JAG wrote:
Yes, in the second trial.
The same way they should do the guys here in Oakland, and LA and Philly and NY and Detroit and New Jersey and…
Look, I understand everyone’s feelings when they say there shouldn’t be people singled out for special protection. I wish we lived in a society where it wasn’t neccesary. But that’s just not the case. Ever wonder about my sig? Ignoring it, or hoping it will go away just doesn’t work.
What is the point of sentencing then?
It is the way by which society expresses its intolerance for certain forms of behavior. Do you think that premeditated killing is worse than a murder of passion or do you see no difference?
And all hate does not equal hate crimes. What is your point, exactly?
So it would not be a hate crime.
I was not referring to federal legislation.
Furthermore, let’s look at this with a little more subtlety. You are right that hate crimes laws do not equate to convictions. But let’s say someone murders a member of a traditionally victimized group in a place in which a hostile climate exists. So he gets a light sentence, and is out excrutiatingly soon on parole.
I call this impunity.
Well, we are at an impasse then. I believe that hate crimes legislation is often politically motivated, and is always an issue just after a major atrocity. However, between the added publicity and new, stiffer punishment, I am quite certain that states with hate crimes legislation have lower incidences of racially/gender/etc motivated violence. At least that is what the pro-legislation studies report.
MR
Mr. Zambezi
Extra deterrence does not equate to extra legal protection. Where there are problems with people violating the law, society takes steps to end the problems. Potential murder victims aren’t given extra protection by the fact that murder penalties are stiff.
No sir. That is not the point of hate crimes laws, as has been explained numerous times. Simply killing a member of a “protected” group does not necessarily mean that a hate crime has been committed. If a lesbian steals away your wife and you whack her, I would not call that a hate crime, and neither would the state. If you kill a lesbian for no other reason than she is a lesbian, then we are talking about a hate crime.
MR
Ok…this may be a stretch as the following amendment applies more to the government restricting personal freedoms but I don’t see why it can’t apply to individuals (and just to be contrary ;)).
I thought I had addressed issues of motivation and intent already.
No; that was the Civil Rights Act, which dates back to Reconstruction. The “federal hate crimes statute” that is being discussed is a federal statute that requires a court to apply the maximum sentence allowed by law if the court determines that the crime was motivated by animus toward a protected group.
The Supreme Court has previously stated that it is unconstitutional to make the expression of animus toward a group or individual an element of an offense when the same conduct absent the element of hate amounts to a lesser and included offense (see, e.g. R.A.V. v. St. Paul) or no offense at all. Such regulation amounts to a prohibited content-based restriction on expressive conduct.
Basically all that is left, then, are sentencing factors. The Court held (in a divided opinion on a case out of Wisconsin) that sentencing enhancers are constitutional so long as the enhancement does not cause the penalty to exceed the statutory maximum allowed for the underlying offense. (Extending the penalty beyond the underlying maximum would amount to creating a new offense, which the Court forbade in R.A.V.)
Because of the constitutional restrictions imposed by the Court, hate crime laws serve little legal purpose; courts already generally have at least some discretion to extend sentences when an offender’s conduct is especially odious, and routinely do so with or without hate crime sentencing enhancers telling them to do so. Any hate crime statute that would have any significant effect on the administration of justice is probably unconstitutional. The issue is almost entirely one of political posturing.
“Then you are standing on your own, JAG.”
Actually, I believe I am still in some very good company.
I wonder however if it is the necessity to argue or the actual belief in your statements that drives such a disagreement.
Maeglin said:
“That is of dubious constitutionality. Why would you make all murders federal offenses? And if only heinous murders qualified, where do you draw the line?”
Where do you draw the line? Where does the current law draw the line? Where does the current federal law apply? If the real issues are:
“If this were really the case, then we would have no need for hate crimes laws. But there are regions in this country
where intolerance and hatred of members of certain groups is
more tolerated than others, so prosecution to the full extent of the law is virtually impossible short of federal intervention.”
AND
“I do not understand why so many people find this idea problematic. As a society we have determined that premeditated crimes are more heinous than crimes committed on the spur of the moment. Furthermore, crimes that involve mutilation and desecration of the human body are considered more repulsive by society, and perpetrators of such crimes are often given maximum penalties.”
AND
“Why do people have such a hard time adding hate to the already long list of guidelines?”
Why is it then the a Federal Hate Crimes Law that applies to ALL forms of hate murders doesn’t resolve these issues? Why does it have to specify race, sex, sexual orientation? I really can’t understand why there is a need to draw those lines. So please help by explaining in little words.
I’ll have to look up dubious constitutionality, I suffer from a public high school education.
Double Jeopardy, Infringement on States Rights, I understand those terms but fail to differentiate the trampling of them under an overall Hate Crime Law and a specific protected class Hate Crime Law.
KellyM
quote:
Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy
Regarding the infringement of rights, I was addressing the concern that by a crime being prejuciciously purposed, there was a violation of that groups Constitutional rights.
Do groups have constitutional rights? I though most constitutional rights attached to individuals.
Sure, the individuals IN a group have constitutional rights, but let’s not go jumping to fallacious conclusions.
Finally, just what “constitutional right” is being violated when one private person kills another private person? (Most people have no idea what their “constitutional rights” actually are.)"
That was in response to one of the ‘reasons’ why we ‘need’ Hate Crime Laws from a previous post. I think it was a rather well thought-out reasoning (Spiritus Mundi about 2/3 down on page 1). It wasn’t my line of logic, just a response to that line of logic.
(can someone tell me how to do quotes the right way?)
MAeglin:
I said it before, but apparently not well. the law would not discriminate de jure, but would de facto.
I strongly doubt that these laws are being passed to protect whites, straights, and christians, although they may benefit them. These are really put into effect to protect specific groups. “sexual orientation” is a code word for “homosexual”.
If hate crime laws deter hate crimes, why not increase penalties on all crimes and deter all crime? Why just hate crimes?
Hmm from reading this thread it seems to me that it would be smart to not hire minoritys or gays or anyone diffrent than you because they can turn around and sue you. Thats the real effect that law has. Either that or it lets lazy or incompetent people keep their job. I mean come on, you hired them probably when you knew what skin color they were so why would you suddenly become a racist and fire them, and its the same with gays, unless one suddenly decides to change from “normal” to flaming.
As for hate crime laws if its a homophobic backwater state the judge does whatever he pleases wether its legal or not. I don’t see why we don’t have a “outsider” hate crime because outsiders are probably killed more just because they are that in those small towns. To put it simply hate crime laws are useless and only spread dissention. We wont get equality untill percieved “special rights” are removed because they are racist, sexist, and are probably going to be based on sexual orientation eventually. Even if you can’t be fired from a job because of that the owner will probably try to make you quit and suceed.
my belief is that everyone is equal under the law and should be treated so under the law. However, not all people are going to be treated equally by other people and it is impossible to change this.
What happens is that blacks are getting shafted, so some say “well, we must give a special protection to blacks”. Then it is women, then gays, then cross dressers [see Boulder CO.] and so on.
The option you do not consider is to treat all people equally. Unfortunately, a bad boss will still be a bad boss and a racist boss will still be a racist boss. But I would argue that those folks are working the law to their advantage right now.
BTW, I have decided to take chances on two minority welfare moms because I wanted to do the right thing. They started off great, then work got in the way of their personal life and I am stuck with them for a while. I have been waiting for approval of termination for about 7 months and 14 write-ups.
Without condemning the direction this thread has taken, let me raise the point that vanilla’s OP was looking toward whether anyone sees gays claiming “special rights” – not merely seeking passage of “hate crime” laws that cover them, but in general other aspects. We touched briefly on gay marriages above before getting focused on hate crimes.
I think we’ve beaten this question to death before on this board, with no satisfactory answers. As somebody noted, in an ideal world, nobody would need such a law, but in the one we live in, there are cases of violence and discrimination against certain groups. Whether identifying those groups as “protected classes” is a good idea or not is something on which reasonable people can, and do, disagree. Satan and I, who are friends who respect each others views greatly, have argued this one before, with a wide range of input from others.
I think I can see grounds for reviewing motive as aggravating or ameliorating the nature of the crime much more clearly than the “slippery slope” argument of whether such review constitutes “thought crime” – to quote the old cliche analogy, the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children deserves a much milder punishment than the millionare who embezzles from funds he serves as trustee of because he needs to replace his yacht. (Though I bet somebody disagrees with that one, too!)
Does anyone have information on how hate crimes laws work in real life? Are they additional charges, where by simply assaulting Joe you violate Section 23.5 of the penal code, but because Joe is gay and you told your friends you were going to beat up a faggot, you’ve violated Section 94.3 as well? Or are they aggravation-type charges, increasing the severity of the crime – in my analogy, Section 23.6, the higher-degree assault charge, covers assault with a deadly weapon, or upon an incompetent, or upon a member of a protected class with the motive of assaulting a member of said class? Or do they cover considerations in sentencing?
Both of the first two options are probably unconstitutional. The only option that is likely to pass constitutional muster, and therefore the only form that is routinely used, is the third, where the presence of hatred toward a protected group is a sentencing consideration.
Does anyone have stats on how much of crime is considered to be “hate crime”?
I agree that the thread has drifted off. I will make a stand on Gay marriage though: not allowing gays to get married is tantamount to creating special rights for no gays. Of course, you can argue whether marriage is a “right”, but how can the state dictate religious morality in this one area?
I guess I see this right as the governemtn saying “we will not distinguish between citizens balsed on A,B,or C.” This is in contrast to “we will make sure that we will distinguish between a,b and c.”
Different in my mind.
The idea of antidiscrimation law is that these people will be forced to stop being racist bosses. They have a choice: stop being racists, or stop being bosses.
i think hate crime laws are an attempt to enforce the 14th ammendment. ie, equal protection under the law. there are actual groups of citizens that do not get equal protection from law enforcement.
some groups of people are murdered more hatefully, with more impunity, and with far less legal repurcussion than others.
This makes far more sense, to me, than any other argument.
Hate is a feeling, and feelings can not be legislated. I am allowed to hate you because you are (white, black, lesbian, rooting for the other team, having sex with my wife, blonde, rich, annoying, stupid, ugly, I’m jealous over you, etc.). It is an unlawful action that is illegal, and any of these “hate” motives, IMHO, are no more or less valid than any of the others, and it seems, IMHO, that none deserve any more “special treatment” over any of the others, as if hating you because you are born black is worse and deserves a harsher penalty than hating you because you were born fat. Hate is hate.
It seems inappropriate for a group of people to reserve special treatment or consideration under the law. That makes the law bigoted, IMHO, and does nothing to further any notion of equality.
Sure, okay. However, hate crimes don’t punish hate, they punish terrorism. If a given crime is found to have an additional element meant to cause fear or intimidation in targets beyond the immediate victims, it’s a worse action, and should be dealt with more harshly by the courts.
Yes. but painting the local 7-11 with “Ozzy Rules” isn’t nearly the crime that spraying swastikas on a synagouge is, is it? Which is more likely to strike fear into members of a community and feed feelings of suspicion which strain relations between people who might otherwise be generally friendly or at least indifferent to each other?
However, it is appropriate to punish crimes that target groups of people more harshly than crimes that target individuals, and to punish crimes with more severe effects more harshly.
Your opinions are somewhat simplistic and ill-considerered. There, I said it.
Motive doesn’t matter in sentencing?
In this courthouse are two courtrooms, and in both a homicide trial is going on.
In Courtroom A is Guido. On orders from the Boss he went out and stalked Alphonse, who is interfering with the Family’s operations. Waiting in cover, he picked him off with a silenced .44.
In Courtroom B is Henry. Henry doesn’t drink, but unbeknownst to him the blood pressure medicine his doctor just put him on is 8% alcohol. And he skipped dinner for a late meeting. He was driving home, and realized his reactions were off, so he did a sedate 35 until he got out on the open highway out of traffic, when he increased his speed to the legal 55.
But this idiot ran a stopsign from the side road, and Henry, his reactions off, was unable to stop in time to avoid slamming into the idiot’s driver-side door. The idiot died. Cops investigating found Henry’s blood alcohol count above the legal minimum (thanks to his medication and no food).
Both defendants are found guilty of taking another person’s life. And so obviously both should get 25 to life.
Whatever the answer, and I agree that there are serious debatable issues, it’s not so simplistic as all that.
And, folks, nobody commits a crime out of love for his victim. (Well, grant me a few weirdos here and there.) “All crimes are hate crimes” is quite true. But when a victim becomes a victim simply by falling into a group of people whom the perpetrator hates, there is in my mind a somewhat different culpability than the targeting of one particular person as the victim of a crime. One can choose not to work the midnight shift at the 7-11, or be the night watchman at the expensive-goods factory, or go to that particular bar where fights break out. One cannot choose not to be a member of most protected groups.
ROTFLOL!!!
Ouch. Hey.
Mr. Z, Here’s a slightly dated report from the FBI.