supports it.
The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.
How does one square Hate crimes legislation with equal protection under the law? Not that the proponents of such laws care about the Constitution or the concept of the rule of law.
How does one square Hate crimes legislation with equal protection under the law?
Perhaps you could first explain how it violates equal protection.
AO,
There are already circumstances in which the status of the victim is taken into account. In Texas (and other states, I imagine) a homicide involving a ‘regular’ citizen might not be considered a captial crime but will be if the victim is a police officer or other peace officer, other factors being equal. Is that fair?
It depends on whether said police office votes Republican. Then it’s perfectly fair.
When the intended victim is not just an individual but an entire class of people we call that terrorism. Hate crime legislation doesn’t violate equal protection because it is not intended to increase the penalty of a given crime such as murder or assault only for certain victims. Rather, it recognizes the additional crime of terrorizing and intimidating an entire community of people because of race, gender, religion, national origin, or sexual identity.
The Matthew Shepard truthers like Virginia Foxx will keep spreading the hate
We are individuals, if the penalty for the same act committed against individuals differs because of race, gender etc. than equality before the law has been diminished. Leaving all of this subject to the whim of a perhaps politically motivated prosecutor erodes the rule of law.
Hate crimes legislation is a really bad idea. Expanding it is even worse.
I’m confused though Oliver. In one of the BNP threads you said outlawing hate speech is a bad idea (as they’ve done in much of Europe). But you’re for hate crimes legislation, which is basically the same thing? (e.g., punishing people on their thoughts rather than on their actions, or rather punishing people more severely based on thoughts coupled with their actions)
I’ll be damned, Jaim is on the correct side of an arguement.
And you’re a rickety old fart. Nuthin’ like the truth.
LOL,
Only compared to a pretentious child.
Honest question: How old are you? Because if I’m a “child” at 35, I can only picture you as the father in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Child is relative I suppose, your political frame of reference that begins with Clinton and your arrogent “expertise” makes you appear to be little more than a teenager. Nobody is quite as smart and full of themselves as an 18 year old, that’s how you come across. I’m an even half century.
Clinton was the first president I ever voted for. And this troubles you why, exactly? Just because you got to vote for Herbert Hoover when you turned 18 doesn’t grant any authority beyond “I’m old.”
Jaim,
It’s your view of the past not your participation in it that makes you appear to be a teen. Your math skills aren’t anything to brag about either.
“Hate crimes legislation is a really bad idea. Expanding it is even worse.”
It’s necessary to protect the vulnerable of society. It’s really that simple.
If an innocent person is murdered, the police and the legal system are obligated to bring the murderer to justice regardless of the victim’s status as black, gay, female, or what have you. Do you really think society should start making some victims “worth more” than others?
It’s ridiculous to try and correct past wrongs by putting thumbs on the scales of justice today as a corrective.
Jaim, if the crime is intended to terrorize a community, not just an individual, why shouldn’t it carry a larger penalty?
Lynchings weren’t just a convenient way to punish a single black man, they were intended to intimidate and terrorize the entire black population. If someone sets fire to a Synagogue, for example, in order to “run the Jews out of town,” that seems more serious a crime than just setting fire because you’re a firebug. Likewise, beating up a few gays to send a message to the entire gay community is different than beating the crap out of someone because he pissed you off.
Southern Quaker, you may be right in the incidents you cite, but when a gay man grabs your crotch, and you go off , and beat him to death, that’s not a hate crime , that’s murder.
Messages are based on who sends them , not on who receives them.
That’s probably why so many gay men get beaten to death, right, Frank? Crotch-grabbin’ sumbitches! Gotta watch ‘em all the time. Never know when one of those queers’ll just sidle up next to ya and grab on! Be ready to kick their crotch-grabbin’ asses!
Seriously, though, SQ is correct. The same arguments that are being used against hate-crimes laws nowadays were used against anti-lynching laws back in the day.
Actually, anti-lynching laws were put into effect and for a long time they were ineffective. It’s hard to prosecute against intent rather than outcome. It can be done, but you’re entering the realm of psychology rather than facts about events. It’s a really bad idea and a potential slippery slope.
Not to mention the fact that it clearly marks certain groups as “worth more” under the law, and that’s inexcusable.
Do you really think society should start making some victims “worth more” than others?
This isn’t at all what hate crimes laws are about. It’s not making some victims “worth more” than others. That’s ridiculous. It’s about adding extra penalties for certain motives.
We already increase punishments because of motive and premeditation. Planning to kill someone is judged more harshly than accidentally killing someone.
In the case of hate crimes, the motive of the killer is taken into account, not the race, gender or sexual orientation of the victim.
It’s hard to prosecute against intent rather than outcome.
Are you kidding me? Intend could mean the difference between a prison sentence and the death penalty in some states and some cases. No one gets the death penalty unless intent to kill has been proven.
“This isn’t at all what hate crimes laws are about.”
It’s quite literally what they are about. From wiki:
“requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sex of any person.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act_.281994.29
It’s not something I lose sleep over, but just like legislating against hate speech as they do in Europe, it’s a terrible idea.
Yes, intent is a part of sentencing re: degrees of murder in terms of pre-meditated or “crime of passion.” I think we’re still on pretty neutral ground here. The hypothetical KKK member who plots against a black church will very much fall into the category of first degree homicide.
But getting into degrees of something as ambiguous as “hate” is a bad idea. Relying on court psychologists rather than prosecutors is an awfully bad and untenable idea.
What happened to Matthew Sheppard was terrible. But at least the wheels of justice spun correctly in that his murderers have been locked up for good. I don’t see how adding an “exra-hatey murder” category would make things any better. It certainly wouldn’t work as a deterrent, as the existence of the death penalty proves.
Jaim, don’t be a fucking moron. Click the link on “hate crimes” in the portion you cited and you find the actual definition of a hate crime:
Back off, asslick.
I understand what a hate crime is. I suggested that it’s unfair to make some victims “worth more” than others, you claimed this isn’t what hate crimes do.
This is exactly what they do, by definition.
And this is why they’re a bad idea.
I’m happy to discuss this like adults. Otherwise, shut your trap you little fuckwit.
I understand what a hate crime is. I suggested that it’s unfair to make some victims “worth more” than others, you claimed this isn’t what hate crimes do.
No you don’t. You have no idea what a hate crime is because you were too lazy to click a link.
If you want to have a discussion like an adult, Jaim, I suggest we start with the actual facts. Not some lazy, dull-witted reading of a wikipedia article.
Hate crimes are defined entirely by the motive of the accused and not the race, gender, sexual orientation etc. of the victim.
If it were otherwise, a gay man could be charged with a hate crime for murdering his lover. A prosecutor would have a hard time charging a gay man who killed his lover, with doing so because his lover was gay.
If you want to suggest that hate crime is determined by the status of the victim and not the intent of the accused, you’re just wrong. Totally wrong. Just click the link for “hate crimes” in the wikipedia article you linked to.
Do that, read the entry. If you still think you initial assertion was correct, you are a fucking moron. It’s just that simple.
I didn’t click the link that I provided? You do understand how the computer boxes and the intertubes work, correct?
I suggest you stop dropping f-bombs when somebody disagrees with you if you want to be listened to. You came in here guns blazing, not me.
“If you want to suggest that hate crime is determined by the status of the victim”
I’m not suggesting, I’m stating fact. Federal hate crimes legislation obligates a judge to punish somebody more severely if they’ve been found guilty of committing a murder or other violent act based on psychological issues such as “hate” of a specific group. This is my problem with it. Justice for a murdered or beaten person should come through as impartial an exercise of law enforcement and law as possible. And yes, I know that racism and so on play a part in denying justice for people, but that doesn’t mean we reconfigure the system in ways that go against essential truths: all people should be treated equally under the law.
And I’ll ask you again, and you’ll fail to answer, how would hate crimes legislation (which has existed since the 1960’s) have prevented Matthew Sheppard’s murder, since they obviously didn’t?
“you are a fucking moron”
Jesus, you’re an annoying little fuck. You and Dennis both need to get your own blogs. You deserve each other.
“Federal hate crimes legislation obligates a judge to punish somebody more severely if they’ve been found guilty of committing a murder or other violent act based on psychological issues such as “hate” of a specific group.”
I think that hate law legislation is an attempt to take the violent act against out of the psychological sphere and place it where it belongs, in the social and political context.
“Hate” of a particular group is a social act and not a psychological one, even if there’s a psychological element motivating the perpetrator. Muddle I know.
muddled
I didn’t click the link that I provided? You do understand how the computer boxes and the intertubes work, correct?
Okay, Jaim. Let me slow it down for you. You. cited. a. section. of. text. in. a. wikipedia. article. In. that. section. of. text. are. two. words. “hate.” “crimes.” Those. two. words. are. “hyperlinked.” Click. that. link. and. you. will. find. the. actual. accurate. definition. of. a. hate. crime. It’s. different. than. what. you. said. it. was.
Do you get it now?
I’m not suggesting, I’m stating fact. Federal hate crimes legislation obligates a judge to punish somebody more severely if they’ve been found guilty of committing a murder or other violent act based on psychological issues such as “hate” of a specific group.
You were not stating a fact when you wrote this:
Do you really think society should start making some victims “worth more” than others?
The law does not say the lives of some victims are “worth more” than others. It says some motives for killing are worse than others.
If a gay person kills a gay person, it’s highly unlikely they could ever be charged with a hate crime.
But if a black person, killed a white person, just because they were white, that could be charged as a hate crime.
The difference between the two is not the status of the victim, but the motive and intent of the killer.
Justice for a murdered or beaten person should come through as impartial an exercise of law enforcement and law as possible.
And how exactly does hate crime legislation nullify impartiality in the law? Motive still has to be proved. That proof has to meet certain tests. Because of the definition of a hate crime, judges can’t just look at a person’s skin or know their sexual orientation to declare a murder a hate crime. It’s something that has to be proven. So this idea that your defending the “impartiality” of the legal system is, well, the argument of a fucking moron.
Arguing that hate crimes legislation is intended to have a deterrence effect is also stupid. If you want to suggest that the only valid laws are laws that deter the activities they make illegal, then laws against plain old murder have no validity.
And I’ll ask you again, and you’ll fail to answer, how would hate crimes legislation (which has existed since the 1960’s) have prevented Matthew Sheppard’s murder, since they obviously didn’t?
The argument in favor of the death penalty that it’s a deterrent is irrelevant in the face of the moral, ethical argument against the death penalty.
In the case of hate crimes, the lack of any deterrent effect is not enough to invalidate the law, otherwise it’s enough to invalidate all laws that don’t deter people from breaking them. Correct?
And Jaim, I can’t believe I have to point this out, but it was not a hate crime in Wyoming to kill gay people for being gay when Matthew Sheppard was murdered.
Really, Jaim, you couldn’t be more fucking stupid than to argue that hate crimes legislation is ineffective because it didn’t prevent the killing of Matthew Sheppard.
Not repeat myself, but if you want to have a discussion like an adult, all you have to do is act like one. You start by getting your basic facts right. If you can’t do that, and so far you haven’t, you don’t really deserve to be treated with any kind of respect.
“I think that hate law legislation is an attempt to take the violent act against out of the psychological sphere and place it where it belongs, in the social and political context.”
But you can’t have one without the other. At some point a judge will have to do the vague work of trying to understand psychological motivation beyond pre-meditation vs. “crime of passion.”
“‘Hate’ of a particular group is a social act and not a psychological one”
Psychologists would disagree with you.
“Do you get it now?”
Yes, more than you apparently. You can say that HCL is only about punishing the “perceptions” of a perpetrator, but those perceptions have to come down against a specific group of people, and legally judges are obligated to punish those perpetrators more severely under the law. It’s not either/or, it’s both re: motivation of criminal vs. identity status of victim or victims.
“The law does not say the lives of some victims are ‘worth more’ than others. It says some motives for killing are worse than others.”
I honestly don’t see a difference here. The motives are inseparable from the identity status of the potential victim.
“But if a black person, killed a white person, just because they were white, that could be charged as a hate crime.”
This has actually happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell
“Arguing that hate crimes legislation is intended to have a deterrence effect is also stupid.”
Thanks for making an important point for me. However, there are many advocates of HCL who think this is a central point, e.g., Sheppard’s killers would have thought twice if there was precedent for anti-gay violence.
“I can’t believe I have to point this out, but it was not a hate crime in Wyoming to kill gay people for being gay when Matthew Sheppard was murdered.”
It was under Federal guidelines. Has been since the 1960’s. But prosecutors obviously felt they had enough evidence to convict for the murder of a human being, as opposed to a gay human being.
“Jaim, you couldn’t be more fucking stupid than to argue that hate crimes legislation is ineffective because it didn’t prevent the killing of Matthew Sheppard.”
This wasn’t my central argument, but it’s important to consider. Why enact enhanced HCL if it doesn’t prevent hate crimes? Vengeance is kind of the opposite of what your system is supposed to be about.
“Not repeat myself, but if you want to have a discussion like an adult”
Oh please. I’ve been pretty civil towards your constant string of f-bombs, and I’ve taken the time to provide some decent supporting links for why I feel the way I do. You and Dennis are just two sides of the same moronic coin. Go fuck yourself.
“you don’t really deserve to be treated with any kind of respect.”
Yeah, for a guy in support of HCL you can feel free to own this comment forever, shithead.
You can say that HCL is only about punishing the “perceptions” of a perpetrator, but those perceptions have to come down against a specific group of people, and legally judges are obligated to punish those perpetrators more severely under the law. It’s not either/or, it’s both re: motivation of criminal vs. identity status of victim or victims.
Wrong. You are just wrong about the definition of a hate crime and its status in the law:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hate+crime
If someone kills another person solely because they believed that person was gay, it does not matter, in the eyes of the law, whether the person was actually gay or not.
So you’re also wrong on this point:
The motives are inseparable from the identity status of the potential victim.
What you need to be saying is that the motives are inseparable from the “perceived” identity status of the victim.
Which is to say, hate crimes are entirely focused on the motive of the accused and not on the actual, real status of the victim.
It was under Federal guidelines. Has been since the 1960’s. But prosecutors obviously felt they had enough evidence to convict for the murder of a human being, as opposed to a gay human being.
Okay, Jaim. This is just fucking flat our wrong. You could not be more wrong. Do you even know why the Matthew Shepard Act is important. Hell, do you even know why it is named after Matthew Shepard? It’s because it expands federal hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by a victims actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender or disability:
So you’re also wrong on this point:
That’s the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry on the Act.
This has actually happened”
Yes. Yes it has, Jaim. And you’ll find at the link you provided that the Supreme Court ruled that the state had a right to “consider whether a crime was committed or initially considered due to an intended victim’s status in a protected class.”
So you just linked to a citation that proves meny of your points have already been considered by the United States Supreme Court and, in a unanimous decision, were found to wanting. Hate crimes are constitutional.
That you’ve even bothered to proceed after that, is a true testament to your belligerence.
This wasn’t my central argument, but it’s important to consider.
No it isn’t. Unless you want to consider the effectiveness of murder laws to deter murder and argue that we should do away with laws against murder because they clearly don’t deter murder.
Yeah, for a guy in support of HCL you can feel free to own this comment forever, shithead.
And for a guy who has gotten every basic fact wrong and has no real decent rational argument otherwise — especially since the Supreme Court has already found hate crimes legislation to be constitutional — you really may be as stupid as the likes of Jay Tea. Which is really quite phenomenal.
Jaim, you really have not gotten a single fact correct in this entire thread. Not one.
Given that this is the case, why should anyone respect your opnions on this subject at all?
You and Dennis are just two sides of the same moronic coin. Go fuck yourself.
Listen, Jaim, I think Dennis is a moron. But if you can’t get your basic facts straight on issues I think are important, I’m going to treat you any different than anyone else on these threads.
Get your facts right or shut the fuck up. It’s the standard I apply to everyone on issues I care about.
You and Dennis are just two sides of the same moronic coin. Go fuck yourself.
Listen, Jaim, I think Dennis is a moron. But if you can’t get your basic facts straight on issues I think are important, I’m not going to treat you any different than anyone else on these threads.
Get your facts right or shut the fuck up. It’s the standard I apply to everyone on issues I care about.
“If someone kills another person solely because they believed that person was gay, it does not matter, in the eyes of the law, whether the person was actually gay or not.”
If someone kills someone they are guilty of murder. Or if they didn’t hate gay people or blacks, are they less guilty of murder? That’s the sort of weird double-think HCL leads to, and that’s why we shouldn’t have it.
“Which is to say, hate crimes are entirely focused on the motive of the accused and not on the actual, real status of the victim.”
No, they’re not. You can say the emphasis is on the “hatey” motives of the perp, but under Federal law judges are obligated to punish these perps more severely. Again, you can’t avoid this fact: the murder of a gay person or a black person is “worse” than the murder of a straight white male when it comes to sentencing. (Or admittedly, when a black person beats a white person out of a “hatey” intention.) That’s a bad idea.
“it expands federal hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by a victims actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender or disability”
Right. It expands a bad law to make more bad laws. It’s a bad idea. If somebody murders a disabled person because they hate disabled people, they are guilty of murdering a person as far as I’m concerned, not a differently-abled person. And this is how the law should work.
“Hate crimes are constitutional.”
I’m aware of that. And they shouldn’t be.
“Unless you want to consider the effectiveness of murder laws to deter murder and argue that we should do away with laws against murder because they clearly don’t deter murder.”
It’s worth considering, obviously. I’m opposed to the death penalty in part because it doesn’t work as a deterrent. I’m also opposed to HCL on similar grounds.
“Jaim, you really have not gotten a single fact correct in this entire thread. Not one.”
Unless you’re a lawyer practicing and publishing in this field, you remain a douchebag on the internet. If you are a lawyer in this field, please feel free to direct us to your published articles. But I have this lurking suspicion that you are, in fact, a douchebag on the internet. Say it ain’t so!
But it’s cute how you’re trying to pretend how you’ve been the voice of reason here when half of your argument boil down to “U R STUPID FUCK YOU!!!”
There are lots of committed liberals like myself who are opposed to HCL on philosophical and practical grounds. The fact that you cover yourself in spittle and rage when reasonable people of a similar political bent point out some issues they have is pretty sad, really.
I am glad Bruce Henry dropped out of the the thread after he tried to ridiculously imply that I hate guys — or something…
I know in that world you inhabit, gays never hit on guys, or make moves on them. So, in your world, when a gay guy gets beat up, or killed, it’s got to be a message from some “homo hatin’” right winger, right, Bruce?
Let’s keep our stereotypes and prejudices organized , OK, Bruce?
I’m opposed to the death penalty in part because it doesn’t work as a deterrent. I’m also opposed to HCL on similar grounds.
So no doubt your opposed to any law that doesn’t deter the crime they punish. Right? If not, explain why. Where’s the logical consistency here?
Of course there is no point in seeking logic from someone who could write this:
Jaim, what you wrote above is entirely different than this sentence:
Just to put a point to it, killing a white person because they’re white is worse than killing a white person because they stole your car.
Why? Because racially motivated killings are intended to intimidate through physical violence, others of the same race. Or sexual orientation. Or gender. It’s a form of terrorism.
Unless you’re a lawyer practicing and publishing in this field, you remain a douchebag on the internet.
Jaim, if I’m a douchebag on the internet. You’re a douchebag on the internet who can’t get his basic facts straight using the internet. And that’s not my opinion.
You are factually, objectively wrong on almost every point you’ve made.
Is the actual status of the victim considered at all to determine the existence of a hate crime? Factually, demonstrably NO.
Is sentencing increased solely because of the race or sexual orientation or gender of the victim? Factually, demonstrably NO.
Did the 1969 hate crimes bill include sexual orientation in its definition of a hate crime? NO.
As for your other points, for example, deterrence, if you think deterrence is important, make the case why we should have laws against killing people at all when people still kill people. You want to make that argument, Jaim?
The fact that you cover yourself in spittle and rage when reasonable people of a similar political bent point out some issues they have is pretty sad, really.
Spittle and rage and the facts, Jaim. I’m covering myself in spittle and rage and the facts. All you’ve got is the spittle and the rage.
I know in that world you inhabit, gays never hit on guys, or make moves on them. So, in your world, when a gay guy gets beat up, or killed, it’s got to be a message from some “homo hatin’” right winger, right, Bruce?
Frank, could you tease this one out a little more? What’s the connection between gays hitting on people and their getting beat up or killed?
“So no doubt your opposed to any law that doesn’t deter the crime they punish. Right?”
Classic strawman. Here, I can play! Of course Fafaroo, I am opposed to any law that doesn’t deter crime! I think child rapists and wife beaters are awesome!
Dude, if you’re not even going to try I’m not going to waste any more time on you. But I’m procrastinating from work-related things, so I’ll continue to play. (Although it’s funny you can muster so much verbiage for somebody like me who “doesn’t deserve to be treated with any kind of respect,” just like Matthew Sheppard before he was murdered.)
“killing a white person because they’re white is worse than killing a white person because they stole your car.”
In a world of moral perfection and perfect law enforcement abilities I guess I could agree. But our system as such recognizes that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and we should simply prosecute and penalize based on outcome with some nods to intention (again, pre-meditation vs. crime of passion seems reasonable to me, “level of hatey-ness” not so much). So we settle for this: Killing a person is murder. Not such a bad outcome IMO.
“Why? Because racially motivated killings are intended to intimidate through physical violence, others of the same race. Or sexual orientation. Or gender. It’s a form of terrorism.”
And people who commit racially motivated killings should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Again, just what more do you want the murderers of Sheppard to go through? Disembowelment? Quartering? And I’d argue that a non-racially motivated murder could be construed as an act of terrorism as well, if you water down the meaning to something like “an act that makes non-victims scared.”
“And that’s not my opinion.”
LOL. You and Dennis went to the same school of debate, obviously. If you say it enough times it’s true!
“Is sentencing increased solely because of the race or sexual orientation or gender of the victim? Factually, demonstrably NO.”
Pure cherry picking. The status of a hate crime is determined by the “hatey” intentions of the perpetrator, and those intentions are directly related to the perception of said perpetrator. So I guess if a blind KKK member killed a person he thought was black we could tack on an extra life sentence for a hate crime, even though the person was white. How does this strengthen our legal system? More importantly, how does it make it any better in practice? So if this ever happened, please let me know. It totally makes your point stronger.
“Did the 1969 hate crimes bill include sexual orientation in its definition of a hate crime? NO.”
Never said it did. I’ll use small words for you though so you can keep up: It was a bad idea at the time (although understandable in the context of anti-black violence, especially in the south). Expanding it again is a bad idea now.
“I’m covering myself in spittle and rage and the facts.”
Oh you omnipotent warrior for justice you. I’ll bet you and Dennis both have tattoos of yourself because man, who wouldn’t want a tattoo of Fafaroo or Dennis? Because they’re both right all the time! Because they said so!
Dude, if you’re not even going to try I’m not going to waste any more time on you.
Jaim, you haven’t gotten a single fact right since you started, you haven’t done the most basic research and you’re also using the neologism “hatey.” And I’m supposed to take you seriously?
You’re just flailing now. Case in point:
Yes, you did. I had to remind you that hate crimes legislation wouldn’t have applied to the Shepard case:
And you responded:
Of course, this is completely factually incorrect. Just totally wrong. The sad thing is you would have known this just by reading the article that Oliver linked to in the first place.
So Jaim, if you’re not going to do the most basic research and then you’re going to pretend you didn’t say what you clearly, obviously said, you’re right on one point: There’s no point in wasting any more time with this.
“you haven’t gotten a single fact right since you started”
You keep saying this, and you’re wrong.
I was mistaken in thinking that the 1994 Federal update to the Hate Crimes Act took sexual orientation into account. Mea culpa. It doesn’t have much to do with my larger points: HCL being misguided attempts to correct past wrongs through the legal equivalent of creating special categories of victims. It certainly has nothing to do with the more pressing point that HCL would have done nothing to prevent Sheppard’s murder, as you yourself admit.
“So I guess if a blind KKK member killed a person he thought was black we could tack on an extra life sentence for a hate crime, even though the person was white.”
I guess they could write an amendment to the hate crime law to excuse this particular obscure possibility.
SQ said it best, in principle –
“When the intended victim is not just an individual but an entire class of people we call that terrorism. Hate crime legislation doesn’t violate equal protection because it is not intended to increase the penalty of a given crime such as murder or assault only for certain victims. Rather, it recognizes the additional crime of terrorizing and intimidating an entire community of people because of race, gender, religion, national origin, or sexual identity.”
…HCL being misguided attempts to correct past wrongs through the legal equivalent of creating special categories of victims.
Once again. This is wrong too. It does not create a special category of victims. Who the victim is doesn’t matter. Read the law. Read the relevant court decisions.
Hate crimes legislation creates a special category of motive. It’s entirely focused on motive.
If you want to argue that this is wrong, go for it. But you’ve been arguing it the other way and your basis for doing so is factually incorrect.
And Jaim, you said that the 1969 law included sexual orientation:
So this:
is just more weasely bullshit.
“Hate crimes legislation creates a special category of motive. It’s entirely focused on motive.”
A motive against certain classes of victim based on some form of identity be it racial, sexual, or what have you.
Round and round we go.
I just have one question. What if one of them queers sneaks up and grabs Franks’s crotch? Can he still kick the queer’s ass?
Clicking fafaroo’s link it is intersting to note tht the subject of hate crime constitutionality has not been completely settled. As much as it pains me to admit it Jaim is 4 square on this topic.
HCL criminalizes thought not action. That two criminals are indicted for different crimes with different penalties for the same acts committed against two victims who differ by race, gender, etc. deprives both the criminal and the victim of equal protection under the law. You can’t get a law more flawed than that.
Fafaroo doesn’t grasp the concept that we live not in a democracy but a republic. We live under the rule of law not the tyranny of the majority.
Bruce : Could you stop being a dope long enough to realize that there was a very simple point to my example: It is rather difficult for anyone, let alone 12 diverse individuals, to discern the difference between an act of personal hostility and an act “against a community.” If a guy is charged with a hate crime only, and the prosecution cannot prove that he intended to “send a message to the __________ community,” that man will go free.
Still laughing, chucklehead?
Relax, Frank. I don’t really think you’re a homophobe. That remark was just too easy.
Ever hear of “lesser included offenses?” I doubt murderers will go free if HCLs are implemented. Always with the doomsday scenarios. First queers indiscriminately grabbing you by the crotch, then murderers being turned loose by the truckload by prosecutors unable to prove their cases.
A motive against certain classes of victim based on some form of identity be it racial, sexual, or what have you. Round and round we go.
No, Jaim. It isn’t round and round. It’s you refusing to accept the facts of the law.
There is no special class of victim that automatically triggers a hate crime punishment. None. Zero. Nada. The status of the victim simply does not enter into it.
Someone could kill a gay person and not be charged with a hate crime. Someone could kill a white person and be charged with a hate crime.
Someone could kill a gay person because they were gay and be charged with a hate crime, even if the victim was not actually gay.
Indeed, Jaim, the constitutionality of hate crimes laws is, in part, founded on their focus on the motives and behavior of the accused:
Other court cases have directly addressed your claims of “special victim” status and rejected them wholesale:
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp
The laws are neutral on their face. They do not set apart any specific victim based on their race, gender or sexual orientation as a trigger stiffer penalties nor are these triggers automatic. Bias-motivation still must be proven in court.
Jaim, I’ve cited authoritative examples to back up my claims. You’ve cited nothing. Not one link to an authoritative source to back up your claim. Indeed, the one link you have provided was to a court case that undermines your whole argument, the Mitchell case.
This isn’t round and round because we just agree to disagree. You’re factually wrong in your disagreement with the law. It doesn’t do what you claim it does.
You can either accept this and rethink the basis of you opposition or you can keep on making an ass of yourself.
Your choice.
Clicking fafaroo’s link it is intersting to note tht the subject of hate crime constitutionality has not been completely settled…HCL criminalizes thought not action.
Wrong. Totally one hundred percent wrong. In fact, the Supreme Court has definitively declared in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that hate crimes laws constitutional precisely because the specific language of the laws do not focus on thought, but on a specific action:
Noting that “[t]raditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant,” the Court rejected the defendant’s contention that the enhancement statute penalized thought. First, the Court affirmed that the statute was directed at a defendant’s conduct — committing a crime. The Court then held that, because the bias motivation would have to be connected with a specific act, there was little risk that the statute would chill protected bigoted speech. The statute focused not on the defendant’s bigoted ideas, but rather on his actions based upon those ideas. Finally, the Court made clear that “the First Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent.” After Mitchell, challenges to penalty-enhancement statutes on the basis of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution appear to be largely foreclosed.
See the link above.
So, Amused, your objection to hate crimes laws has been definitively decided by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. You can blather on and on all you want about the “tyranny of the majority” but the law of the land has been challenged and upheld in a constitutional process. It’s as simple as that.
If a guy is charged with a hate crime only, and the prosecution cannot prove that he intended to “send a message to the __________ community,” that man will go free.
Frank, you’re another idiot in this thread. No one can be charged with “a hate crime only.” It’s not possible. They have to be charged with a criminal act first, namely murder. Then and only then can a prosecutor add a hate crime charge.
So someone is actually on trial for two charges, not one. If the person is found guilty on the first count, then and only then, does a jury consider whether there was a bias motivation involved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is entirely possible for someone to be found guilty of murder and not-guilty of a hate crime. It is not possible whatsoever to be found not guitly of murder and guilty of a hate crime.
So like Jaim and Amused, you are simply flat out wrong.
Could you three morons try, just a little to get your facts straight, before you type?
You make this too easy. I haven’t even finished my first cup of coffee yet.
Fafaroo,
As I mentioned the issue has not been completely settled.
“The U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5–4 vote, reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court and found the hate-crime provision to be unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, stated that any factor, except for a prior conviction, “that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Justice Stevens based the Court’s decision on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause and the Sixth Amendment’s right to trial by a jury. Taken together, these two provisions entitle a criminal defendant to a jury determination that “he is guilty of every element of the crime, with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Although judges do have the right to exercise discretion in sentencing, they must comply with sentencing provisions contained in state criminal statutes. Justice Stevens noted the “novelty of the scheme that removes the jury from the determination of a fact that exposes the defendant to a penalty exceeding the maximum he could receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone.”
Further more The supreme court has been wrong on several things in the past and has reversed itself. They don’t like to admit mistakes but they make them. When the pendulum swings far enough it returns to the center.
HCL is a wrong headed concept, people who support the idea are either ignorant of the 14th amendment or don’t care. There is hope for the ignorant.
As I mentioned the issue has not been completely settled.
Jesus. Amused, the constitutionality of hate crimes legislation is settled. The case you cited even clarified that point as the decision was focussed entirely on who determines the fact of a hate crime, the judge or the jury and the standards of proof.
The court found that juries have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that bias-motivation was part of the crime.
Done. Settled. Over.
At no point in that case was the constitutionality of the hate crime law in question. Only the narrower focus on how the punishment is determined.
They don’t like to admit mistakes but they make them.
Apparently, you, Jaim and Frank don’t like to admit them either.
HCL is a wrong headed concept, people who support the idea are either ignorant of the 14th amendment or don’t care. There is hope for the ignorant.
No, Amused. There is no hope for you.
I gotta admit, I was actually opposed to hate crimes legislation before reading this thread and the associated information, for much the same reason as Jaim cites now.
My view has changed. Between Southern Quaker’s and fafaroo’s commentary, I absolutely buy the argument that hate crimes legislation is not punishing thought and ideas, but rather motives for crimes, and the potential terrorizing of entire demographic groups.
I jump in to share this only because it’s so rare that my mind (or anyone’s, really) is changed by these threads. Thought it was interesting.
Fafaroo,
Seperate but equal was once done, settled, over. The cases you have cited are 1st amendment cases. The link you provided from the ADL mentions that state courts have held that these odious laws do not violate the due process and equal protection portions of the 14th amendment, State courts are not the final word on these matters. As I mentioned earlier this matter is still not completely settled, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and say it is.
I agree with your arguments, fafaroo, and I’m impressed by your knowledge of law, but damn, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
challenged and upheld in a constitutional process.
Activist judges! Yar!
Fafaroo I just wanted to commend you on the wonderful job you did.
I just like to say that anyone can be charged with a hate crime(if that’s the motivation behind the crime) not just white straight males, and victims of hate crimes can also be white straight males.
“anyone can be charged with a hate crime(if that’s the motivation behind the crime) not just white straight males, and victims of hate crimes can also be white straight males.”
And HCL is still a bad idea which creates a separate category of victims under the law. Yes, HCL are based on the motivations of the perpetrator, but these can’t be fully separated from the outcome of making a HC “more violent” than a non-HC.
Despite fafaroo’s bitching and f-bombs, he’s proven nothing beyond the current Constitutionality of HCL. Hopefully they’ll be properly understood as thoroughly un-Constitutional some day.
Okay, Jaim, I think you’ve made your point.
How would you address the problem of violent crime, directed at an individual, when used as a means to intimidate, harass or terrorize the group, then?
I would prosecute under existing laws. The delusion supporters of HCL labor under is that there aren’t existing laws that address these issues. At the same time, somebody saying hateful things, while despicable, isn’t a crime.
I’m still curious as to Oliver’s position re: being opposed to hate speech laws, but for hate crime laws, because they’re two sides of the same coin.
At the same time, somebody saying hateful things, while despicable, isn’t a crime.
you’re right, jaim. Which is why hate crime legislation isn’t aimed at speech. It’s aimed criminal actions motivated by bias. Criminal actions are not protected speech. If they were any activist could vandalize whatever they want in the name of their political cause and be protected under the 1st amendment. Tha isn’t the way it works.
If you ever took the te to acquaint yourself with basic facts of these laws, you might not have such a beef withthem. But you clearly prefer operating in ignorance.
And jaim you don’t like me writing fuck? Why you delicate flower. I had no idea you were so sensitive.
Lots and lots and lots on hate crimes here:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/05/hate-crimes-not-thought-crimes.html
Plenty of links at the end for even more from the indispensable Mr. Neiwert.
Lots of good reading there. If you got that kind of time.
And HCL is still a bad idea which creates a separate category of victims under the law.
Jaim you keep repeating this. Please tells us the exact categories of victims created by HCLs.
The cases you have cited are 1st amendment cases.
And the case you cited dealt with standards of proof and who determines whether the hate crime has been proven.
The argument on equal protection grounds has been answered by state courts and so far as I know, none of those cases have been appealed or addressed by the Supreme Court. So while that issue hasn’t been settled definitively, it isn’t a strong argument for your side.
Who is not getting equal treatment under the law? A hate crime is not a separate, independent charge. It’s a charge on top of a criminal charge.
if your assailant is not charged with a hate crime, you still get all the protection of the law you deserve otherwise. At the same time, every citizen could also be the victim of a hate crime, no matter what their race, gender or sexual orientation. No one is denied that protection either.
For example.
If a gay person is beaten because they are gay, that is different than if a gay person is beaten because they started a bar fight.
Hate crimes lay does not mean one gay person’s life is more valuable than the other gay person’s life. It means the reason the first gay person was attacked was worse than the reason the other person attacked.
We create more severe penalties for more severe crimes all the time.
“If you ever took the te to acquaint yourself with basic facts of these laws,”
You keep putting words in my mouth, then criticize me for points I never made. Grow up, Dennis.
“Hate crimes lay does not mean one gay person’s life is more valuable than the other gay person’s life.”
No, it explicitly means that the punishment for violence against a gay person is greater than that of a “non hatey” crime. If a person is illegally beaten or injured they should be protected as a person, not a person of a specific identity.
Again, you’re asking courts to put on psychologist hats which is a very bad idea. You’re also going beyond reasonably interpreted things like pre-meditation vs. heat of the moment violence and getting into the slippery slope of “level of hatey-ness.”
But please, I eagerly await your next response of “FUCK U I IZ RITE!!!”
“I would prosecute under existing laws. The delusion supporters of HCL labor under is that there aren’t existing laws that address these issues.”
What a novel concept, using existing laws. That certainly wouldn’t have mattered in the Byrd case or the Shepard case…Oh wait Shepard’s murderers got double life and Byrd’s received two death penalties and a life imprisonment.
So out of 5 criminals sentences we can tally up three life imprisonments and two death penalties. Other than changing them all to death penalties what more could a reasonable person expect as sufficient justice? Which of these outcomes illustrates the need for the new federalization that bears the names of these celebrated victims.
Note the sleazy way this bill was passed, not on it’s own merits but as a completely unrelated measure to a “must pass” defense spending bill. The politics of identity once again, and on a Democrat’s watch, what a coincidense.
If murdered, my status as a victim and the status of my killer will both will differ from those of a “protected” minority if the prosecutor has decided to curry favor for poltical gain. Not that that could ever happen, oh wait, What about Duke…
The Constitution dies a death of a thousand cuts to the cheering of liberals across the nation.
Fafaroo,
“Who is not getting equal treatment under the law? A hate crime is not a separate, independent charge. It’s a charge on top of a criminal charge.”
As we now charge headlong down the slippery slope of double jeopardy being ok if used correctly you still cling to the notion that this isn’t a case of the denial of equal protection. If left to the likes of you the students railroaded at Duke would be convicted felons.
“The Constitution dies a death of a thousand cuts to the cheering of liberals across the nation.”
There are plenty of liberals like myself who oppose HCL, if I haven’t made that clear by now.
If a person is illegally beaten or injured they should be protected as a person, not a person of a specific identity.
They are, Jaim. Hate crimes laws don’t change that one bit. Rest assured, Jaim, it’s still against the law to kill people.
Hate crimes laws do not diminish the rights of anyone else in the eyes of the law nor do they put certain kinds of people above other kinds of people. The status of the victim is utterly irrelevant and that person could white, black, Asian, latino, gay, straight etc. etc. It would not matter. No one is given any kind of special protection.
As we now charge headlong down the slippery slope of double jeopardy being ok if used correctly you still cling to the notion that this isn’t a case of the denial of equal protection.
You haven’t made a single coherent argument that hate crimes laws violate equal protection because neither you nor Jaim are actually arguing from the facts. You are both entirely mistaken about the focus of the laws, the language of the laws and the way they have been interpreted by the courts.
Let’s take your “double jeopardy” comment as an example. Hate crimes laws have nothing to do with double jeopardy. You have no idea what you’re even talking about. A hate crime is a separate, secondary charge on top of the first, primary charge. If someone is found innocent of the first charge, they cannot be tried again for a hate crime. It isn’t allowed in the laws as written.
And the there’s this:
If hate crimes laws actually create a “protected” class of minority citizens, then they must do so specifically. Which means you should be able to name them. So, Amused and Jaim, name the minorities specifically “protected” by the law. Name them. All of them. Then cite the specific language in the Matthew Shepard Act that lists these specific minorities which are to be protected. And happy hunting. But I’m not going to hold my breathe for you to present any actual language from the law. You haven’t so far. But go for it. Read the law and cite where it specifically “protects” a specific group of “minorities.”
Not that that could ever happen, oh wait, What about Duke…
Oh gee, Amused references a totally unrelated case to support his completely factually inaccurate understanding of hate crimes laws. How surprising.
But please, I eagerly await your next response of “FUCK U I IZ RITE!!!”
And I eagerly await you to cite any actual authoritative evidence in support of your claims or your citation of any accurate facts at all.
“No one is given any kind of special protection. ”
We’ve already agreed that HCL wouldn’t be a deterrent. It wouldn’t have prevented Mathew Sheppard’s murder, for example, just as the death penalty doesn’t prevent murder and never has.
So the problems are that HCL’s don’t really accomplish anything in the practical world, and in the legal/theoretical realm they open up cans of worms regarding psychological “hate” that the legal system simply isn’t equipped to deal with, nor should it.
“No one is given any kind of special protection.”
But the “special protection” isn’t the issue, it’s the notion that there are degrees of “regular” vs. “hate inspired” violence that are patently absurd. Maybe a novelist could plumb these depths, but certainly not lawyers, cops, and judges. They aren’t equipped and even if they were, it’s beyond the scope of their duties to decide where and when a heinous murder was just, ya know, really awful, or super-duper hatey awful.
“You are both entirely mistaken about the focus of the laws, the language of the laws and the way they have been interpreted by the courts.”
You keep saying this Dennis, and yet you’ve failed to point to a single article from an actual lawyer or judge that makes your case. My very first comment in this thread was “HCL are a bad idea,” and you jumped in guns-and-spittle and f-bombs blazing. We are, indeed, talking about opinions regarding a Federal law (actually, the expansion of a bad Federal law). I’m happy to stand by what I’ve put forward as a critique of HCL as they exist. Hopefully all of it will be dumped by the courts some day.
As much as I hate to admit it, AO is right to point out that “Separate But Equal” was also Constitutional for a long time (not to mention slavery). That doesn’t necessarily make it right. Far from it.
“So, Amused and Jaim, name the minorities specifically ‘protected’ by the law. Name them. All of them.”
Obviously it changes with the circumstances. An extra-hatey black murder of a white person that takes HCL into consideration is just as stupid as when it happens the other way around. So what? It’s bad law in either case.
“Oh gee, Amused references a totally unrelated case to support his completely factually inaccurate understanding of hate crimes laws. How surprising.”
Fafaroo, for a guy like yourself who isn’t half as smart as he thinks he is, it’s kind of funny that you take umbrage at this because it sort of defines your whole style of argument. Of course, AO didn’t call you a “fucking moron” or anything like that right out of the gate, so it’s actually even funnier.
“And I eagerly await you to cite any actual authoritative evidence in support of your claims or your citation of any accurate facts at all.”
Says the guy who cites Neiwart and ADL, a person and a group which I respect generally but are far from neutral when it comes to HCL.
“No, it explicitly means that the punishment for violence against a gay person is greater than that of a “non hatey” crime. If a person is illegally beaten or injured they should be protected as a person, not a person of a specific identity.”
Sometimes society has to send a message that it’s wrong to be “hatey” towards a particular group. It must be nipped in the bud and the punishments should be harsher to make sure the message is heard loud and clear. If that gay person you cite was beaten because he was gay, then he should be protected because he’s a person and gay. Presumably, in that instance, he would not have been beaten at all if not for being gay.
If you murder a gay person, society sends the message that you should spend your life in jail or even be executed. This is exactly what happened to the guys who murdered Sheppard.
Personally, I’m opposed to the death penalty myself. But would a public stoning appease you? Drawing-and-quartering perhaps?
No, it explicitly means that the punishment for violence against a gay person is greater than that of a “non hatey” crime. If a person is illegally beaten or injured they should be protected as a person, not a person of a specific identity.
Jaim, you are completely ignoring the context.
If a gay person is murdered during the course of a robbery, then there is no hate crime involved and no “special identity status” under the law. However, if a gay is murdered coming out of a bar for the express purpose of intimidating other gays from frequenting that establishment, is that not also a crime?
If a Synagogue is burned to the ground with the message “Kill Jews” and “Jews are scum” painted on the walls, is that not a more heinous crime than simple arson?
Would you feel more comfortable if it were called “domestic terrorism” instead of “hate crime?”
This has been one of the more interesting threads I have read recently.
Remember that the new HCL only expanded the definition a hate crime. It does not add new powers, it just makes sure that all the new ways of hating people are covered.
Since the main focus has been on murder, lets think about this for a second:
Manslaughter – Killing without intent to kill
2nd degree – Killing with intent to kill, but not pre-meditated against the victim
1st degree – Killing with pre-meditated intent against the victim
Notice how these rough definitions all hinge on one part: the intent of the killer. The intent is a big factor in determining how serious the crime was.
We can agree that if someone kills someone accidentally through some sort of neglegence, it is not as bad as someone going into a gas station and killing the cashier to rob the place. Even worse would be someone planning to kill a certain person for any number of reasons (life insurance..etc)
Someone who kills another human will probably hate their victim in some way. Simply hating the victim is not a hate crime. A hate crime happens when a victim is targeted because of his/her perceived race/gender/religion/national origin/etc… What race/gender…etc the victim actually is has no weight. Because of this, no specific group of people gets more protection than another. It all hinges on what makes the killer kill in the same way we distinguish between 1st and 2nd degree murder. It doesn’t make murder any worse or better.
Therefore, murdering a gay person is the same as murdering any person. The murder charge will always be there. The HCL says that if the killer’s modivation was hate, based on the victim belonging to a certain group, then the murder is a little more serious.
“If you murder a gay person, society sends the message that you should spend your life in jail or even be executed.”
The message society sends is that you should spend you life in jail or be executed because you murdered someone. Nobody is going to think (hopefully) that they can kill someone who isn’t a miniority because it won’t be a hate crime. Murderers will still go to jail.
So the problems are that HCL’s don’t really accomplish anything in the practical world, and in the legal/theoretical realm they open up cans of worms regarding psychological “hate” that the legal system simply isn’t equipped to deal with, nor should it.
Jaim, you’ve now been reduced to arguing that the legal system is ill-equipped to understand let alone divine the psychological reasons someone commits a crime, in other words, their motive. This is patently ridiculous.
Cops, lawyers, judges and juries deal with questions of motive all the time. You’re also overlooking the fact that bias motivation in a crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it is a jury that decides whether or not it has. Again, juries are left to decide if a motive exists for a crime all the time. Hate crime laws do not ask the legal system to do or deal with anything it doesn’t already do or deal with. To suggest otherwise is simply absurd.
You keep saying this Dennis, and yet you’ve failed to point to a single article from an actual lawyer or judge that makes your case.
How about the Supreme Fucking Court, Jaim? Does that not count now? You’ve raised First Amendment objections to hate crimes laws and you’ve raised evidentiary objections. The Supreme Court has dealt with both and dismissed your arguments out of hand. The Wisconsin v. Mitchell case was decided you unanimously. I cited a summary of that decision with quotes! above.
Now it’s also true that a number of state courts have heard the “no equal protection” argument and found it wanting.
The idea that after the Supreme Court weighs in on an issue doesn’t mean it’s settled because another court could over turn it is just silly. Yeah, sure that might happen. But since we can amend the Constitution you might as well say that our entire system of government is unsettled. Technically, you’re right. Practically speaking, you’re desperate.
(Of course, I should point out again that it is you who have not cited a single relevant authority in this thread? Even when you linked to a wikipedia article you failed to link to the correct and relevant one! This is why you’re a fucking moron, Jaim. You’re simple ignoring everything that’s been presented to you because you’re unable to admit your mistakes and basic factual errors. You can slight the ADL all you want but they have actually helped author many of the laws in existence today.)
Obviously it changes with the circumstances. An extra-hatey black murder of a white person that takes HCL into consideration is just as stupid as when it happens the other way around. So what? It’s bad law in either case.
As these laws are written, Jaim, there are only four categories that can be considered for a bias-motivated charge: race, gender, sexual orientation and physical ability. Now Jaim, please name the group of people who do not have a race, a gender, a sexual orientation or physical abilities. Oh right. Everybody has those! So everyone is protected equally by the law against bias-motivated crimes. Just like they’re protected equally by the laws against the crimes which must first be committed before a hate crimes charge can be determined and leveled.
So, Jaim, if you want to continue spiraling down into ever more desperate stretches of logic and mis-information, have at it. But you’ve been factual wrong and logically inconsistent since the beginning.
“Jaim, you’ve now been reduced to arguing that the legal system is ill-equipped to understand let alone divine the psychological reasons someone commits a crime, in other words, their motive. This is patently ridiculous.”
Again, you’re putting up strawmen. I’ve said repeatedly that motive can be taken into consideration up to a point. There are degrees, so to speak. Pre-meditated vs. crime of passion seems a reasonable, objective standard. “Level of hatred existing within the heart of the perpetrator” strikes me as ridiculous
“Technically, you’re right.”
LOL. Two can play at this game.
“his is why you’re a fucking moron, Jaim.”
Glad to know the wrong-headed supporters of HCL are classy as ever.
“So everyone is protected equally by the law against bias-motivated crimes.”
And I’ve already said at least twice, this isn’t why the laws are bad. The idea of a hate crime against a straight, white, non-disabled person is perfectly valid under HCL, and it’s also perfectly ridiculous.
“But you’ve been factual wrong and logically inconsistent since the beginning.”
In your own mind, Dennis.
BTW, are we agreed that HCL would have no real-world outcome on preventing hate crimes as you claimed up-thread?
“Level of hatred existing within the heart of the perpetrator” strikes me as ridiculous.
And yet not beyond the abilities of the legal system, as you put it. Indeed, people get charged with intent to murder all the time.
Take in Massachusetts for example. In Mass. there are two charges that can be brought against a person, intent to murder or maim and intent to kill:
On intent to murder or maim:
on intent to kill:
http://www.massmurderdefense.com/pages/assault-intent.html
Oh gee, look at that. There are varying levels of intent which can only be proven by making a case about the assailant’s mental state. And then the jury decides whether the prosecution met the required standard of proof.
No different than what’s required in HLC laws.
The idea of a hate crime against a straight, white, non-disabled person is perfectly valid under HCL, and it’s also perfectly ridiculous.
Okey dokey then. You’ve now reduced your whole argument to “I say it’s ridiculous so nyah!”
Once again, no citations. No links. No authoritative evidence to support any of your arguments.
BTW, are we agreed that HCL would have no real-world outcome on preventing hate crimes as you claimed up-thread?
No, we’re not. They might and they might not. I just don’t think prevention is a significant reason to argue against or for hate crimes laws. I believe it’s important, in and of itself as as a pluralistic society, for the state to officially recognize that bias motivated crimes are worse than other motivations and for those people who do commit them, to be punished more severely. I would hope that this message would prevent hate crimes, but I don’t think there failure to do so renders them meaningless or “ridiculous.”
Glad to know the wrong-headed supporters of HCL are classy as ever.
And, Jaim, really, this is not a winning attitude for you. You’ve commented too much on too many threads here for anyone to think you have a legitimate beef with name calling or foul language.
Are you so desperate now that you’re willing to risk blatant hypocrisy as well as exposing your flat out ignorance?
You said HCL would have no real-world impact. Now you say it will. Interesting for a guy wetting his pants about logical consistency.
And I’m happy to point out that you’ve been a shrieking asshole throughout the proceedings here. Even people who agree with you noticed.
IMO of course, but HCL defenders tend to be their own worst enemies.
Wow you guys are still arguing about this?
In my opinion HCL isn’t meant to deter people from committing hate crimes (it would be impossible, but good if it did), but it’s the same as all our laws (that also don’t deter people from breaking them). It’s in place to prosecute those who do break the law and give them the right punishment and sentence that goes along with that crime.
Just like Andrew mention up above we have different levels of punishment when it comes to murder based on intent :”Manslaughter – Killing without intent to kill;
2nd degree – Killing with intent to kill, but not pre-meditated against the victim; 1st degree – Killing with pre-meditated intent against the victim”.
HCL is just another way of prosecuting people who base their action of murder or harassment on some form of hate.
“But would a public stoning appease you?”
Drawing-and-quartering perhaps?”
That works.
You said HCL would have no real-world impact. Now you say it will.
Tell me where I said it would have no real-world impact. Where the fuck do you think I think these laws exist?
And I’m happy to point out that you’ve been a shrieking asshole throughout the proceedings here. Even people who agree with you noticed.
And I’m happy to point out that you’ve presented a piss poor case with shitty reasoning and serious factual errors.
You could be as sweet as a buttercup, Jaim, but it wouldn’t make you any less wrong.
but if you want to stay up on your high horse, allow me to remind you of your first comment to Amused after he AGREED with you:
How pleasant, Jaim.
Poor fucking baby. Your whining and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
Go fuck yourself.
I see you went with exposing your blatant hypocrisy as well as exposing your flat out ignorance.
Good call.
Oh, but it’s too fun recapping your own self-beclownment. You wrote: “In the case of hate crimes, the lack of any deterrent effect is not enough to invalidate the law, otherwise it’s enough to invalidate all laws that don’t deter people from breaking them. Correct?”
So you granted that HCL does nothing to deter hate crimes, but I guess you might have been granting that as a hypothetical. So I’ll ask, how would HCL that included sexual orientation have prevented Mathew Sheppard’s murder? Or to accept the obvious, that HCL wouldn’t have, how would the sentencing of the murderers have been changed in a way that would have provided a societal benefit if HCL had included sexual orientation at the time of the trial?
We can agree to disagree that HCL are unfair in theory, but can you make a valid argument as to how they benefit anyone in practice? Or did anti-black and anti-female violence magically disappear since the first installment of Federal HCL?
I’ve got no problem with profanity in itself, but it’s funny to watch you sputter on about your calm, even-handed understanding of the law (I’d still love to hear where you got your law degree) after saying people like me don’t deserve any respect. Because that’s kind of the reason we’re having this debate in the first place re: tolerance of people who have different views, lifestyles, etc.
So you granted that HCL does nothing to deter hate crimes …
That might be one way to read it, Jaim, but like your reading of everything else about hate crime laws, you’d be totally wrong.
I said the lack of a deterrent effect is not enough to invalidate the reasons for the law. That is not the same thing as saying there is no deterrent effect. I don’t know if they have a deterrent effect either way. Do you? If you know for a fact that they have no deterrent effect, maybe you could cite that study?
I won’t hold my breathe, but surprise me, Jaim. Cite some evidence in support of your claim that they have no deterrent effect.
Go find some actual facts to support your argument. That would be a refreshing change of pace.
(I’d still love to hear where you got your law degree)
What a self-defeating argument. Jaim, do you have a law degree?
I’ve certainly cited more legal authorities than you to support my arguments. You haven’t cited one. Indeed, you have yet to refute a single thing I’ve said with a link to an actual fact or legal argument. I’ve done that several times here.
So Jaim, either put up or shut up.
If you can’t back up your claims with sources and citations, you really don’t deserve any respect because you show zero respect for anyone’s intelligence.
Because that’s kind of the reason we’re having this debate in the first place re: tolerance of people who have different views, lifestyles, etc.
No, Jaim. We’re having this debate because you refuse to grasp the actual facts of the matter. You hold a different opinion because you are operating, and choose to operate, with the wrong assumptions and zero facts. As they so often say around here, you are not entitled to your own facts, Jaim.
Or did anti-black and anti-female violence magically disappear since the first installment of Federal HCL?
Right. Like identity theft has been totally eradicated by the passage of anti-identity theft laws. I suppose you think we should repeal them too. Right? If not, why not? They haven’t “magically” stopped all identity theft.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200711/111607a.html
Jaim, like I said, you really don’t deserve any respect. You argue like a six year old.
“I won’t hold my breathe, but surprise me, Jaim. Cite some evidence in support of your claim that they have no deterrent effect.”
Criminal penalties typically don’t have much of a deterrent effect. To wit: the death penalty doesn’t prevent murder. In crimes of pre-meditation, possibly. In crime of passion, definitely not.
“Indeed, you have yet to refute a single thing I’ve said with a link to an actual fact or legal argument. I’ve done that several times here.”
My first link was to wording from the Federal statute that HCL obligates judges to mete out harsher sentences for said hate crimes, you fucking liar. You’d denied that this was the case.
“If you can’t back up your claims with sources and citations, you really don’t deserve any respect because you show zero respect for anyone’s intelligence.”
Your sources have been decent ones, but also biased ones. And that’s fine, because as I began way back a few days ago, I simply stated my belief that HCL are a bad idea. You proceeded to go ape-shit.
“We’re having this debate because you refuse to grasp the actual facts of the matter.”
Reading over this thread, I’m content to let my words stand for themselves. HCL are a bad idea for the many reasons I’ve cited. In particular, you’ve got the theoretical problems of asking judges to ponder metaphysical issues of “hate level.” On practical grounds, HCL don’t accomplish anything that existing laws should do. The resources spent on HCL would be better used on making sure the system as it exists works as it should.
Also, while I’m hardly AO’s biggest fan it’s telling that you didn’t respond to his comment that Sheppard’s murderers are doing life, as are the guys who dragged that poor guy to death in Texas.
“Right. Like identity theft has been totally eradicated by the passage of anti-identity theft laws.”
Well, by your assinine standard, we should also pass anti-meteor laws. Hey, they won’t accomplish anything, but maybe, maybe they just might! Teach those dirty metors a thing or to! And we’ll feel better about ourselves!
If you’re going to pass Federal legislation, the burden is on the people who passed it to prove it does something. When you can show me a KKK member who was going to murder a black person but decided not to due to HCL, you’ll have a point. Until then, you don’t. And you never will.
“Jaim, like I said, you really don’t deserve any respect.”
Incredible how many enlightened supporters of HCL fall back on this type of hate themselves. Sad and pathetic, Dennis. But keep telling yourself what a friend of humanity you are.
Wow, 28 references to my name on this thread by two obsessed freaks and I haven’t even posted here.
Jaim, you have some serious self-esteem issues, buddy.
When you said you were going to take a break, everyone here collectively nodded their heads, but then we all thought it was going to be a lot longer than two days.
Right. Everyone who comments here wrote you to find out how you felt.
You’re as disingenuous as Fafaroo. Do you guys live together?
You need help, Jaim. The professional kind, not the kind where your buddies tell you ‘hey, a job overseas wmight be just what you need’, but someone who knows how to diagnose your obsessive/low self-esteem problems and get back on the right path.
Even when I’m not here, you still can’t stop thinking about me.
Over twenty times, Jaim.
Dude.
Get a grip on yourself.
So Dennis, just curious, what do you think about the merits/validity of HCL?
“you’ve got the theoretical problems of asking judges to ponder metaphysical issues of “hate level.” ”
-Jaim
It seems that you are implying that the judge alone decides weather or not to use HCL in a case, and that his judgement of hate is on some sort of scale. This is incorrect for a few reasons. First, the prosecution is the party who would be bringing a HC charge against a defendant. It is up to them weather they think the defendant can be charged with a hate crime. Second, there aren’t different “hate levels”. The killer was either modivated by bias or he isn’t. Third, it is soley the jury’s job to decide what crimes the defendant is guilty of. The judge does not have to ponder anything.
If a prosecuter thinks he can convince a jury that the crime was modivated by bias, then he will charge the defendant with a hate crime in addition to the original crime. The jury will either decide, “yes, this was a crime modivated by bias” or “this crime was not modivated by bias.” It is a black and white, yes or no question considered seperately from the original crime.
A killer will probably hate his victim. Hating the victim because he is an asshole is not a hate crime. Joe could plan to kill Fred because he stole his car, and it is regular old 1st degree murder. Fred being black, white or gay makes no difference. If Joe plans to kill Fred BECAUSE he is gay, then it is first degree murder PLUS a hate crime IF the prosecutor can prove bias modivated the crime.
Despite all of this, I think that HCL probably don’t actually do much in deterring crime. To me they seem like more of a legal formality. It may not affect the punishment significantly, but it may make it more difficult for someone charged with a HC to be granted parole or other privliges. From my very limited understaning of law, I’ve noticed that legal definitions can seem very trivial on their surface, but are actually very important in other less obvious ways. Deciding the effectiveness of HCLs is probably beyond the scope of an internet argument. However, I doubt there is much sense in saying that HCLs use up resources. These aren’t new crimes that are tried on their own, they are added to other crimes.
This whole argument stemmed from LGBT groups being added to existing hate crime laws. No HCL was passed recently, and as far as I know HCLs are nothing new. Apart from weather or not we agree that HCLs are necessary or effective, I think we agree that if they are going to exist, they should apply to every way that people can think of to hate other people.
In particular, you’ve got the theoretical problems of asking judges to ponder metaphysical issues of “hate level.”
Andrew makes the case against this line of argument without calling you a “fucking moron.” Perhaps you’ll feel more comfortable admitting that you’re flat out wrong to him.
BY way of making that official, according to California law, however:
It’s the same level of proof required for many crimes and its determined by a jury.
And determining what constitutes bias motivation is fairly well spelled out in California and recognized generally in the legal community:
So everything you think the legal system is ill-equipped to handle the attorney general of California says he is.
On practical grounds, HCL don’t accomplish anything that existing laws should do.
Yes they do on practical grounds. They signal the state and society’s abhorrence of such crimes directly. They add extra punishment when bias motivation is proven. They have a very practical effect to those people serving an extra 5, 10 or 20 years, what have you, for the crime they committed.
The resources spent on HCL would be better used on making sure the system as it exists works as it should.
Ensuring that bias-motivated crimes are officially acknowledged and punished is how the system should work.
Also, while I’m hardly AO’s biggest fan it’s telling that you didn’t respond to his comment that Sheppard’s murderers are doing life, as are the guys who dragged that poor guy to death in Texas.
Telling? Telling of what exactly? HCLs increase the punishments for bias-motivated crimes because bias-motivated crimes tend to do more damage to the individual and society:
So there is a reason why bias-motivated crimes deserve harsher penalties. HCLs ensure that this happens when they occur.
And please note this, from California law:
You can drone on and on about “Disembowelment” or “Quartering” but that’s the childish tactics of a childish person. The HCL in California tacks on up to four years at the “court’s discretion.”
Here’s the PDF cited:
http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/04-1104.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/307ae2c3-cc8b-4808-ab9d-52876850a7a6/9/hilite/
Read the whole thing Jaim. Try to educate yourself and try to argue from the facts of the matter, if you can.