What do you think of hate crimes?

[KrazyHorse]

Matthew Shepard will rest easier knowing that.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. By implication, you are devaluing the loss of any murdered person's family whose murder was not a "hate crime".

[KrazyHorse]

That the state of mind of the transgressor has a bearing on both the question of culpability, and is also a factor in how the severity of punishment is settled.

And that this is nothing new, at all.

See above. Singling out an underlying motive is VERY DIFFERENT from allowing the court latitude in discovering the degree of mens rea and punishing accordingly.

[KrazyHorse]

Two of the three anyway, but that's not the point being made: Lynchings (and otherwise violent racism in the United States) didn't end in the 1960s. Far less frequent of course, but violent hate crimes against blacks do still happen. There were pieces of him for three miles.

That's not the point being made? There is no doubt that racial violence still exists in the United States. That fact on its own, however, is utterly inconsequential to the question of the wisdom of hate crime legislation.

Racial violence is NO LONGER implicitly accepted by society at large in any part of the United States. Racial minorities are ALREADY PROTECTED by laws AND SOCIAL CUSTOMS against violence FULL STOP.

Hate crime legislation is nothing more than a feel-good exercise by politicians LONG after the need for such legislation has passed.

[Al B. Sure!]

Why is raping a 14 year old girl considered worse in the eyes of the law than rapping a 24 year old woman? What's this 'preventative measure' that Kuci is talking about. I don't think the laws is what prevents a sick pervert from raping a girl. And I don't see how hate crime designation is not preventative but supposedly stiffer penalties for rapping non-adults is, nor why preventative measures are even the reason for the stiffer penalties.

Also, can anyone speak as to a reason to remove hate crime legislation? Give an example of how it curtails civil rights. Has there been an innocent man who was jailed because of his hateful views, independent of a criminal act?

[DRoseDARs]

That's not the point being made? There is no doubt that racial violence still exists in the United States.

He didn't make the point that racial violence no longer occurs, he made the point that lynchings no longer occur. That is plainly false.

That fact on its own, however, is utterly inconsequential to the question of the wisdom of hate crime legislation.

Racial violence is NO LONGER implicitly accepted by society at large in any part of the United States. Racial minorities are ALREADY PROTECTED by laws AND SOCIAL CUSTOMS against violence FULL STOP.

Hate crime legislation is nothing more than a feel-good exercise by politicians LONG after the need for such legislation has passed.

So hate crime legislation is only applicable for crimes against people of non-white colors, or more specifically only for cases of white-on-black violence? LGBT don't face brutality for being LGBT? Frank Roque didn't murder Balbir Singh in an act of confessed revenge and religious hatred in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks because his murderer thought Balbir's turban meant he was a Muslim? There's no need to continue protections for minority groups from violence directed at them for being minority groups? There's no need to extend those protections to other minority groups not previously covered?

[KrazyHorse]

Why is raping a 14 year old girl considered worse in the eyes of the law than rapping a 24 year old woman?

a) There MAY be some justification on the grounds that the mental/physical harm is more severe when rape is perpetrated against a child as opposed to an adult

b) Who said that I necessarily believed in wisdom of this type of discrimination between victims?

[DRoseDARs]

Why is raping a 14 year old girl considered worse in the eyes of the law than rapping a 24 year old woman? What's this 'preventative measure' that Kuci is talking about. I don't think the laws is what prevents a sick pervert from raping a girl. And I don't see how hate crime designation is not preventative but supposedly stiffer penalties for rapping non-adults is, nor why preventative measures are even the reason for the stiffer penalties.

The only "preventative measure" for (female victim) rape I can see is toothed anti-rape female condom. It has inward-facing barbs that burrow into the skin of the rapist's penis and it can only be removed by a doctor or else severe lacerations occur ...on the penis. Numerous bleeding cuts. On. The. Penis. That's a deterrent.

Also, can anyone speak as to a reason to remove hate crime legislation? Give an example of how it curtails civil rights. Has there been an innocent man who was jailed because of his hateful views, independent of a criminal act?

Because lynchings no longer occur, apparently. And thought crime, THOUGHT CRIME! 1984!! OMG PSYCHIC KITTEH GESTAPO!!

[KrazyHorse]

He didn't make the point that racial violence no longer occurs, he made the point that lynchings no longer occur. That is plainly false.

I'm not going to go back and check, but I will take your word that he said precisely those words, which are obviously false. On the other hand, that was not the implication he was intending to convey, as anybody who chooses to read his posts intelligently can obviously see. The implication was that systemic abuses of racial minorities through lynching (in order to effect control of the group as a whole) NO LONGER HAPPEN. And you're going to have to do a lot better than an isolated incident in which the perpetrators were caught, prosecuted, convicted and punished to pretty much the most severe extent imaginable in Western law.

So hate crime legislation is only applicable for crimes against people of non-white colors, or more specifically only for cases of white-on-black violence?

Its justification at some points and places in American history is far stronger than its justification for violence against whites has ever been, by many orders of magnitude. Duh.

LGBT don't face brutality for being LGBT? Frank Roque didn't murder Balbir Singh in an act of confessed revenge and religious hatred in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks because his murderer thought Balbir's turban meant he was a Muslim?

Are you ****ing dense? Do you not understand the difference between systemic and anecdotal incidence? Why don't you come back and play when you're ready to act like an adult? The fact is that NOBODY HERE has provided anything CLOSE to a rational justification for hate crimes legislation. Instead, we have Laz deliberately muddling legal terminology and providing the "all government action is justified if anything generically similar is in place currently" (e.g. it's a good idea for the government to tax pornography because the government already taxes gasoline), we have you thrashing about providing sensationalist rhetoric based on a handful of well-publicized and isolated incidents, and we have the rest of the usual suspects providing their usual empty-headed responses.

There's no need to continue protections for minority groups from violence directed at them for being minority groups? There's no need to extend those protections to other minority groups not previously covered?

No, there is not as far as I can see. If I round up a couple of dozen of my friends and we go hunting for black scalps then OUR ASSES WILL ALREADY BE HANDED TO US BY THE COURT SYSTEM.

The fact is, by the time the courts and the legislature get around to "protecting" a group against hate crimes, you can be pretty damn sure that crimes against members of that group are already being prosecuted pretty much as though they were not members of that group. Hate crime legislation to protect the gay community in the US would have been unthinkable in 1970, say. Fast forward 40 years to when it's been passed. Now, how much does the gay community need it now relative to 40 years ago? Are the underlying crimes against their community NOT ALREADY BEING PROSECUTED?

Legislation is almost always BEHIND society, not ahead of it.

The United States in the 60s may be one of the very rare examples of legislation driving society, and this only occurred because one very large stretch of the country was decades behind the rest of it.

Groups that get protected ALREADY HAVE SOME DEGREE OF POWER. Otherwise they wouldn't win protection. Groups that are powerless and need protection the most will not get it.

Duh.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think the laws is what prevents a sick pervert from raping a girl.

You don't think that there is less rape with laws against rape than if there were no laws against rape? You're a ****ing idiot.

[notyoueither]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. By implication, you are devaluing the loss of any murdered person's family whose murder was not a "hate crime".

Criminal law does this as a matter of course.

An auto strikes and kills a person.

The driver may face no charges (it was an accident) may face manslaughter charges (they were careless) or first degree murder charges (the person was run over deliberately after the driver was paid by a business partner to kill the victim).

A human being is dead. The justice system makes a decision about what to do with the operator of the vehicle that caused the death largely on the basis of his or her intentions.

It has nothing to do with the value of the extinguished life, or the loss of the family and loved ones. It has everything to do with how and why the crime was committed, if it was a crime to begin with.

[KrazyHorse]

Also, can anyone speak as to a reason to remove hate crime legislation? Give an example of how it curtails civil rights. Has there been an innocent man who was jailed because of his hateful views, independent of a criminal act?

a) The need for justification rests on the shoulders of those who believe that there is cause to discriminate between criminals based on this motive, independently of any specific objection

b) The more government reaches into thoughts relative to actions, the further onto a slippery slope we go.

Freedom dies from a thousand cuts. Not one strike. Today it's the people who are already committing crimes, so who cares if we treat them differently based on them having the wrong opinions? Tomorrow, the expression of the opinions themselves (see, for example, Britain). And the day after that? It's always easiest to curtail freedom, but I'm unwilling to do so UNLESS YOU CAN PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT NEED.

[KrazyHorse]

Criminal law does this as a matter of course.

An auto strikes and kills a person.

The driver may face no charges (it was an accident) may face manslaughter charges (they were careless) or first degree murder charges (the person was run over deliberately after the driver was paid by a business partner to kill the victim).

A human being is dead. The justice system makes a decision about what to do with the operator of the vehicle that caused the death largely on the basis of his or her intentions.

Please feel free to read up on the distinction between intent and motive. Unlike Laz, I don't think you're being disingenuous.

Also, see above for explanation of why "government already does something similar, therefore this is justified" is a ****ing idiotic argument.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Attempting to conflate mens rea ("intent") with motive is extraordinarily disingenuous of you.

And that's why I clearly pointed out that it applies where the opinions constitute mens rea.

[SlowwHand]

I'm beginning to believe in hate crimes. It's not the same as just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's more of a stalking for a particular...hate. That places it way past random and more...hateful.

[KrazyHorse]

And that's why I clearly pointed out that it applies where the opinions constitute mens rea.

And immediately failed to provide any examples, I might note.

Now, while we're on the subject: feel free to alter your argument in favour of hate crimes legislation so that it is substantially different from "well, Billy's parents let him do it"....