Cop notes are posted. Not a hate crime there.
The thing I posted about freedom of speech the other day turned into a discussion of hate crime laws.
I thought we could move that to here so it could have its own thread.
I "hate" hate crime laws.
And even the idea of "hate speech" laws is very scary. That would be a real threat to freedom of speech. Much as i "hate" hate speech, I do not want to see it become illegal. That is the beginning of the end of freedom of speech.
But back to hate crime laws.
There are a lot of reasons that this is a bad idea to start with.
It is unenforceable. It is impossible to say what someone's motive is. It leaves a lot of room for speculation and removes much of the objectivity that should be there in judging a crime. In not sure how you would even define it. If it is even definable. Its like pornography. You cant really define it. How would you measure it? What if it was 50 pecent hate, 25 percent greed and 25 percent just plain old meanness? Or what if it was 15 percent hate .... how would you know?
Second, it denegrates crime victims who are not "special." Being a crime victim is traumatic enough, and to say that the crime against you is not as bad as the same crime against someone else, would make that even worse.
A crime against a black person should not be considered worse than the same crime against a white person, or gay person, or religious person. All crimes are bad, that's why they are crimes.
Hate crime laws create a special class of people, and is just reverse discrimination.It drives groups further apart.
It is true that no one should be beaten because they are gay, black, white, religious or whatever. No one should be beaten up period. There are laws against it and that should be enough.
Just enforce the laws we have equally for all people. Hate crime laws do not promote equality. They actually promote more hate by creating resentment and distrust between people groups.
Ok, thats it.
have at it.
Part of me says all crime is motivated by hate.
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't rob me if you loved me. You probably wouldn't rob me if you were indifferent toward me.
That being said, I also think if you are black and I rob you because I need money, and you were just the first person who came along, thats one thing. If you are black, and I rob you simply because you are black, that is something entirely different.
I think the penalty should be greater.
But not because you are part of some protected minority, but because of the motivatrion of the crime.
If you were black, and you robbed me simply because I was white, your penalty should be greater.
Yes, it would be difficult to prove, but if it can, I think the penatly should be stiffer. So, if you get 5 years for robbery, maybe you get an additional 2 tacked on for the hate motivation, regardles of whether you are White, Black, Christian, Jew, Straight, Gay....
I agree and it should be prosecuted as a hate crime.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you say to the guy who was beaten and robbed for no "hate" reason?
ReplyDeleteYea dude, sorry you got beat up, but its not as bad as the gay guy being beaten. he is just more important and special than you are....
It is making a mockery of our judicial system.
"If you are black, and I rob you simply because you are black, that is something entirely different."
ReplyDeleteOr vice versa. This is JJ's point. You cannot prove a crime, expecially the above one mentioned, is racially motivated.Just doing so, trying to prove it, would be reverse discrimination. All crime, in one way or another, is modivated by hate.
If people decide that certain crimes are determined by "hate" then places will have to be analyzed by race, religion, gender. For example, since there is a larger population of Blacks in Detriot, only whites can be subject to hate crimes. If you are in Utah, only Muslims are subject to hate crimes because Mormans hate Muslims, and Utah has so many Mormans.
I lived in Idaho Falls in the 1980's, population about 30k. I can count on one hand the number of black families in Idaho Falls. If one of them was a victim of crime, would it automatically be considered hate crime? Let's see; they were Black (strike one), most of them were Baptist (strike two, Idaho Falls was about 95% Morman), and Idaho has a large Aryan Race population up north (strike three).
"Hate" based crimes have no merit to be tried, because you cannot prove in in court, unless there is testimony saying the suspect specifically stated so.
I can understand JJ's view because he is a newspaper person. I'm almost with him on the speech thing. But, hypothetically speaking, if any one of you had a gay child and that child was beaten or murdered, how would you feel? Say the kid was continually picked on before and called gay slurs by that person who hurt them? How would you feel if the justice system said it was not a hate crime?? I think I would be pretty ticked off.
ReplyDeleteI'm telling you the liberals won't get it. They base everything on being a victim. If you take it away, what do they have?
ReplyDeleteHere's you some examples, I copied from the other topic and posting it here.................
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember the Jena 6 case, where a black student sat underneath a tree that white students normally gathered at and later the white students hung nooses? They were only suspended and not prosecuted, yet that was an infringment of federal civil right laws and nothing was done. Then a group of black students beat a white student unconsious yet they were charged I think with some type of aggravated assault or battery that was reduced from second degree murder. Yes they committed a crime too and should be punished, but the white students only got a slap on the wrist by the school.
Having a federal hate crime bill signed into law to protect against sexual orientation hate crimes was needed because the big problem with trying to convict hate crimes is that the laws can be muddy in each state. Some states have no laws on hate crime while other may not include sexual orientation. In alot of cases the prosecutor would have to have solid proof. A good example would be the matthew shepard case who was beaten to death. The 2 guys that beat him were not charged with a hate crime because at the time Wyoming had no such statute for hate crimes. Many witnesses testified that he was beaten because he was gay only the state could not prosecute based on that theory.
Now I think those could be proven as hate crimes.
James Jordan said...
ReplyDeleteSo what do you say to the guy who was beaten and robbed for no "hate" reason?
************************************************
You say, the perpetrator is going to get whatever the penalty is for robbery and assault....
If the guy who is beating and robbing you is screaming the whole tiome he is doing it, that "That's what whitey, or niggers, or fags get, then you tell him the perpetrator is going to get whatever the penalty is for robbery and assault, and hate....
Typical conservative to always assume
ReplyDeleteSo why stop with hate.
ReplyDeleteLets make jealousy an additional penalty. How about greed as another?
Maybe even envy. Its pretty bad to want someting just cause someone else has it.
If you are going to add hate, you should add all other motivations as well.
So you could get life in prison for jaywalking if you were doing it to spite a minority person, and were greedy, selfish and envious all at the same time.
"Hate" based crimes have no merit to be tried, because you cannot prove in in court, unless there is testimony saying the suspect specifically stated so.
ReplyDelete************************************************
That makes no sense...
If there is evidence, it can be proved.
If someone kept a blog about their hatred of fags, told his friends he was going to go out and thump some fags, if he told someone "thats what fags get when the come to my neighborhood, certainly, the hate motivation could be argued.
if he told someone "thats what fags get when the come to my neighborhood, certainly, the hate motivation could be argued.
ReplyDelete>
THen again, maybe he was just suspicious that his lover was playing around on him.
When you set out to deny life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness for whole segments of society, simply because of what they look like, who they choose to love, or what they decide to believe, there has to be a penalty wich is greater than crimes comitted for your own self aggrandizement.
ReplyDeleteThat is the crux of the debate. I think you put it well.
ReplyDeleteI would say the penalty should not be greater.
Why do you think it should be?
Why is that motivation - hate - worse than any other motivation. All motivations for crime are bad. Why are some worse than others?
I never really looked at it that way JJ and I have to say I agree with you 99%, with the exception of one thing. If you can prove the suspect belonged to a hate group, like the KKK, a street gang, or even Fred Phelps group, then there was there was intent to purposely harm someone based on there race, lifestyle, religious values, or whatever the hate group dislikes. I think the Dr. Tiller murder can be classified as a hate crime also.
ReplyDeleteJames Jordan said...
ReplyDeleteAll motivations for crime are bad. Why are some worse than others?
************************************************
You say that as a member of a majority group that has not REALLY been singled out because of its identity.
You can deny it all you want, but there is a certain amount of power and privlege which comes from being white, middle class, and male.
I'm not asking you to apologize for that, merely to recognize that as fact.
"It is impossible to say what someone's motive is."
ReplyDelete-----------------
I disagree. There are many crimes in the books that are specific intent crimes. That simply means that you must prove that the person committing the crime had the intent to do so for a certain reason. For example, walking around naked in your home with the drapes open is not a crime UNLESS you do it with the intent to arouse yourself or another (presumedly your neighbors or passers by). Law Enforcement Officers are used to dealing with specific intent crimes, and realize this when interviewing suspects. Also, if a witness says someone was yelling racial epithets while pummeling someone of a different race, that pretty much seals it. BUT, it should not be limited to minorities. If a white man is beaten by someone screaming Honkey or Whitey, or whatever, then they should be charged as well. They are harder to prove than a simple battery, but good officers can get people to give up the right information to show intent.
You say that as a member of a majority group that has not REALLY been singled out because of its identity.
ReplyDelete>>
Actually i did work for a company once, where the boss was a black guy. He was a very good manager, and a good guy.
But, black people did get special priviliges, all the plum assignments, first chance at awards and perks etc. White guys were only promoted if every black person on the floor refused the job firts.
THats just how it was.
It did open my eyes:)
How did it make you feel JJ, to be in the minority? Your rights were violated as well. I have a couple friends that are white and moved to Louisiana. They ended up moving back because they were treated like the minority. Certainly gave them a better understanding of how minority groups feel.
ReplyDelete-------------
Bout to pass out in shock, I'm in agreement with sg!!! :)
It is wrong to hurt someone because of their race or religion or sexual orientation. Or any other reason for that matter. I get that.
ReplyDeleteBut if you beat someone or murder someone, why does it have to be called a 'hate' crime? They are going to get in trouble anyway - why does it have to be called something else other than battery or murder?
Does that mean a rapist hates all women? What if he called her a name? Why isn't that a hate crime. All violent crime is a hateful act. If you beat up a homeless person and you tell him to get a job, is that a hate crime too?
CC:
ReplyDeleteBut, hypothetically speaking, if any one of you had a gay child and that child was beaten or murdered, how would you feel?
-----------------------------------------------
I would feel like my child was murdered. Does it matter the reason? Any reason someone is murdered is wrong. Not one reason is more wrong than any other.
CC is BD 2.0
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of BD, where did they go? Their website is spam-central right now
ReplyDeleteJames Jordan said...
ReplyDeleteActually i did work for a company once, where the boss was a black guy. He was a very good manager, and a good guy.
But, black people did get special priviliges, all the plum assignments, first chance at awards and perks etc. White guys were only promoted if every black person on the floor refused the job firts.
THats just how it was.
It did open my eyes:)
***********************************************
The point is that was the exception rather than the rule.
Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, have to deal with that all the time. For them it is the rule rather than the exception.
I think the Question that still needs to be answered is why does the Government recoqnize groups rights, desires, or priviledges over those of indivduals? It backwards based on the Constitution!
ReplyDeleteAND it is Segregation by Legislation!
CC:
ReplyDeleteBut, hypothetically speaking, if any one of you had a gay child and that child was beaten or murdered, how would you feel?
-----------------------------------------------
I would feel like my child was murdered. Does it matter the reason? Any reason someone is murdered is wrong. Not one reason is more wrong than any other.
November 4, 2009 1:25 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well common sense tells anyone that there is a 99.99999 chance the child wouldn't of been murdered or beaten if he or she wasn't gay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CC is BD 2.0
November 4, 2009 3:20 PM
Thanks for the compliment.
Part of me says all crime is motivated by hate.
ReplyDeleteAND
Part of you regardless of whether you acknowledge it as you Soul! Knows that it is the result of the Human condition. That there is a right and wrong and it comes down to a choice.
I once heard a Phychatrist say that many of the worst crimes were committed by those who were born without a conscience! Really?
So, are we born already knowing Right from Wrong?
OR
Is it something we learn with age, growth and by examples?
What if their are people that have no real examples from which to draw or base their decisions?
Thats why we have laws!
What say you?
There is an obscure tribe in new zealand that has some interesting ideas. The person considered the wisest, greatest and strongest, is the one who is best at deceit.
ReplyDeleteSo, decieving a friend, in that culture, to steal his goods, his wife, his children, is considered being a strong person and that person is admired instead of looked down on.
Some of "right and wrong" is learned. And societies create their own "right and wrong."
But I do also think that God has revealed truth, and that as a person reaches the age of knowing right and wrong, that is revealed to him or her to some extent. They can ignore it though.
We are a society that has (until very recently) prided itself on protecting the rights of the minority. Lately I have been seeing a lot of "majority rules" mentality that makes me very sad.
ReplyDeleteThere is such a thing as tyranny of the minority.
ReplyDeletemajority rules applies to such things that are must matters of preference .. should city hall carpet be green or blue ?
That should not matter when it comes to law
We are a society that has (until very recently) prided itself on protecting the rights of the minority.
ReplyDeleteBut, you need to ask youself - by protecting a minority are you/they sealing their own fate?
The founders of our Government made no provisions for minorities! Only individual citiens!
We the people ... not We the Groups!
James Jordan said...
ReplyDeleteThere is such a thing as tyranny of the minority.
************************************************
Yeah, those minority groups are tyranical.
The way things are going, it will only be a matter of time until majority rules in every aspect of society.
Don't want gay marriage. It's okay as long as the majority says so.
Want to own slaves, it's okay as long as the majority says so.
Have a state funded Christian display, it's okay if the majority says so.
English only? Why not if it's waht the majority wants.
Christmas pagent at school? Sure go ahead, after all, the majority of us are Christian...
Tell me I'm not right.....
Tell me I'm not right.....
ReplyDeleteWell I can tell your not Christian ;)
You are not right.
ReplyDelete:)
Its just not as simple as you make it.
ReplyDeleteIf most people want a christmas pageant, but one person out of 10,000 objects. Why should the right of one outweigh the right of 10,000 ?
A society has a right to define its institutions such as marriage. Again, thats the minority forcing its views on the majority. Why is that different than the other way around.
As far as slaves, slavery is illegal. so ....
Well I can tell your not Christian ;)
ReplyDelete>
Well, if i were in India, i would not object to being subjected to festivals and such honoring the Mahareshi :)
I would not try to force them to not have their traditions just so my sensitivities would not be offended.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWell I can tell your not Christian ;)
************************************************
Actually, I'm a 3rd year seminary student.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
Well I can tell your not Christian ;)
************************************************
Actually, I'm a 3rd year seminary student.
And, show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said "majority rules." Or, "Blessed are the proud, the powerful, the haughty, the arrogant, the privleged..." Show me....
There are British citizens here, who feel put down and shamed when we celebrate the Fourth of July. We are celebrating a bad time in their nation's history.
ReplyDeleteWe really should stop having that celebration, dont you think.?
Man, I gotta tell you what...I'm BAFFLED. Gotta LOVE those 'anonymous' posts; you can't tell who's trying to do what to whom (or themselves), but here's my two cents...
ReplyDeleteNot ALL crime can be construed as 'Hate'...what about the man who steals because that's the only way he can afford to feed his family?
What about DUI? (yes, it IS a crime, and rightfully so) The perpetrator generally doesn't hate anyone in general, and VERY rarely anyone in particular, yet still...they go out and commit a crime.
What about fudging on your taxes as much as you can? You sure as HECK don't hate America, but you will bend the truth as far as you can to keep as much of your money as you are able to, KNOWING that you probably should have paid more. I know it happens; I've done it.
But I digress.
Hanging nooses, while DEPLORABLE, is NOT the same as a 6-on-1 butt-kicking. Jesus DID say to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's', He also instructed His followers that they were 'in' the world, not 'of' the world. If Jesus would have tried that money-changer-in-the-Temple-table-upsetting thing at a business around here, He would have found Himself in the hoosegow in VERY rapid fashion. Do you think He did that without being angry? Yet, your same Bible tells us that ANGER is a sin. According to the same Scriptures, "ALL sin" is basically equal in the eyes of God.
So, if you believe in the Trinity(Jesus = God), He broke His own commandment. But the Bible says that God is perfect....lol
I TOLD you I was baffled!
If all sin IS equal, stealing a caramel is the same as killing someone.
ReplyDeleteI cant let that one go.
ReplyDeleteThe bible does not say anger is sin. No emotion is ever called good or bad.
IT says, "be angry, yet do not sin."
meaning, what you do with the anger is what matters.
Anger can be good or bad. It can drive you to do good or evil.
You misunderstand all sin being equal. All sin is sin. But some is worse than others, and some has more ramifications than others.
If i spit on you, i sin. If i shoot you with a shotgun, i sin. Which would you prefer ?
So if you steal a caramel, but dont murder, you cant say you are not a sinner.
You are a sinner by stealing a caremel even if you dont murder. But one is worse than the other.
Just trying to keep things biblical :)
Actually, I'm a 3rd year seminary student.
ReplyDeleteWell we could probably argue back and forth about the life and death of Jesus!
Who he was, what he said, and how he died!
Bu the only thing I can or will tell you!
IS
He's Alive and lives in peoples hearts!
Matthew 10:34
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
a man's enemies will be the members of his
own household.
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross up and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it!
If your questioning Jesus - hes knocking at the door but only you can open it!
Jesus was a fake. He was no more the son of god than Charles Manson was. Manson had more followers too. Jesus was nothing more than an attention seeker. today's equivalent would be a reality tv star.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the question should be: Why are the current laws and punishments not adequate to deal with said crimes?
ReplyDeleteBasically, as a society we are saying a black guy killing a black guy CAN'T be punished as much as a white guy killing a black guy (all other things being equal). Wow, talk about creating racial divisions, this law is trying.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/15/could-politically-incorrect-sp
ReplyDeleteAs currently drafted, the "hate crimes" bill would allow you to be prosecuted for simply saying something that allegedly influenced someone else to commit a hate crime, even if that wasn't your intention.
We could probably power a whole city on the blowhard energy directed against the concept of hate crime legislation.
Stay classy, teabaggers.
If your questioning Jesus - hes knocking at the door but only you can open it!
ReplyDelete************************************************
No questioning here.
In fact I'm pretty confident where Jesus would come down in this debate. Jesus stood on the side of thieves, liars, tax cheats and prostitutes. Jesus stood with the poor, the marginalized, the least of these. Jesus stood with women, Samaritans, and adulterers...
I'm certain he wouldn't be standing with the politicians, the CEO's, the religious leaders of our day.
Jesus stood against the Roman Empire, and evertything it stood for. Jesus also stood against the religious establishment, and everything it representated as well. Jesus was a subversive radical heretic. I wonder what he would think of our government, and our religion today.....
It seems that there is knocking on both sides of the door, and... The door can be opened from either side.
ReplyDeleteListen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me.
Rev. 3:20
'Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.
Luke 11:9
James Jordan @ 11:44 AM
ReplyDeleteTHats just how it was.
************************************************
What if thats how it was all the time, or most of the time, everywhere you worked.
Would you be content to say, "That's just how it is...." Or would you speak out? Might you even seek some legal remedy? Perhaps some legislation?
Just wondering.
Basically, as a society we are saying a black guy killing a black guy CAN'T be punished as much as a white guy killing a black guy (all other things being equal).
ReplyDelete************************************************
All things being equal, they shoul receive the same penalty. If a black person killed a black person because he was black, it would be the exception, not the rule.
12:26
ReplyDeletei agree pretty much. Jesus was against the religious establishment of the day, and was a friend of the downtrodden, prostitutes and other "sinners."
There is one interesting point there. He really did not have that much to say about the roman government.
Many people, including his disciples, wanted him to lead a revolution against the roman empire. There was a time they even tried to force him to be king.
He said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's. and to God what is God's.
I think Jesus would have plenty of bad things to say about religion of today, and maybe a couple good things.
Of course, both sides would want him to endorse them.
I really thing he would do as he did on earth the last time - he distanced himself from any political involvement at all.
Thats another good debate we could have :)
This has been a nice and civil debate.
ReplyDeleteThanks to everyone for keeping it on that level.
Jesus certainly stood in opposition to a Roman Government that demanded loyality to Ceaser as Lord, that preached that none could be saved apart from Ceaser, that preached PAX Romana, or peace through power.
ReplyDeleteHerod
Jesus stood in oposition to a Client King rulers, who governed with a heavy thumb, taxed excessivly, and lived opulant lifestyles, while creating great divisions between the haves and have nots.
Jesus saying "Ceaser is not God," was pretty subversive, and anti Rome.
@ Mad Linker
ReplyDeleteYou can call me a Teabagger all day long. I wear it as a badge of honor. I’m sure you disapprove of the original teabaggers as well. Doesn't surprise me.
So if someone assaulted me and called me a teabagger……does that constitute a hate crime?
CC
ReplyDeleteWell common sense tells anyone that there is a 99.99999 chance the child wouldn't of been murdered or beaten if he or she wasn't gay.
----------------------------------------
I'm sure the numbers of people being beaten or murdered for other reasons far outweigh if he/she was gay.
Making special legislation won't make crimes against certain groups go away. So what is the point?
Betty bell it should be known that it is in fact a hate crime, that should be on the official paper work. So all should know exactly what was done and why.
ReplyDeleteThe point is people, you have never been through a personal experience like that and you just might feel a little different if it was your own blood.
Gee, we need to be more creative with our justice and punishment. Plus, find cheaper ways to imprison more of the Population!
ReplyDeleteMaybe if we can figure a way to just "freeze" people for the period of time they are sentenced. Then just thaw them out after time has been served.
You could really rack up the years that way!
Maybe even set records for the greatest number of years sentenced and served!
Start low, Jay walking gets 10 yrs. and so on right on up to murder 1,000 yrs. Hate crimes gets 1,500 yrs.
I like it!
What do you think Nancy P.?