In the Edwards-VP thread, the idea of hate crime legislation was introduced. In the interest of keeping things on topic, I started this new thread...

Hate crimes, plain and simple, are discrimination. The very premise of them discriminates against gays, blacks...any minority, in fact. Saying "hey, since you beat this guy up because he was gay, so you get 20 years" while "you beat this guy up in a fit of blind rage, so you get 6 months" is obviously discrimination. It implies that minorities need protection. Minorities do not need protection, they need equality.

Furthermore, a crime is a crime. People kill people over all sorts of stupid things, like, to quote Bill Cosby, "over a piece of pound cake". Drugs, money, hate, or even the simple thrill of it are all motives to kill someone. Why should we say "Oh, this motive is worse than that one"? Murder is murder, no matter how you slice it.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
In the Edwards-VP thread, the idea of hate crime legislation was introduced. In the interest of keeping things on topic, I started this new thread...

Hate crimes, plain and simple, are discrimination. The very premise of them discriminates against gays, blacks...any minority, in fact. Saying "hey, since you beat this guy up because he was gay, so you get 20 years" while "you beat this guy up in a fit of blind rage, so you get 6 months" is obviously discrimination. It implies that minorities need protection. Minorities do not need protection, they need equality.

Furthermore, a crime is a crime. People kill people over all sorts of stupid things, like, to quote Bill Cosby, "over a piece of pound cake". Drugs, money, hate, or even the simple thrill of it are all motives to kill someone. Why should we say "Oh, this motive is worse than that one"? Murder is murder, no matter how you slice it.

RASCIST!!!!!

so if i hit speech imped. john, i should get 6 months...i like it

Maybe you'll get 5 years for selecting an individual with a speech impediment as your punching bag.

Even better is the possibility that " ... speech imped. john, ... will kick the living crap out of you.

Even better is the possibility that " ... speech imped. john, ... will kick the living crap out of you.
Oh man. I'd pay money to see that.

Speech imped. John got really close to suing No Moore.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Even better is the possibility that " ... speech imped. john, ... will kick the living crap out of you.
Oh man. I'd pay money to see that.
if it was jerry agaisnt speech impediment john...i would put my cash on john

Oy, my thread...my poor, poor thread...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Oy, my thread...my poor, poor thread...

yes. i have officially butchered this thread

A few weeks in solitary confinement should cure you of that.

Originally posted by es347fan
A few weeks in solitary confinement should cure you of that.

a little rude

Hardly

I didn't think it was possible, but this thread has gone even more downhill since it was mentioned how fun it would be to beat up a teenaged boy with a speech impediment...

Saying "hey, since you beat this guy up because he was gay, so you get 20 years" while "you beat this guy up in a fit of blind rage, so you get 6 months" is obviously discrimination. It implies that minorities need protection. Minorities do not need protection, they need equality.

Here is why I think Hate Crimes are actually worse than just beating someone up in a fit of rage: If you attack someone only because of their race or sexual orientation or religion, you not only harm that person but you help create an atmosphere of fear towards an entire group of people.

If you attack my white neighbor it creates an atmosphere of fear in my entire neighborhood, so I don't see the huge difference. And if someone started leaving death threats on the porch of the asians that live 3 houses over I'm not going to feel very safe either.

Besides, you're pretty much guessing as to someone's motivation for attacking the victim in most cases anyway. If someone attacks me because they think I'm gay is that a hate crime? If someone attacks Vile because they think he's sleeping with their wife, ;) is that a hate crime? How can you ever know?

Originally posted by dnamertz
Here is why I think Hate Crimes are actually worse than just beating someone up in a fit of rage: If you attack someone only because of their race or sexual orientation or religion, you not only harm that person but you help create an atmosphere of fear towards an entire group of people.

The only reason the whole group might have reason to be fearful would be if the perpetrator wasn't prosecuted for his crime. That is one of the reasons these misguided hate crime statutes were put on the books. The fact is that in some jurisdictions, people were not being prosecuted for committing crimes against gays, or blacks, or whatever. The hate crimes statutes gave the politicians a way to show that they cared about the special interest groups.


If someone attacks Vile because they think he's sleeping with their wife, is that a hate crime?

No...that's called sheer stupidity...:D

LMAO pagan sleeping with anyones wife is funny

Borg, since I do not believe in any form of segregation, I believe all crimes should be treated as just that- a crime.

Okay, one thing that comes to mind is that motivations factor into society's reckoning of the crime in the area of murder. If it's premeditated murder, the offender will be charged with first-degree murder and get a more severe sentence. Also, those who commit hate-crimes very often say something to their victims (often in the form of slurs and epithets) that makes clear the hate-driven motivation of the act, so most of the time, it's not a matter of guessing. Society should take extra measures to deter criminal acts calculated to make a marginalized group of people feel as if they need to live in fear.

Originally posted by venuspluto
Okay, one thing that comes to mind is that motivations factor into society's reckoning of the crime in the area of murder. If it's premeditated murder, the offender will be charged with first-degree murder and get a more severe sentence.

The law recognizes that humans are creatures sometimes driven by their emotions and has taken this into account. The difference between first and second-degree murder is that first-degree murder is a cold calculated act, while second-degreee murder may be one committed in the grip of violent emotion, or one caused by acts not intended to result in someones death, but also of a nature that the perpetrator should have known were likely to cause death.

I'm not neccessarily against writing different statutes that would cover battery, and say, pre-meditated battery, which would be used to prosecute those individuals who seek out a specific type of victim to assault.

Also, those who commit hate-crimes very often say something to their victims (often in the form of slurs and epithets) that makes clear the hate-driven motivation of the act, so most of the time, it's not a matter of guessing. Society should take extra measures to deter criminal acts calculated to make a marginalized group of people feel as if they need to live in fear.

I think it's a mistake to try and protect one group of our citizens more than another group. If there are aggravating factors in a crime, I would rather rely on the jury to recognize this fact when determining guilt, and the judge to take this into account when the sentence is handed down.

A hypothetical question...

A man is arrested after a string of robberies committed outside of gay bars. This person specifically targeted gay people and is therefore charged with a "hate crime". Can you be sure he chose his victims because he "hated' gays? Perhaps he targeted gays because he perceived them to be easier victims. At the trial, witnesses tesitfy that during all of the robberies, the robber uttered anti-gay slurs. The robber testifies that he did that merely to cause fear in his victims so they would be less likely to resist. Hate crime, or simple armed robbery?

My views on hate crimes are a little less common on this message board. I’m in favor of them. When someone murderers someone based on something they cannot control, it is striking fear into the hearts of everyone in that certain community. Which thus makes it a more punishable crime.

I think it’s a common miss-conception that the Government is trying to protect one group of citizens more than another group. Under these laws, if you are African American and you kill a white man, based on his race, it is deemed a hate crime. These laws are equal to all of its citizens. The same goes if a homosexual man were to kill a heterosexual man, based on his sexuality. Everyone has to admit; these examples are not as prone in our society, which is why people tend to believe the Hate Crime laws only protect minorities.

It is hard to prove when a Hate Crime occurs. Although if you interview people who know them, witnesses, computer, Internet records, their home, you can get a fairly good idea if they did intend this murder as a hate crime.

This is not limiting their freedom of speech. It is protecting the laws we have. If your opinions and thoughts include killing other members of our society, and you act upon them, then your thoughts (murder) are breaking the laws in which we have in graved in our society.

Just my two cents. *goes and hides, since almost everyone, even Vile are against me*

Originally posted by Overdose
Under these laws, if you are African American and you kill a white man, based on his race, it is deemed a hate crime. These laws are equal to all of its citizens. The same goes if a homosexual man were to kill a heterosexual man, based on his sexuality. Everyone has to admit; these examples are not as prone in our society, which is why people tend to believe the Hate Crime laws only protect minorities.

Quite true. However that doesn't mean that they are prosecuted equally. There's plenty of black on white crime, or black on asian crime, or hispanic on black crime. When's the last time you heard of a minority getting prosecuted for a hate crime? Personally I can only think of one instance.

Originally posted by Overdose
It is hard to prove when a Hate Crime occurs. Although if you interview people who know them, witnesses, computer, Internet records, their home, you can get a fairly good idea if they did intend this murder as a hate crime.

Congratulations! You've just crossed into the wonderful arena of thought crimes. Expressing your opinions should not not lead to prosecution, or even a harsher sentencing.

Originally posted by Overdose
This is not limiting their freedom of speech. It is protecting the laws we have. If your opinions and thoughts include killing other members of our society, and you act upon them, then your thoughts (murder) are breaking the laws in which we have in graved in our society.

Your thoughts and actions are two different things and should be kept that way. To do otherwise is absolutely limiting freedom of speech.

Good post, OD. :)

Originally posted by Vilepagan
A man is arrested after a string of robberies committed outside of gay bars. This person specifically targeted gay people and is therefore charged with a "hate crime". Can you be sure he chose his victims because he "hated' gays? Perhaps he targeted gays because he perceived them to be easier victims. At the trial, witnesses tesitfy that during all of the robberies, the robber uttered anti-gay slurs. The robber testifies that he did that merely to cause fear in his victims so they would be less likely to resist. Hate crime, or simple armed robbery?

That I would file under the category of "Close Enough".

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Quite true. However that doesn't mean that they are prosecuted equally.

Maybe so, and I’m in favor of changing that, if it is indeed true.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
There's plenty of black on white crime, or black on asian crime, or hispanic on black crime. When's the last time you heard of a minority getting prosecuted for a hate crime?

Yes, I understand that. But most of the time it’s in the inner city, “ghettos” and it’s very hard to stop the wide spread of these gang rivals. But the ratio is just not there. There is more discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, etc, then there is them discriminating against other races.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Congratulations! You've just crossed into the wonderful arena of thought crimes. Expressing your opinions should not not lead to prosecution, or even a harsher sentencing.

If you express the idea of, “I want to kill this certain group of hpeople” you should not get charged for a ate crime. Only until you act upon your opinions, should you get charged in a higher sentencing, because you are targeting a whole group of people, not just an individual.

Originally posted by Overdose
If you express the idea of, “I want to kill this certain group of hpeople” you should not get charged for a ate crime. Only until you act upon your opinions, should you get charged in a higher sentencing, because you are targeting a whole group of people, not just an individual.

Good point. In George Orwell's novel 1984, "thoughtcrime" according to the Party was when you had any sort of thought in your head that was contrary to their interpretation of reality. Hate crime laws punish people for actual criminal actions calculated to spread fear and oppression. People are, of course, free to misappropriate any word they wish until they are blue in the face from doing so. It's just that 1984 is my favorite literary work of all time, so I simply felt like making this point.

Originally posted by venuspluto
Good point. In George Orwell's novel 1984, Hate crime laws punish people for actual criminal actions calculated to spread fear and oppression.

This is an assumption on your part. There is no way to know whether a person committed their crime "to spread fear and oppression" unless they confess to just that motive. If you believe they committed their crime to spread fear, then perhaps you should charge them with terrorism.

With a "Hate Crime" law you are not only punishing the person for their crime, you are also punishing them for their thoughts while they committed that crime.

When you charge someone with a "hate crime" you are confusing the motive with the crime. Motive can be a factor in deciding the person's punishment if they are convicted, but it should not influence the decision over what crime to charge them with.

This being said, it would appear that Hate Crime statutes are here to stay. They've been challenged in the US Supreme Court and have passed constitutional muster, at least for now.

Sorry, Vile…just a few comments.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
There is no way to know whether a person committed their crime "to spread fear and oppression" unless they confess to just that motive.

Although it may be difficult to determine if someone committed these acts based on the victim’s certain race etc. But if the person were to kill an African American because he was into White Supremacy, he would admit to killing a “nigger”. His fellow partners in spreading hateful messages around America would praise him. Again, it wouldn’t be difficult to find this out based on interviews with friends and family, investigating his house, witnesses etc.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
With a "Hate Crime" law you are not only punishing the person for their crime, you are also punishing them for their thoughts while they committed that crime.

If you’re thoughts are of murder, or killing, you will be punished for them.

At my school this last year, someone in the bathroom of our school wrote, “A bomb will go off tomorrow, and I’m going to shoot all the “preppy/popular” kids if it doesn’t go off” And since his thoughts on the preppy kids were murderous, he is now in a Juvenal Detention Center for striking fear into a large proportion of our school.

Murdering is against our laws we have in our Government. Thinking them is one thing, but to publicize them, strike fear into everyone you are speaking of, will be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
When you charge someone with a "hate crime" you are confusing the motive with the crime. Motive can be a factor in deciding the person's punishment if they are convicted, but it should not influence the decision over what crime to charge them with.

Their motive is to kill as many people as they can from that certain group. It is directly striking fear into a whole group of our citizens. It’s a lot different when the motive is with one person, and them having an argument and or fight. But when the motive is about hating and wanting to kill a whole group of citizens, yes, it’s far different then just wanted to kill a single person.

Originally posted by Overdose
At my school this last year, someone in the bathroom of our school wrote, “A bomb will go off tomorrow, and I’m going to shoot all the “preppy/popular” kids if it doesn’t go off” And since his thoughts on the preppy kids were murderous, he is now in a Juvenal Detention Center for striking fear into a large proportion of our school.

Murdering is against our laws we have in our Government. Thinking them is one thing, but to publicize them, strike fear into everyone you are speaking of, will be taken seriously.

Right. But the law already distinguishes between speech, which is just saying that you don't like someone, and threats, which is saying that you're going to take action against someone. He's not in juvey because he thought nasty thoughts about preppies, he's in juvey because he actually threatened to take action.

Logically speaking, the "striking fear into a part of the population" argument doesn't really make sense anyway. If someone starts randomly murdering people in my neighborhood, the entire neighborhood is scared. If they just start murdering all of the Indian computer programmers in my neighborhood, then a much smaller part of the population would be scared (OK, realistically I'd still be scared). Any crime, regardless of its motivation, is going to strike fear into the population. I don't see why it's worse if it's certain people.

if you openly plan the crime because the person is of a color or creed a penalty should apply. however if a black guy annoys a white guy because of a comment and in no way because of color or creed then it should be a regular punishment

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Right. But the law already distinguishes between speech, which is just saying that you don't like someone, and threats, which is saying that you're going to take action against someone.

Yes, and that’s what I’m saying. I didn’t say anything different. I totally agree with you. But these hate crime laws are not infringing on freedom of speech, which is what I was trying to convey. If you have thoughts of acting against a certain group of people in terms of murder, you will be punished.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Logically speaking, the "striking fear into a part of the population" argument doesn't really make sense anyway.

Of course it makes sense. If a murderer was to kill a person, because of a fight they had, no one else should be scared, because it was just between those two people. If someone kills a black man, because he’s black, then I wouldn’t be scared. If I knew he was a White Supremacies, who was killing black people, why would I be scared, I’m white.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
If someone starts randomly murdering people in my neighborhood, the entire neighborhood is scared.

Key Word: Randomly. Then yes, everyone would be scared.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Any crime, regardless of its motivation, is going to strike fear into the population. I don't see why it's worse if it's certain people.

If a KKK member killed a black man, and was running loose, no, I would not be scared.

Well, the more I think about it, the more I realize I am not especially emotionally or intellectually attached to hate crime legislation as such. What Vilepagan suggested, namely making it a crime carrying a heavier charge to go on violent rampages against people for malicious reasons, could do the same job with less controversy. What's important to me is society being willing to do something to address the problem. And that way, more kinds of premeditated malicious violence than just crimes against gays, blacks, and hispanics could perhaps be targeted by society.

And Vilepagan, it would be a good idea if you were to insert an ellipse [(...)] in my quote in your post between "1984" and "hate crime laws". The way you have it now rather alters the substance of my quote.

Originally posted by Overdose
Of course it makes sense. If a murderer was to kill a person, because of a fight they had, no one else should be scared, because it was just between those two people. If someone kills a black man, because he’s black, then I wouldn’t be scared. If I knew he was a White Supremacies, who was killing black people, why would I be scared, I’m white.

OK, but why are blacks more scared if it's a white person killing them than if it's a black person doing the killing? If someone is killing asians in Orange County are they suddenly going to feel less scared if the police reveal that the suspect is also asian? And would you really not be scared if a burning cross suddenly appeared on your minority neighbor's lawn?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
OK, but why are blacks more scared if it's a white person killing them than if it's a black person doing the killing?

This comparison is falling short of what the hate crime laws are trying to do. If a black person were to be killed by a white man, based on a dispute between the two, they shouldn’t be scared, since it was based off the arguments and or fight, not racial tension.

If the white man were to kill a black man, based on him just being “black”, they would be more scared since they are killing people based off something they cannot control (color of skin) and not on arguments or fights that took place between the two.

To further prove your question, they would only be “more scared” if a white person was killing them, if it was based off racism.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
If someone is killing asians in Orange County are they suddenly going to feel less scared if the police reveal that the suspect is also asian?

They would only feel more scared, if they killings were because they were Asian. If the person has been white, and killed an Asian, because of a dislike for that single person, then that person is not targeting Asians, since not all Asians had the fight with that man. But if it he was targeting Asians because they were just “Asian” (racism) then everyone in that community should feel scared, since they have no control over their race….while they do have control over how they act.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
And would you really not be scared if a burning cross suddenly appeared on your minority neighbor's lawn?

Why would I? I’m not being targeted. I may feel a little more on edge, but not “scared”, just sad that we have such idiots in the world.

I think you're missing my point. Back in the 70s sometime there was a guy in Atlanta that was killing black people. Blacks were of course scared. The assumption was that it must be a white guy. Turned out later that it was actually a black guy doing the killing. Were they any less scared? No, of course not.

Is this a hate crime?

http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/local_16947799.shtml

Dop

On edit: Here's another one that should be a hate crime -- a letter to the editor from a republican that wants to offer all liberals to al-quida for beheading -- LOL.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040718/OPINION/407180387/1009

And how about Arnold, yesterday at the mall in Ontario giving as speech where he says that all dems are "Girlie Men" and told the republicans they are terminators -- which is nazi-speak for "kill a dem" -- Is that a hate crime?

BTW: Girlie-men isn't an Arnold original -- he's not that smart. He got it from Ann Coulter who stole it from SNL.

ROTFLMAOATPONS

Dop

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I think you're missing my point. Back in the 70s sometime there was a guy in Atlanta that was killing black people. Blacks were of course scared. The assumption was that it must be a white guy. Turned out later that it was actually a black guy doing the killing. Were they any less scared? No, of course not.

Okay, this is not what the hate crime laws are trying to protect. This man, was killing people because of a mental disorder (since he went randomly killing people, for no reason) not on racism and prejudice, which is what hate crime laws are about.

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay, this is not what the hate crime laws are trying to protect. This man, was killing people because of a mental disorder (since he went randomly killing people, for no reason) not on racism and prejudice, which is what hate crime laws are about.

But as many people have said, the value in hate crime laws are they protect groups from the fear that comes with being the target of crime. My point is that while you definitely feel fear when you're the target or potential target of crime, you don't feel more or less fear depending on the motivations of the killer. Which makes the hate crime laws somewhat pointless, in addition to being hard to prove.

just went and saw shrek and am very disappointed. it did
have some funny parts, but also had a lot of symbolism.
the parents of the princess live in a kingdom called far
far away, which just happens to look like hollywood, imo
that was corny. the fairy godmother seemed to be the
head of the mob and the people who she employed all wore
white cloaks, thus i never saw their faces. the fairy
godmother and her troops were going after shrek(the
monster).

does anyone see the symbolism here? the one with the
white cloaks were going after the monster. the parallel
between the movie and racism and hate crimes is hard
to miss. track em down and kill the monsters, imo thats
what the movie said. true shrek defeated the godmother
in the end, but still found the movie strange.

WOW ! BRILLIANT ! You're incredibly clever. I would never have thought of such a symbolism by myself.
:D

There's symbolism, and then there's digging too far in. It's a hollywood movie. Give me a hollywood director that is that bright. (Matrix doesn't count as it was their debut movie and they weren't hollywood directors yet, as seen by Matrix 2 and 3 in which they fucked themselves up their ass with a spiked metal club dosed in salt and snake venom). Shrek 2 was Frankenstein on LSD.

Anti-Semitism is the ONLY real form of hatred or Prejudice.

Originally posted by TheAuthenticFan
Anti-Semitism is the ONLY real form of hatred or Prejudice.

Really? No black's have ever been lynched? Matthew Shepard was killed for his money? Any chance you're Jewish? :rolleyes: