You’ve still completely lost me.
This should say: “I’m not sure; all of this was second-hand information.”
Fair enough, Demise.
Fair enough, my aunt’s patootie. You must be loosening up in your old age minty
Demise you enter a debate about hate crimes with the position that they are bad and cite an example you got 3rd hand from a biased source that these laws are used by biased prosecutors. I call Bulls*** on that.
Even the fact situation you present is flawed as an example of alleged “evils” of hate crime legislation. Your “friend of a friend” killed a homeless person. Fine, he was charged with murder, manslaughter, whatever. A charge of hate crime would have made absolutely no difference to the charged offense, in your example.
I REALLY want a cite from you Demise so I can do a little fact checking and get the real story. Give me the state and county this allegedly happened, so I can see for myself.
Check the profile, Hamlet. The “Town Lake” in his previous post also refers to Austin.
You know what “hate crime” laws are about?
They are about Big Brother saying " I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU’RE THINKING, BUD!!!
Learn some manners, Barking Spider. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without having a username that’s a crude euphemism for flatulence. 
Wait one damn minute, Demise. This purported abuse of prosecutorial power occurred when an acquaintance of yours in Austin, Texas was threatened with prosecution under a hate crimes law for killing person because of his sexual orientation. Correct?
I’m a damn fool for not realizing this earlier today, not to mention the first time you posted that story a few months back. But I don’t feel too bad, because I’ve seen several known Democrats already in this thread, and none of them seem to remember the 2000 Presidential debates or the fallout of the James Byrd murder. His mother even took out a full-page ad in the New York Times decrying Bush for a particular failing of Texas law.
You see where I’m going with this, folks? If not, check out the first story on this page. Pay extra-special attention to the date. And I just looked it up–it didn’t even go into effect until September 1, 2001.
struct: Surely you realize the difference between a one-liner and “get it through your thick skulls”? If not, learn it.
Before this thread travels too far afield, I think I will also take Polycarp’s challenge and spell out my views on hate crime laws in one tidy post.
I believe the Supremes made a horrible mistake in Abbate vs. The United States by finding that concurrent prosecution in overlapping districts is constitutional. Dual sovereignty is double jeopardy - regardless of what the robes say. This problem is not solely confined to hate crime law, but new federal hate crime statutes widen the double jeopardy loophole simply by increasing the number of situations where dual sovereignty would be applicable. The Constitutionalist in me wants this loophole closed, but will settle for keeping it as small as possible.
Also, there is an inherent inequity in viewing crimes commited from one point of view worse than the same crimes commited from another point of view. The Supremes aknowledged the danger of legislating thought in R.A.V. vs. St. Paul, yet I can’t help but feel they reversed themselves slightly in the later Wisconsin vs. Mitchell. I will reluctantly go along with their rulings because they applied solely to increased sentencing and consideration of motive is a valid factor in determining the convicted’s threat to society.
However, much like minimum sentencing laws for controlled substances, zero-tolerance laws, and so-called “three-strikes” laws, special circumstance sentencing laws such as hate crimes are an usurption of judicial power by the legislative branch. By dictating sentencing requirements based on motive, Congress has stripped some of the discretionary powers of a jury. Juries had previously been able to use motive in evaluating sentencing on a case to case basis, but now they must deal with decrees from Capital Hill instead of the unique circumstances of the case. If church burnings are a problem, don’t pass a hate crime law - increase the maximum penalty for arson.
struct:
[Moderator Hat ON]
struct, you may say pretty much what you like about a poster’s argument, but you may not directly call another poster stupid in this forum. Do not do this again.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Terrorism. I don’t get why you’re not getting that.
Esprix
I have started a BBQ Pit thread regarding the hypocrisy of minty green’s anti-jerk admonitions and the wrongfulness of Gaudere singling me out for warning and criticism. The thread may be found at this link.
I have also started an ABTM thread regarding the propriety of impugning another poster’s character within Great Debates. The thread may be found at this link.
Juries have virtually no role in sentencing; the only time a jury is called to play a part in sentencing is when a capital offense is being tried and the jury is asked to decide whether the defendant’s conduct mandates the death penalty. In all other cases, sentencing is left entirely in the hands of the judge.
Beebs (if I can get away with Zaphod, why not Beebs. I like the sound better. Beebs…Beebs… say it with me.)
I think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water here. In addition, this argument may be a reason why you wouldn’t want a FEDERAL hate crime law, but not for whether or not State’s should have hate crime legislation, or whether hate crime law is a good thing.
As has been said before, motives for criminal action have always been used to determine the relative wrongness of crimes. There is no inequity in that, it is in fact, the more more fair kind of justice system. Also, HATE CRIMES DO NOT LEGISLATE THOUGHTS, THEY LEGISLATE ACTIONS.
First, hate crimes are not a usurption of judicial power. The legislature is the branch of government that decides what should be legal, and what should be illegal, as well as what sentences are appropriate. That’s one of their main jobs. Second, juries don’t sentence. Judges do, and those judges are bound by the legislator’s decisions on appropriate punishments. A judge can no more sentence a arsonist to death than let a murderer get probation. I, for one, am not enamoured with the strictness of the federal sentencing guidelines, but blaming that on hatecrimes, and you’ve lost your baby again.
Thought I’d already cross-posted this here, but I guess I didn’t.
From the original thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland1244
The penalty [for a hate crime] should be determined by the judge or jury, and not dictated by a group of legislators who are trying to win votes from blacks and gays. Hate crime laws are as bad as “three-strikes” laws – they are the legislature intruding deeply into the judiciary’s role of distributing punishments for the violation of the law.
Disclaimer: IANAL, just a pretty well-informed and educated citizen as to the legal system.
Criminal Court judges pass sentences for crimes committed, but it is the legislature’s job to set up the sentencing guidelines to begin with. The law grants discretionary powers to a judge in many cases to tailor an appropriate punishment to a given case. For instance, the legislated punishment for a crime might be a range of ten to thirty years imprisonment, and the judge picks a number within that range depending on the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. However, the ultimate power to determine punishments for crimes lies in a legislative body, and it is not an “intrusion” to specify an additional penalty for a crime if it has a hate factor to it.
I suppose you could argue that the penalties called for by hate crime laws are “cruel and unusual” and thus violate the Eighth Amendment, but otherwise a legislature is perfectly within its rights when it passes anti-hate crime legislation. The only other possible legal challenge I can think of would be to argue that hate crime sentencing standards violate Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process guarantees. I invite any lawyers reading this thread to explain why those dogs won’t hunt.
At any rate, Kirkland, I’m very surprised that you’re so vehemently philosophically opposed to anti-hate crimes legislation. Is it because you don’t want to be accused of asking for “special” legal protection? Are you saying that like political correctness and affirmative action, an argument can be made that hate crime laws do more harm than good? If I may, Kirkland, let me salve your conscience by pointing out that when a certain portion of the populace is specially targeted for egregiously wrongful and criminal treatment (the particulars of which I’m sure you’re more familiar with than anyone else here), the state has a compelling interest to protect the targets of such disproportionate injustice with a proportionate legal response. Think of it as legal triage, if you will.
Hamlet, KellyM, I was wrong about juries and sentencing - very wrong. Please read my comments to mean judges and sentencing. Special circumstance laws erode the discretionary powers of a judge.
I am well aware that the legislative branch has the power, indeed the purpose, to enact laws regarding sentencing and the punishment of crime - even to pass new laws punishing new crimes. My argument about this branch usurping power from the judicial is that they are abusing this power.
Yes, the vast majority of state hate crime laws do not even come close to violating double jeopardy. It is the federal ones I am concerned about when I speak of dual sovereignty and double jeopardy. I hope that was implied.
Hate crime laws don’t quite legislate thought - I never said they did (I just said they came close), but they don’t quite legislate just actions either. They legislate choice of victims. And since a thought process is needed to make a choice…
After reading the various laws and court rulings pertaining to hate crimes, I have to conclude that they have been examined and found perfectly legal and constitutional - but I don’t have to agree with that. I feel that they go against the intent of the constitution and the bill of rights, if not the letter. Hate crimes are not an issue that I feel especially passionate about, but these laws don’t especially give me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.
But then, what do I know? I’m no lawyer (I’m a biologist) and haven’t studied these things with any depth until the past couple of days. I post here for my own edification, and I haven’t let my ignorance keep me from babbling semi-coherently about subjects I know next to nothing about in the past, so why stop now?
Pardon my ignorance, but is there any such thing as federal hate crimes laws? My recollection is that there are not, but I could be mistaken.
Yes, there are federal laws, but they may not be as bad as I implied. Still, the potential is there for new laws to create a real problem. Here’s a link from the Anti-Defamation League detailing the current federal laws. http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/federal.html
You’re right, there doesn’t appear to be much there. The only one of those acts that could be described as a “hate crimes” law is the sentencing enhancement provision, which clearly does not create any crimes in addition to those already on the books. It would seem, then, that your concern about creating more “double jeopardy” problems via federal hate crimes laws might be a bit unwarranted.