Hate crime law to cover gays

[rbell]

God help us all.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091008/D9B75L2O0.html

It is simply a matter of time before churches and ministers are punished for stating God's view of the matter.

Hate crimes...what a profoundly stupid bunch of laws. And what a profoundly bunch of stupid people who pass them.

 

[Crabtownboy]

When I was in the army I knew fellows who said they hated gays and would go out at night looking for them to beat them up.

 

[rbell]

When I was in the army I knew fellows who said they hated gays and would go out at night looking for them to beat them up.

...and that's already a crime. It's not "more hateful" to beat up gay folks than straight. Those goons could be prosecuted with laws already on the books. Why add laws? Especially bad ones? Prosecute with the ones you've got!

Furthermore...why would you punish a soldier more for beating up a gay man than a straight one? Are gay men more "valuable?"

Hate crime laws are stupid, meaningless, and attempt to punish thought...which can't be done in a just manner.

 

[Johnv]

I'm not arguing the issue of hate crimes legislation in general, because I honestly go back and forth on the topic, and am very undecided. But the issue does bear question. I'm curious what peoples' objections are to enacting legislation that makes is it a federal crime to assault people simply because of their sexual orientation. Yes, I know, it's already a crime to assault people in general. But I disagree that it is an attempt to punish thought. It is not. It is an attempt to punish intent. We already do that. For example, if you kill someone with your car, you'll get a particular sentence, but if you kill someone with a car while under the influence of a controlled substance, you get an additional penalty. How is hate crimes legislation different?

 

[rbell]

I'm not arguing the issue of hate crimes legislation in general, because I honestly go back and forth on the topic, and am very undecided. But the issue does bear question. I'm curious what peoples' objections are to enacting legislation that makes is it a federal crime to assault people simply because of their sexual orientation. Yes, I know, it's already a crime to assault people in general. But I disagree that it is an attempt to punish thought. It is not. It is an attempt to punish intent. We already do that. For example, if you kill someone with your car, you'll get a particular sentence, but if you kill someone with a car while under the influence of a controlled substance, you get an additional penalty. How is hate crimes legislation different?

Of course it punishes thought. People are charged with hate crimes all the time, and there was no expressed intent. Taking a controlled substance is not an intent...it is an action.

Hate crimes are a judicial train wreck because...

1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless." ergo..."All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." We found that repulsive in the 1960's...why should it not be repulsive now?
2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. Remember..."innocent until proven guilty," and "prove beyond a reasonable doubt?" Throw that out the window with hate crime bills...We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
3. They are unequally enforced. For instance, in Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
4. They needlessly clog up the justice system. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
5. They begin erosion of rights: now instances of offensive speech is considered "hate crime." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready...you're next. It's true in other locales worldwide; it will be true here.
6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there.
7. "Hate crime" is itself a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crime comes from hate.

 

[Johnv]

Of course it punishes thought. People are charged with hate crimes all the time, and there was no expressed intent.

That's not true. If you beat up a black man, that does not qualify as a hate crime. If you beat up a black man for no other purpose than he was black, that's a hate crime. That's not a punishment on thought, that's a punishment on intent, and it's consistent with existing legisnation that punishes intent.

 

[BigBossman]

I don't like the idea of tacking on an additional punishment for committing a crime of hate. To me in order to murder someone, you'd have to hate them. Wouldn't that be considered an automatic hate crime? How would you punish a person who is set to receive the maximum penalty for murder if they are also being charged with a hate crime? Do you execute them, bring them back to life until they regain consciousness, & execute them again? It doesn't make sense to me. With hate crimes, if a black man & a white man are involved in a physical confrontation & the black man is on the losing end of that fight, all he has to do is play the race card & then it becomes a hate crime. After all, the way liberals act, they never seem to believe that blacks, hispanics, or any other race of people are capable of being racist. As far as they are concerned, white people are the only ones who can be racists.

I also don't like how the government is including homosexuals in the mix too. Homosexuals choose to live that way, they aren't born like that. I don't regard homosexuals as a minority. Homosexuality is not a race or minority, it is a lifestyle. That's all it is.

 

[Johnv]

The same argument could be made for differentiating between murder and premeditated murder, or simple assault and assaunt with intent to murder. Does anyone believe first degree murder should carry the same sentence as second degree murder?

Homosexuals choose to live that way, they aren't born like that.

One can say that same about religious hate crimes. A person of a particula religion is born that way. But if a person assaults a Baptist for no other reason than he is a Baptist, or a Jew for no other reason than he is a Jew, I would admittedly probably not be particularly opposed to an additional penalty for the intent of assaulting a person based on religious affiliation.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's not true. If you beat up a black man, that does not qualify as a hate crime. If you beat up a black man for no other purpose than he was black, that's a hate crime. That's not a punishment on thought, that's a punishment on intent, and it's consistent with existing legisnation[sic] that punishes intent.

There is a difference in an accidental killing and an intentional killing. However, after the intent is established the intent is irrelevant. Why should it be a larger punishment to kill a person because of there sexual perversion or skin color than because of jealousy or anger?

With the accidental death circumstances are understood and a level of grace is applied where it is not in intentional death. Not sure why this needs explaining. 1+1=2 yet again.


Real sneaky using the word "intent" to cover up thought policing.

 

[Johnv]

... after the intent is established the intent is irrelevant.

If there's a need to establish intent, then obviously the intent is nto irrelevant.

Why should it be a larger punishment to kill a person because of there sexual perversion or skin color than because of jealousy or anger?

You being up a good question that's worthy of discussion. If you intend to kill a jew just because he was a jew, should that carry a greater penalty than if you killed a person for no reson whatsoever? That's a question worth having a discussion over.

With the accidental death circumstances are understood and a level of grace is applied where it is not in intentional death.

Not necessarily. Again, if you accidentally kill someone while under the influence, the fact that you were under the influence carries an additional penalty on the homicide than simply killing someone accidentally.

Real sneaky using the word "intent" to cover up thought policing.

Nice try, but no dice. In fact, just the opposite is true. You can't use the "thought" excuse as a way to circumvent intent. If a person's intent was to commit a crime, it carries a greater penalty than a person who committed a crime without prior intent. Does anyone believe intent would not be a factor in current legislation, the issue of hate crimes aside?

 

[Revmitchell]

If there's a need to establish intent, then obviously the intent is nto irrelevant.

You being up a good question that's worthy of discussion. If you intend to kill a jew just because he was a jew, should that carry a greater penalty than if you killed a person for no reson whatsoever? That's a question worth having a discussion over.

Not necessarily. Again, if you accidentally kill someone while under the influence, the fact that you were under the influence carries an additional penalty on the homicide than simply killing someone accidentally.

Nice try, but no dice. In fact, just the opposite is true. You can't use the "thought" excuse as a way to circumvent intent. If a person's intent was to commit a crime, it carries a greater penalty than a person who committed a crime without prior intent. Does anyone believe intent would not be a factor in current legislation, the issue of hate crimes aside?

You don't get it. One persons intent is not greater than another persons. Intent is intent and the reason for the intent is irrelevant. Only that there was intent. That is where it should end .Period. This is an agenda to put fear into people to speak against homosexuality. Gays want special status and to create a special victimhood. Now you can fall into line with their agenda if you like. But conservatives will fight it.

 

[tinytim]

Of course it punishes thought. People are charged with hate crimes all the time, and there was no expressed intent. Taking a controlled substance is not an intent...it is an action.

Hate crimes are a judicial train wreck because...

1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless." ergo..."All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." We found that repulsive in the 1960's...why should it not be repulsive now?
2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. Remember..."innocent until proven guilty," and "prove beyond a reasonable doubt?" Throw that out the window with hate crime bills...We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
3. They are unequally enforced. For instance, in Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
4. They needlessly clog up the justice system. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
5. They begin erosion of rights: now instances of offensive speech is considered "hate crime." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready...you're next. It's true in other locales worldwide; it will be true here.
6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there.
7. "Hate crime" is itself a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crime comes from hate.

You continue to amaze me!.. Your insight into issues is remarkable..
I wish I could have said it as good as you.

 

[Johnv]

You don't get it.

Sure I do. You don't like the "intent" argument, so you're dancing around trying to make it synonymous with thought. It's not. Intent in the law is everything. If the intent is to assault or kill a person for no reason than the fact that they are of a particular race, religion, creed, etc, is it reasonable to accrue an additional penalty for that reason? You're jumping down my throat for asking the question, and it's unnecessary.

Now you can fall into line with their agenda if you like. But conservatives will fight it.

Typical Revmitchell unrighteous drivel. I wasn't making a case for or against this specific legislation. I was asking a question about whether a case can be made for the appropriateness of hate crimes legislation in general. Yet rather than engage in respectful discussion, you argue, point fingers, make accusations, and then play the conservative/liberal card like a fundamentalist Johnnie Cochran. This is typical behavior for you, and I'm not surprised. Your track record for being able to have civil discussion is poor, and this is no exception.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm really in two minds about this. I don't know how things are in the States but over here you often get groups of young men who beat up gays (and lesbians on occasions too) for no reason other than they are gay. So I think that having an extra deterrent in terms of sentence for those sort of thugs is no bad thing, although at the same time I worry with others about the effect on free speech. However, there is more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that where a preacher such as Fred Phelps comes up with lines like "God hates faggots" or "gays are evil", then 'gay-bashing' does result from such hateful talk. That is of course different from saying "I think that same-s*x acts are contrary to God's word" and I would be surprised - but also alarmed - if this new law censured that sort of remark. But I don't have a problem with curbing talk that has been shown to provoke and increase violence against gays.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sure I do. You don't like the "intent" argument, so you're dancing around trying to make it synonymous with thought. It's not. Intent in the law is everything. If the intent is to assault or kill a person for no reason than the fact that they are of a particular race, religion, creed, etc, is it reasonable to accrue an additional penalty for that reason? You're jumping down my throat for asking the question, and it's unnecessary.

I haven't jumped down anyone's throat. I will let you know if that ever happens. It is not reasonable to accrue additional penalties. And the demand for such is a result of the homosexual agenda. They want to be elevated to a higher status.

Typical Revmitchell unrighteous drivel. I wasn't making a case for or against this specific legislation.

Sure you did, you defend it as reasonable.

I was asking a question about whether a case can be made for the appropriateness of hate crimes legislation in general. Yet rather than engage in respectful discussion, you argue, point fingers, make accusations, and then play the conservative/liberal card like a fundamentalist Johnnie Cochran. This is typical behavior for you, and I'm not surprised. Your track record for being able to have civil discussion is poor, and this is no exception.

I did none of this. That is simply your knee jerk reaction. Of course my posts are there for anyone to see. I did say out of fact that conservatives will not put up with this. I mentioned nothing about being liberal and nothing was uncivil. But you know you can always look here and here

 

[Johnv]

Well, all I can say, rev, is if your comments are your idea of respectful and civil conversation, I feel sorry for anyone that engages in discussion with you.

Oh, and in regards to the links, I was the one who asked the mods to edit my posts.

 

[Matt Black]

Don't worry, John, he has form for that kind of thing.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, all I can say, rev, is if your comments are your idea of respectful and civil conversation, I feel sorry for anyone that engages in discussion with you.

Oh, and in regards to the links, I was the one who asked the mods to edit my posts.

You spend a great deal of time reading into my posts implication and uncivility that isn't there. At this point I am just suspicious that you have a larger agenda with me. This is our last communication.

 

[targus]

It is an attempt to punish intent. We already do that. For example, if you kill someone with your car, you'll get a particular sentence, but if you kill someone with a car while under the influence of a controlled substance, you get an additional penalty. How is hate crimes legislation different?

Your example really doesn't work.

It is a crime to drive while under the influence even if there is no other violation.

 

[Johnv]

You spend a great deal of time reading into my posts implication and uncivility that isn't there.

Not really. It usually only takes one or two posts, and it's usually clear and self-evident, rather than implied.

This is our last communication.

Woohoo!!!!!!

Your example really doesn't work. It is a crime to drive while under the influence even if there is no other violation.

Good point. I'd be curious if current existing laws in other examples of intent are similar (a preexisting action is already illegal). I'll have to think and meditate on that.