[Blue Lion]

Someone just learned all the mod buttons

[blackhole]

I want to point out that claiming a crime wasn't a hate crime and was in fact a hoax, and because of it  good person died and now their grave is being pissed on is disgusting regardless of whether or not you think we need extra punishment for hate crimes. It's like saying "This guy died but you guys are twisting it around to further your own agendas." WHAT?!

[karajorma]

I would like to take a moment and introduce something here that has been so far neglected.
Hate crimes are a special category of crime because they have the effect of terrorizing people similar to the victim of the crime. These crimes' punishments are more severe because they impact an entire group of people, not just individuals. Hate crimes legislation does not value the hated victims more than the accidental/unintended victims. The crime's punishment is more severe because of how many people it affects, not how different the victim was.

May I remind everyone of the Ku Klux Klan?  This legislation is aimed at actions on that level--the ones meant to suppress and intimidate, like lynching. What happened to Shepard is no different from lynching.

Nice to see someone can actually explain the reason properly.

WeatherOp wants to paint this as being equivalent to killing rich people or some other group that has never faced serious discrimination. When their are groups out there calling for the death of rich people then killing rich people would be a hate crime too.

[Bobboau]

ok, so I'm a rich guy and I want to scare all the lazy poor people into becoming more productive, so me and a bunch of my rich buddies decided to slaughter a few dozen slumdwellers, when I get caught why won't I be prosecuted with a hate crime.

or here is a really fun one, I get into a fight with a wesburough baptist, they claim hate crime, because I fought with them because of what their god tells them, this would be an accurate execution of the law.

[karajorma]

Again what matters is whether those two are isolated incidents. If no one else is going to follow you then no, they aren't hate crimes.

[Blue Lion]

ok, so I'm a rich guy and I want to scare all the lazy poor people into becoming more productive, so me and a bunch of my rich buddies decided to slaughter a few dozen slumdwellers, when I get caught why won't I be prosecuted with a hate crime.

You won't be prosecuted for a hate crime because current hate crime law doesn't exist for "salary level". The reason it doesn't exist is most likely because it almost never happens. People tend not to kill random people for the net worth. That's the "why". It's not a legal statute.

But in a basic principle, you would have committed a hate crime. You attacked people in a group with the intent to hurt or terrorize that group, not just that specific person. That is the essence of a hate crime. However, hate crimes have very specific things you "hate" on that get extra time. It's pretty straightforward.

or here is a really fun one, I get into a fight with a wesburough baptist, they claim hate crime, because I fought with them because of what their god tells them, this would be an accurate execution of the law.

The victim doesn't get to claim a hate crime any more than a victim can claim 1st degree murder or manslaughter. It's the job of the prosecutor to determine what crimes fit. A hate crime would fall under every normal due process of the judicial system.

There is leniency for people who have extenuating circumstances or have good behavior. They get extra time off. This is just the other end of the scale. This is an act a person has done that society considers "extra bad", so they get extra time. Society considers killing or harming a person because of their age or race or whatever to be even more serious.

This is not a "You happened to be black" this is "because you are black" that is what makes it a hate crime.

[SpardaSon21]

I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation.  A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.

[karajorma]

You get the same sentence for the actual crime. You get extra time for terrorism (which as was explained is what hate crimes are really about).

Or are you going to claim that a terrorist who only manages to kill one person in a bombing should get the same time as someone who only shot one person after an argument?

[General Battuta]

I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation.  A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.

You're right, a crime is a crime, but more severe crimes receive more severe punishments. And a hate crime targets not just the victim but every member of the victim's minority group.

[SpardaSon21]

I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation.  A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.

You're right, a crime is a crime, but more severe crimes receive more severe punishments. And a hate crime targets not just the victim but every member of the victim's minority group.

No, it doesn't.  The crime targets the victim.  Or are you suggestion that when a KKK member mugs a black man, he is mugging every black man everywhere?

[karajorma]

Yet another strawman. First, how are you going to prove that a mugging is racially motivated?

Cause in how you prove that is the proof about whether or not it was a hate crime rather than a mugging.

And I notice you didn't answer my question.

[NGTM-1R]

And I notice you didn't answer my question.

Nobody's even been willing to touch "levels of unacceptable" I introduced, so I'm not terribly surprised.

[General Battuta]

I really don't see the need for hate crime legislation.  A crime is a crime, and this just makes some people more equal before the law by mandating harsher punishments when they are harmed.

You're right, a crime is a crime, but more severe crimes receive more severe punishments. And a hate crime targets not just the victim but every member of the victim's minority group.

No, it doesn't.  The crime targets the victim.  Or are you suggestion that when a KKK member mugs a black man, he is mugging every black man everywhere?

Sure it does. If that KKK member takes the man's wallet, beats him, and tells him that 'n*****s aren't welcome in these parts', he's not only committing a physical assault, he's making it clear that every black individual in the area should be afraid, is unwelcome, and might be targeted by the same assaults.

As Kara said, that's terrorism. It violates that group's right to freedom from fear. And, as ever, you can't address it by reductum ad absurdo - like rape, like genocide, like hate speech, its power to harm comes from the historical and social context.

[Scotty]

It violates that group's right to freedom from fear.

Playing the devil's advocate for a minute:

Where did this magical right spring up from?

[iamzack]

Actually, it's a UN-recognized human right.

[NGTM-1R]

Where did this magical right spring up from?

Pursuit of Happiness was the wording, I believe.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, the constitution, and FDR's Four Freedoms are pretty influential, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

[Mongoose]

I keep having Sam Fisher and the Fifth Freedom pop into my head here.

[General Battuta]

God damn it, Fisher! I told you not to kill any civilians!

This mission is over!

[Bobboau]

You get the same sentence for the actual crime. You get extra time for terrorism (which as was explained is what hate crimes are really about).

Or are you going to claim that a terrorist who only manages to kill one person in a bombing should get the same time as someone who only shot one person after an argument?

you know I think you just made the point I was trying to make, there are already laws on the book for dealing with this, we don't need to add another layer of laws that adds a special protected minority list on top of what we already have. if someone did something that was intended to instill fear through an at of violence, then charge them with terrorism, I think that would handle the KKK quite well, and just about any other situation I can think of without making it more likely for 'hate crime' to be tagged on your bill if you happen to get into a fight with a person from a minority and happen to mention there minority status as you are fighting with them.