Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Oct 27, 2009.
SA @ Takimag - Hate Should Not Be a Crime
Hate crimes are a clear violation of The First Amendment. Punishment should fit the crime. NOT what the criminal thinks.
Do any of you fighting for individual liberty fight for equal protection and rights for all? I usually find those against hate crime laws also fight against equal protections in employment for the same people for example.
I have never met anyone that is against "hate crimes" that was also against equal protection in employment for all.
It pains me to even have to explain this.
"Hate crimes" legislation does nothing to change the nature of any crime. It does not make murder, assault, rape, orr any other crime any more reprehensible. What it does do is address the statistically documented fact that the justice system treats violence against some groups as somehow more acceptable. It is a tool for the prosecution to use or not use in given circumstances. Not all white on black crime is prosecuted as a hate crime. Not all crime perpetrated on homosexuals is prosecuted as hate crime.
Its really not that different than other areas of the law. The difference between 1st, and 2nd degree murder has everything to do with the thought processes of the criminal. Society assigns severity of punishment based on intent. Is it a crime of passion? Is it a malicious cold-blooded act? Is it unintended? Why should hate get a pass?
Oh, I see....you never met anyone in your click/party/idealology that is against hate crimes legislation as well as the E-E-O-C, or A-f-f-i-m-a-t-i-v-e A-c-t-i-o-n legislation pertaining to employment practices geared toward race, age, gender, disabilities, preganancies, and sexual orientation. Why do I have to spell it out for you ? Unfortunately, to many people look at this as a partyline issue or just another wasteful Gov't program until it strikes at home.....
To even mention affirmative action with hate crime legislation is foolish at best. A hate crime is unconstitutional because it gives extra punishment to people for why they committed a crime in addition to the punishment for the crime itself. They are being punished for their beliefs and that is a clear violation of The First Amendment.
"Affirmative" action is nothing more than reverse discrimination and coddling for specific groups of people (mainly racial minorities) so that they are assured a place in a career or program wether or not they are more qualified for those spots or not. To exclude someone that is qualified for a position specifically because of race, gender, etc. is wrong but to automatically grant them anything simply because they are a minority would violate the very thing "Affirmative Action" that is supposed to be "helping" them.
I can't believe you, or anyone else, would actually try and compare affirmative action to hate crimes. What are you smoking? Can I have some?
BigA....Your making an issue out of comparing the two pieces of legislation. You totally missed the point, as usual. My comparison is between the mentality of the indivdual liberty supporters vs the equal protection and rights for all supporters. Try to stay focused.
Then you went on to say this :
Have you looked in the mirror ?
Your anti-Hate Crimes legislation and your also anti-Equal Employment protection legislation. So I think you need to get in touch with yourself.
So now that you know where he stands on these issues, does it make him a bad person? Does everyone here, at work, or even in this world have to agree with what you believe diesel? If we don't believe as you believe are we to be subject to ridicule?
That's too logical ... the masses will never understand it.
Sorry you see it that way Steve, but I don't believe I revealed my opinion on the actual issue of Hate Crime Legislation. You see, I'm sort of on the fence with this issue. But, does it make me a bad person to reveal my opinion on the tendencies of those against Hate Crime Legislation as typically Individual freedom lovers and those for it, as equal protection and rights for all supporters. You see Steve, If you read back into this thread, I was the one ridiculed as foolish and for smoking something for a comparison I did not make. Then posed with a BigA hypercritical statement, that was to easy not to respond. So you can believe what you want to believe, but the questions you posed are with no dis-respect, irrellavent.
Hoax, it's not that simple.....
The following is a link full of pro's and con's about hate crime enhancements
The idea that a person has the right to violate another person's rights for the sake of their own free expression inherently contradicts itself. The freedom of expression can never extend to the point where you are allowed to silence opposing ideas and viewpoints.
You would punish a thug who spray painted a swatstika on a FEC Trailer, the same punishment as a thug who spray painted a swatstika on a Jewish Temple?
Both the jury and the judge have always had the right to determine the severity of the sentence.
The other "interesting" thing about this law is that it has been disproportionately applied to Blacks and Hispanics which definitely not the intent of the law's creators.
Got some statistics on that?
Lets see if I understand this -----If you say you "HATE" me and my posts on Brown Cafe ----then you are guilty of a "HATE CRIME" and should immediately be charged, put on trial and of course incarcerated ????
Murder is murder
Rape is rape
Stealing is stealing
Violence is violence
Dwi is dwi
Discrimination is discrimination
Racism is racism
Hatred is not hatred --it is all of the above and more ?????
What a twisted world we have become !!!!
Jurries don't always see it this way and hate crime laws give the prosecution added fire to get reasonable sentences.
With all due respect -----that is rediculous. If a jury is too stupid to recognize and convict on a crime such as murder -----you state we should basically circumvent out judicial system and let the Prosecution "look" into the defendants mind to se if it is "hateful"
I am certainly not a fan of the ACLU ---but this should be interesting---a jury of our peers finds us innocent but the prosecutor decares us guilty of hate !!!!! Sure makes sense ?????
With all due respect, juries have been ridiculous. Laws have been ridiculous. 5$ shop-lifting will get you 20 years in Harlem. Multi billion dollar scams will get you promoted on wall street. It is up to the prosecution to prove. But do you deny that first degree murder requires the prosecutor to "look" into the mind to determine intent? If so, then is it impossible to determine "hate"? And then it is up to the prosecutor to appeal to the individual jury members to find that hate is reprehensible enough to attach further penalty. Hate crime legislation did not simply spring forth. There is history which makes it necessary.
To further clarify: "Hate" is not something one is convicted of. One is not found "not guilty" of a crime and convicted of "Hate". That would be ridiculous. There are not two charges brought of "murder" and "hate".
IMO, the thug who painted a swatzstika on the Jewish Temple should be given a more severe penalty because the harm done to the victims and society is greater.
BTW...isn't it the Jury who determines the verdict, and the Judge who determines the severity of the sentence..
In the criminal justice system murder is just not murder.
Murders have classifications such as premeditated, man-slaughter, or self-defense, and degrees 1st-2nd-3rd, based solely upon the intent of the perp. Although the action is the same and the result is the same for the victim, intent is the basis for punishment in all the crimes.
If there is clear racial hatred intent behind the crime, the agressor, should be punished more harshly. This pertains to all other aspects of crime. There are other similiar enhanced laws in our books for other crimes as well which increase severity of punishment, such as inappropriately touching minors, and selling drugs near schools.
To further clarify ----you are confusing motive with the crime.
Revenge, Spite, jealousy,Anger, hatred ---are not crimes --they are MOTIVES !!!!!!
Or Intents ---do we have seperate revenge or spite or other motives listed as crimes ----Diesel you already stated the different degrees ----"Hate crime " ??
Muder 1-2- 3- manslaugter etc etc etc -----has it covered --why overkill so some liberal monority groups can say politicians are working for them ?
Lets see --I am gay ---I want different laws for me regarding murder --but I want the same laws regarding marriage -----Gee I am really confused !!!!
Separate names with a comma.