I'd like to hear some opinions on 'hate crimes'

[ZzzImAsleep]

How does the idea of hate crimes fit into the 'collectivist mindset' that Paul talks about?

[pinkmandy]

A crime is a crime. If you assault someone you assault someone. Should you be given a lighter sentence if you rape and kill a heterosexual woman than if you rape and kill a homosexual woman? Does one human being deserve more or less consideration than another for superficial reasons?

[MarcS]

Sentencing based victims by race or ethnicity is no better than sentencing based on an offenders race.

This week, on my college campus, 4 students assaulted a man making antisemitic statements. Being Jewish-born myself, I would have loved to have been there to hospitalize each one of those bigoted $#@!s, however, I do not support them being convicted of any sort of hate crime. There is no reason why a persons race should have an impact on sentencing, it only serves to separate humanity more

[jason43]

It punishes motives, not the crime itself, and it bases this on arbitrary issues like race.

An interesting statistic. Black on White murder is more than 2x what White on Black is. And interracial crimes are the overwhelming minority of murders committed. Most murder is committed by members of the same race.



It makes no sense to punish based on who the perp and victim are. Its the crime that is the problem, not the races of the people involved.

[pcosmar]

Hate Crime?
Can you define that?

Is there such a thing as a friendly crime? A LOVE crime?

Assault, murder, theft and fraud are all crimes.

Maybe you are thinking of "Thought Crime".

[Banana]

Sentencing based victims by race or ethnicity is no better than sentencing based on an offenders race.

This week, on my college campus, 4 students assaulted a man making antisemitic statements. Being Jewish-born myself, I would have loved to have been there to hospitalize each one of those bigoted $#@!s, however, I do not support them being convicted of any sort of hate crime. There is no reason why a persons race should have an impact on sentencing, it only serves to separate humanity more

What about that past supmere court's ruling that First Amendment doesn't expend to "fighting words" that is very likely to incite crimes?

(e.g., they're free to tell everyone that Jews are conspiring to take over US, but entirely a different thing to continuously insult them and belittle them with a barrage of rhetorics and baseless accusations)

[micahnelson]

Hate crimes are thought crimes.

We already have laws on the books for libel, slander, assault, and murder.

People are free to mindlessly hate other groups of people for whatever reason. You do not have the right to be free from being hated. People are free to publicly denounce and criticize other groups of people, with possible exceptions for slander and libel.

You are not free to violate someone's liberty, personal property, or body. That should be punished. Enhancing the punishment based on motivation is thought crime, and is unconstitutional.

[danberkeley]

Should you be given a lighter sentence if you rape and kill a heterosexual woman than if you rape and kill a homosexual woman?

I've always been against "hate crimes" because a crime is a crime.
But I've never seen it from this perspective till now and this perspective makes a lot of sense.

[mtmedlin]

A crime is a crime. If you assault someone you assault someone. Should you be given a lighter sentence if you rape and kill a heterosexual woman than if you rape and kill a homosexual woman? Does one human being deserve more or less consideration than another for superficial reasons?

I love when the first reply is dead on. Very nicely put.

[Truth Warrior]

Hate crime is just the next logical step down the road to thought crime.

[Banana]

I agree with everyone that hate crime itself is meaningless since we've already made it a crime to do ____, regardless of what the person's demographic may be.


But what about inflammatory speech that only serves to incite hate?

I'm fairly sure that if I went to McCain and told him he enjoyed anal sex with his vietnamese prisoners, he'd pop me a one or two. And my comment wouldn't be protected by First Amendment, as they have decided this kind of stuff falls outside the protection.

[micahnelson]

I agree with everyone that hate crime itself is meaningless since we've already made it a crime to do ____, regardless of what the person's demographic may be.


But what about inflammatory speech that only serves to incite hate?

I'm fairly sure that if I went to McCain and told him he enjoyed anal sex with his vietnamese prisoners, he'd pop me a one or two. And my comment wouldn't be protected by First Amendment, as they have decided this kind of stuff falls outside the protection.

If it was said in private, i don't see a problem with it.

If it was said in public I think it could be considered defamation unless you had proof it was true.

Personally, I think he should be able to knock you out for saying that, but its hard when government has the monopoly on force. I think it is interesting that even the most sophisticated social structure that was England still had a proper way to duel.

[Banana]

If it was said in private, i don't see a problem with it.

If it was said in public I think it could be considered defamation unless you had proof it was true.

Yes, that's quite true. The case I was thinking about... (Jones vs. New York? will have to dig that case up) was about a man standing on the street corner, screaming epipant at top of his lungs, basically inflaming everyone left and right. The justices who heard the court basically called his speech "fighting words", because it had no value other than to incite negative emotions and thus was outside of First Amendment protection.

Personally, I think he should be able to knock you out for saying that, but its hard when government has the monopoly on force. I think it is interesting that even the most sophisticated social structure that was England still had a proper way to duel.

Ooo, good point.

[Liberté]

A crime is a crime! Hate crimes should be re-named PC crimes.

[Anti Federalist]

A crime is a crime. If you assault someone you assault someone. Should you be given a lighter sentence if you rape and kill a heterosexual woman than if you rape and kill a homosexual woman? Does one human being deserve more or less consideration than another for superficial reasons?

What if one person is a cop?

Should killing a cop be judged more harshly than killing a "civilian"?

(For the record, my answer is a resounding NO)

[Kludge]

A crime is a crime! Hate crimes should be re-named PC crimes.

*secretly grins... shhhh*

Hate Crimes that involve AGGRESSION of some sort (physical violence, violation of rights) should be illegal.

"Hate" speeches, anti-groupX billboards, "hate" music, putting up "hateful" flags and the like shouldn't be considered illegal, even if they incite riot, as it'd be the rioters fault. THEY committed the aggression.

John Public wrote a book against gay people. 10 days later I shoot a gay person, is John Public to blame?

If I sold someone else's "art" that had a picture of MLK with feces smeared on him, is the "artist" a criminal, am I a criminal for circulating the picture?

[Banana]

I searched from the wrong case, but here is a primer about "fighting doctrine."

Wiki article

Of course, Wiki shouldn't be be-all, end-all for citation but there are some links on the bottom of links for more information.

Apparently, the doctrine has been increasingly more narrow since it was drafted in 1942.

[pinkmandy]

What if one person is a cop?

Should killing a cop be judged more harshly than killing a "civilian"?

(For the record, my answer is a resounding NO)

I agree with you. Being a target is an occupational hazard of being a cop.

[Banana]

What if one person is a cop?

Should killing a cop be judged more harshly than killing a "civilian"?

Out of interest, how would you respond to the argument that by killing a cop, you are obstructing justice, a separate crime in its own right?

After all, resisting arrest is a offense as well, no?

[pcosmar]

I agree with you. Being a target is an occupational hazard of being a cop.

I would call that "Blowback" due to the actions of enforcers in general.
I believe that if they were acting in a manner that respected and protected the rights of citizens, they would cease to be targets.

[Liberté]

What if one person is a cop?

Should killing a cop be judged more harshly than killing a "civilian"?

(For the record, my answer is a resounding NO)

Murdering a cop should be treated the same, killing a person is killing a person, you have taken their liberty, which is just as equally precious for all people, and should result in the same punishment.

[Liberté]

I would call that "Blowback" due to the actions of enforcers in general.
I believe that if they were acting in a manner that respected and protected the rights of citizens, they would cease to be targets.

I whole heartily disagree with your opinion, and find it rather insulting, and without merit. You have slipped into the thought process of collectiveness, judging one law enforcement officer by the action of others. For the most part our police are performing their duties admirably.

[pcosmar]

I whole heartily disagree with your opinion, and find it rather insulting, and without merit. You have slipped into the thought process of collectiveness, judging one law enforcement officer by the action of others. For the most part our police are performing their duties admirably.

I am sorry you disagree. I find the whole concept of a "Police Force" offensive.
It is a Standing Army, and is charged with enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
They are as a whole unaccountable, and immune from prosecution. Only on rare occasions is one or two actually charged, and then are given lighter sentences than the general public.
It is hard not to think of them collectively as they are the Enforcement arm of a Collectivist Government.
They are the Uniformed Face of Government Control.

There are individuals among them that are good people, But I see the uniform of oppressors.

[Carl Corey]

Yes, that's quite true. The case I was thinking about... (Jones vs. New York? will have to dig that case up) was about a man standing on the street corner, screaming epipant at top of his lungs, basically inflaming everyone left and right. The justices who heard the court basically called his speech "fighting words", because it had no value other than to incite negative emotions and thus was outside of First Amendment protection.

I'm not surprised, the 1st amendment is worthless if people let judges redefine what speech is.

[nodope0695]

"Hate Crimes" should be treated just like any other "crime". A crime is a crime is a crime in my opinion...who the hell cares what the motivations was? The fact remains: a CRIME was committed.

Why should a man who beats up a person because he's black be treated more harshly than a man who beats up a person for his wallet...the fact remains: the man beat up another person regardless of race.

[pcosmar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkmandy
I agree with you. Being a target is an occupational hazard of being a cop.

to which I responded

I would call that "Blowback" due to the actions of enforcers in general.
I believe that if they were acting in a manner that respected and protected the rights of citizens, they would cease to be targets.

I called it Blowback.
Through many years of bad law, and resulting changes in Operating procedures of the Law Enforcement community, Cops have become targets.
Were it not for the volumes of Bad Law, and the actions of Police as Enforcers, this would not be the case.
IF officers were protecting the rights of the people.
IF they operated as Peace Keepers
IF there were not the volumes of Unconstitutional and sometimes conflicting Laws.
IF they did not view the population as potential criminals.

I believe they would be respected and not targeted. There would also be less needed.
Hate speech, or Hate crime is just one more Bad Law.

[Anti Federalist]

I am sorry you disagree. I find the whole concept of a "Police Force" offensive.
It is a Standing Army, and is charged with enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
They are as a whole unaccountable, and immune from prosecution. Only on rare occasions is one or two actually charged, and then are given lighter sentences than the general public.
It is hard not to think of them collectively as they are the Enforcement arm of a Collectivist Government.
They are the Uniformed Face of Government Control.

There are individuals among them that are good people, But I see the uniform of oppressors.

+1
What he said.