• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Hate crime law to cover gays

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

targus

New Member
IMO "intent" is the wrong word here.

If I kill someone because they are of a particular race the intent is no different than if I kill someone because I want to take their money.

In both cases the intent is to kill.

Perhaps the better word would be "motive".
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
targus said:
IMO "intent" is the wrong word here.

If I kill someone because they are of a particular race the intent is no different than if I kill someone because I want to take their money.

In both cases the intent is to kill.

Perhaps the better word would be "motive".
Click to expand...

ah well then you are limited and cannot make it apply to whatever you want.
 
R

rbell

Active Member
Johnv said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then...

1. ...how on earth do you establish "intent?"
2. ...how come the only time you hear of "hate crimes" is when a "majority" beats up/kills/etc. against "a minority?" How come that in the state of Alabama, there hasn't been a hate crime prosecution against a black, hispanic, or gay? Are we really saying that there has never been a prosecutorial opportunity to handle that?

Look...we all know how it goes: Hate crimes are only prosecuted in one direction. Ever.

By the way...still waiting to a response:

rbell said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
J

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's the factor of PROOF" that makes this so sinister.

If, like murder, you can prove prior intent, IE planning to attack simply for whatever the "hate" is, OK, BUT absent this confirmed proof, then just prosecute the specific crime.

The basic problem is that this will be far more difficult to prove, sans eye/ear witnesses, so the libs will not be content for this level of proof, and the necessary criteria will be lowered so that it becomes a purely political tool - which is what the end point is anyway.

A "LEGAL" way to stifle any opposition from being critical of (you pick the topic)!!!

Just like abortion WAS supposed to be limited to (IIRC) the 1st trimester, but now it has SLIPPERY SLOPED (yes, that point that the libs accused conservatives of yelling "wolf" about---) to partial birth abortion.

Do you really trust DESPOTS to run your life????? RUIN, maybe!!!

MARANATHA!!!
 
J

Johnv

New Member
rbell said:
...how on earth do you establish "intent?"
Click to expand...
If the motive of a neonazi is to go out and kill a bunch of Jews or Catholics, I suspect that the motive will be self-evident.
how come the only time you hear of "hate crimes" is when a "majority" beats up/kills/etc. against "a minority?"
Click to expand...
The wording of the legislation is blind, but I agree that the application isn't consistent. That inconsistency of application doesn't mean it's a bad law, it means it's a bad application. In fact, hate crime laws can, and are used where the victims are not minority. In recently, in Los Angeles County, hate crimes legislation is used to combat frequent gan activity, which regularly preys on people of different races. In LaFourche Parish, nine black men were recently charged with hate crimes after assaulting white prisoners.
 
R

rbell

Active Member
Johnv said:
If the motive of a neonazi is to go out and kill a bunch of Jews or Catholics, I suspect that the motive will be self-evident.

The wording of the legislation is blind, but I agree that the application isn't consistent. That inconsistency of application doesn't mean it's a bad law, it means it's a bad application. In fact, hate crime laws can, and are used where the victims are not minority. In recently, in Los Angeles County, hate crimes legislation is used to combat frequent gan activity, which regularly preys on people of different races. In LaFourche Parish, nine black men were recently charged with hate crimes after assaulting white prisoners.
Click to expand...


"Self-evidence" isn't admissible.

But furthermore...if we have a death penalty for killing someone...why add a hate crime on it? If we consistently apply harsh punishment for folks beating others...why is a hate crime needed?

It's a stupid law. Unneccessary and problematic. If we simply applied the ones we have, we wouldn't need it. And you can't deny that the whole point of "hate crimes" is to create a "more protected class." That is not equal justice under the law.
 
J

Johnv

New Member
rbell said:
"Self-evidence" isn't admissible.
Click to expand...
I didn't say "self-evidence", I said "self-evident". In other words, it will be obvious.
furthermore...if we have a death penalty for killing someone...why add a hate crime on it?
Click to expand...
That's kinda like asking, if we have a death penalty for a serial killer, why bother charging them with multiple counts of murder.
If we consistently apply harsh punishment for folks beating others...why is a hate crime needed?
Click to expand...
NOW you're onto something! Good point.
It's a stupid law. Unneccessary and problematic. If we simply applied the ones we have, we wouldn't need it. And you can't deny that the whole point of "hate crimes" is to create a "more protected class." That is not equal justice under the law.
Click to expand...
You can't argue that hate crimes is not equal justice and then argue that the problem is with application (a point I noted earlier). I completely agree with you in regards to application. But if the argument against hate crimes legislation is one of it nto being equally applied, then, again, the problem lies with the application, and not the legislation.

Again, to be clear, I'm not making a case for hate crimes legislation. I'm pointing out that the arguments against them aren't particularly consistent.
 
R

rbell

Active Member
Johnv said:
You can't argue that hate crimes is not equal justice and then argue that the problem is with application (a point I noted earlier). I completely agree with you in regards to application. But if the argument against hate crimes legislation is one of it nto being equally applied, then, again, the problem lies with the application, and not the legislation.
Click to expand...

I made arguments against the legislation as well as application. Read my points. :thumbsup:
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What was your intent?

From the article referenced in the OP:

“....The measure is attached to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill and President Barack Obama - unlike President George W. Bush - is a strong supporter....”

Not that a line item veto would do any good right now.
--------------------------------------

'What Was Your Intent?'

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

See the video that accompanies the article. Levant humiliates the bureaucrat, but nevertheless, what a travesty of free speech that he's even there having to respond to this sort of inquiry by the government. California has already passed 'hate speech' laws and the Feds will soon follow suit I fear, regardless of the opinion of the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top