[Sushi]

I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization.  I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes.  I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue.  I believe we still have a long way to go though.

Grrrpl. You just hit a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me if I indulge in a minor rant. I go crazy when people keep giving the President primary credit/blame for that which was mostly the work of others. CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for the bill. Just like CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for bailouts and for war funding. RTFConstitution!!! If we get universal health care, then credit/blame congress first, and the president second. Not the other way around. People tend to give the President more credit/blame than is his practical OR constitutional due, which frankly just increases the effective power of the executive office and IMHO degrades the checks & balances system.

All right, that's done. Not trying to get on anyone in particular's case, but it's an attitude I see way too often that drives me up the wall & across the ceiling.

Back on topic...

I definitely agree that if we're going to have hate-crime legislation, homosexuality belongs on the list. Common sense. Heck, I'd say while we're at it we might as well get rid of a specific list and just make it clear that any violent crime targeting any group counts.

As far as whether or not we should have hate crime legislation at all... I'm still not sold. I completely buy Battuta's argument that a "hate crime" is more vile and evil (and why). What I'm not convinced about is the actual value of the law: does the extra penalty really make a difference? Is there any empirical evidence that hate crime legislation reduces the frequency of hate crimes? If there is, I'd love to see it. If there isn't, then hate crime laws are extra (unneeded) complication at best and at worst an opportunity for the law to be abused. But then again, there are enough ways to abuse the system already, so what's one law more or less?

If I had my way, I'd simplify a lot of things. But governments and laws never get simpler: only more complex. Which is worrisome to me, but that's another story.

[Scotty]

I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization.  I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes.  I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue.  I believe we still have a long way to go though.

Grrrpl. You just hit a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me if I indulge in a minor rant. I go crazy when people keep giving the President primary credit/blame for that which was mostly the work of others. CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for the bill. Just like CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for bailouts and for war funding. RTFConstitution!!! If we get universal health care, then credit/blame congress first, and the president second. Not the other way around. People tend to give the President more credit/blame than is his practical OR constitutional due, which frankly just increases the effective power of the executive office and IMHO degrades the checks & balances system.

QFT

[Macfie]

We should get the Vasudans added to this bill.  I know some people in this forum that have advocated hate crimes against Vasudans and even referred to them derogatorily as Zods.  Together we could eliminate the anti Vasudan elements in our forum.

[General Battuta]

As far as whether or not we should have hate crime legislation at all... I'm still not sold. I completely buy Battuta's argument that a "hate crime" is more vile and evil (and why). What I'm not convinced about is the actual value of the law: does the extra penalty really make a difference? Is there any empirical evidence that hate crime legislation reduces the frequency of hate crimes? If there is, I'd love to see it. If there isn't, then hate crime laws are extra (unneeded) complication at best and at worst an opportunity for the law to be abused. But then again, there are enough ways to abuse the system already, so what's one law more or less?

Certainly I agree with that, Sushi. And I don't know...it's not a controlled scenario, so it's hard to say.

One thing worth pointing out, however, is that 'legislating morality' does actually work to a degree. It's part of why the Civil Rights Amendment was passed: social psychologists testified that public agreeableness to school desegregation would sharply increase once schools were desegregated.

Opinion sometimes 'follows the leader' when it comes to government decisions like this.

[jdjtcagle]

I saw the president's recent speech to one of the major gay human rights organization.  I thought it was a powerful speech and he promised to do something about discrimination and hate crimes.  I'm glad he's finally taken action on at least this issue.  I believe we still have a long way to go though.

Grrrpl. You just hit a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me if I indulge in a minor rant. I go crazy when people keep giving the President primary credit/blame for that which was mostly the work of others. CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for the bill. Just like CONGRESS is the one with primary responsibility for bailouts and for war funding. RTFConstitution!!! If we get universal health care, then credit/blame congress first, and the president second. Not the other way around. People tend to give the President more credit/blame than is his practical OR constitutional due, which frankly just increases the effective power of the executive office and IMHO degrades the checks & balances system.

All right, that's done. Not trying to get on anyone in particular's case, but it's an attitude I see way too often that drives me up the wall & across the ceiling.

Sorry I'll keep that in mine... 
I remember that the whole discussion that night was that the gay community wasn't pleased with Obama's progress.  Which I'm sure the blame falls to congress.  Anyway I was just pointing out the president's speech promised that congress was sending this it his way and he was going to sign it as soon as it got to his desk.

[karajorma]

As far as whether or not we should have hate crime legislation at all... I'm still not sold. I completely buy Battuta's argument that a "hate crime" is more vile and evil (and why). What I'm not convinced about is the actual value of the law: does the extra penalty really make a difference? Is there any empirical evidence that hate crime legislation reduces the frequency of hate crimes? If there is, I'd love to see it. If there isn't, then hate crime laws are extra (unneeded) complication at best and at worst an opportunity for the law to be abused. But then again, there are enough ways to abuse the system already, so what's one law more or less?

You could however make the same argument about terrorism too though. Is there any evidence that stiffer sentences for that have any effect on preventing the crime?


Simple fact is that whether the crime gets prevented or not the public in general do tend to find it appealing that a terrorist spends more time in jail than a common murderer. It has a partial effect of reversing the climate of fear the terrorist has tried to create when the courts say "You will be treated more harshly for what you did." Similar reasoning can be used for hate crimes.

[NGTM-1R]

I find the logic of seperating hate crimes out of terrorism objectionable, personally, but...

[karajorma]

I tend to agree but terrorism has come to mean bombings or hijackings rather than lynchings or racially motivated murders.


My entire point was to prove that they are basically the same thing anyway. As Battuta pointed out the only appreciable difference is that terrorism is practised against a nation while hate crimes are carried out against a minority of some sort.

Which is why those people who were claiming that hate crimes shouldn't get stiffer sentences because the crime is the same have basically talked themselves into a corner. You can argue that murder is murder but racially motivated murder is also terrorism. So the same argument applies that sentences should be in line with those for terrorism and not those for murder.

[NGTM-1R]

The problem as I see it is that terrorism is always, immediately, recognizeable by intent. When you blow up the Murray Building or crash airliners into stuff, there's not much question what you're trying to accomplish.

Hate crimes are not necessarily premediated, and thus somewhat murky.

[Liberator]

I'll say it now to save some trouble. (even though it won't)

Beating up a guy who is black/white/gay/whatever = assault

Beating up a guy BECAUSE he is black/white/gay/whatever = assault + hate crime

How do you quantitatively tell the difference?  Better question, how does it change the nature of the crime commited?  The end result is the same, you have a guy who got assaulted.  Why does the law care about the reason.  It should only care about the act itself.  This is a slippery slope toward Thought Police and even more control ceded over to the Federal Government because THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN PROTECT US!  OH NOES!

[Scotty]

Hey, Lib, you had a good thing going there, and then broke it with the all caps BS at the end.

[Blue Lion]

How do you quantitatively tell the difference?

Trials? Prosecution, Judges, Juries, all that  jazz?

Better question, how does it change the nature of the crime commited?  The end result is the same, you have a guy who got assaulted.

You're right, having hate crime legislation doesn't change crimes, it's not supposed to.

Why does the law care about the reason.  It should only care about the act itself.  This is a slippery slope toward Thought Police and even more control ceded over to the Federal Government because THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN PROTECT US!  OH NOES!

Could it be, and I'm just spitballing here, people are tired of bigoted assholes committing these crimes out of their own prejudices and have decided to make sure they get tougher sentences?

It's not really a difficult concept. People don't want these bigots around so they either send them to jail longer or scare them with the long prison time if they do it.

[Scotty]

Then why not just up the sentence for the not-hate-related crime in the first place, if that would be such an excellent deterrence.

[Liberator]

Could it be, and I'm just spitballing here, people are tired of bigoted assholes committing these crimes out of their own prejudices and have decided to make sure they get tougher sentences?

So, if I were, let's say, beat someone to a bloody pulp cause they looked at me in a way that I didn't care for and I just lost it for whatever reason and then walked away, how is that different if I yell a racial obscenity at them as I'm walking away?

Answer?  It doesn't.  The act is the same, I beat someone to within an inch of they're life.  My calling him a big, fat, mother-loving, piece of **** insertracialobscenityhere, doesn't make that crime more heinous in a way that can or should be punished by law.  Can you be disgusted over it?  Sure.  Is it wrong?  Sure. 

But the Law* can not and should not punish people for thinking something someone else finds offensive, even if it's the direct causal for the action being ruled on.  It's why we have Law in the first place, so that the circumstances of the people involved have little or no bearing as evidence in a given case.

Let's use something less abrasive than assault, let's say it's a simple B&E on your residence and they get away with your plasma television and blu-ray player.  On the way out, they spray paint an obscenity on the wall.  That doesn't change the fact that they robbed you of some of your possessions.  It merely changes your interpretation of the events.  This is something the Law cannot address.

*I capitalilzed it so that it's representative of the law as a concept not legislation

[Blue Lion]

Then why not just up the sentence for the not-hate-related crime in the first place, if that would be such an excellent deterrence.

Because then ALL crimes would get longer sentences. They don't want to up all assault cases, just these specific cases. If you upped assault cases from 5 years to 10 years (whatever they really are) everyone would get 10 years then, which completely ruins the point. The point is to say "Crimes based on bigotry and prejudice are worse, and we're going to punish them harsher".

Why is this hard to understand? People dislike people who commit these crimes out of prejudice more so they want them to spend more time in jail. You guys keep trying to ignore the why of these crimes. That it's not important. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) people care very much why someone commits a crime and will determine how much that person should be punished based on it.

[Blue Lion]

So, if I were, let's say, beat someone to a bloody pulp cause they looked at me in a way that I didn't care for and I just lost it for whatever reason and then walked away, how is that different if I yell a racial obscenity at them as I'm walking away?

The difference? In one you yelled a racial obscenity. I know that is the difference because you just said it was.

Now for the real question. If you beat a guy up because he looked at you funny and then called him a racial slur, is that a hate crime? No. You know how I know? You just told me why you did it, and it didn't include any racial, gender, age, whatever.

Being a racist doesn't make a hate crime. Committing a crime out of racism does.

Of course the next question is "But it wasn't racial, and since I used the slur, they're going to assume it and I'll get charged with a hate crime."

Why would you say that? If it isn't racially charged, why would you use a racial slur? What are they supposed to think? Take out the slur and add in any word or phrase, people are going to assume it has something to do with it.

Answer?  It doesn't.  The act is the same, I beat someone to within an inch of they're life.  My calling him a big, fat, mother-loving, piece of **** insertracialobscenityhere, doesn't make that crime more heinous in a way that can or should be punished by law.  Can you be disgusted over it?  Sure.  Is it wrong?  Sure. 

But the Law* can not and should not punish people for thinking something someone else finds offensive, even if it's the direct causal for the action being ruled on.  It's why we have Law in the first place, so that the circumstances of the people involved have little or no bearing as evidence in a given case.

I love how you're mad people might be punished for thinking, only thinking! Not taking the thoughts to actions.

Taking the thoughts (bigoted and prejudiced thoughts) and charging them for us is just crazy! Oh that assault? Completely unrelated. I mean yea he's black and I beat him up because he's black, but let's not get all thought police on this.

You keep focusing on the thoughts, because that is where the argument is safer. "They're just thoughts. You can't punish people for thinking"
Except they aren't just thoughts, they're actions. Hateful thoughts become criminal acts. You have to take a hate against a group of people and turn it into an action, that's what makes it a hate crime and what gets the longer sentence.

The thought doesn't get the extra time, the act doesn't get the extra time. The thought becoming the act is what gets it.

Let's use something less abrasive than assault, let's say it's a simple B&E on your residence and they get away with your plasma television and blu-ray player.  On the way out, they spray paint an obscenity on the wall.  That doesn't change the fact that they robbed you of some of your possessions.  It merely changes your interpretation of the events.  This is something the Law cannot address.

And that wouldn't be a hate crime. Unless they committed the crime BECAUSE of whatever they painted. I mean if you're Jewish and they think Jews control all the... whatever I dunno. That's a hate crime.

That's where you're getting caught up, the spray painted obscenity doesn't make it a hate crime. That is merely proof used in a court to determine WHY the crime was committed.

If someone steals your stuff to score money for drugs or something, then it isn't a hate crime. It wasn't against a group.

[Liberator]

You keep focusing on the thoughts, because that is where the argument is safer. "They're just thoughts. You can't punish people for thinking"
Except they aren't just thoughts, they're actions. Hateful thoughts become criminal acts. You have to take a hate against a group of people and turn it into an action, that's what makes it a hate crime and what gets the longer sentence.

The thought doesn't get the extra time, the act doesn't get the extra time. The thought becoming the act is what gets it.

Again, how can you tell the difference, are you telepathic?  Is there some cadre of telepaths that are going to come forth from the aether and tell you?

I guess that's where we fall out, Hate Crime legislation exists tp make certain segments of society feel better(who will, in all likelyhood, never actually need to make use of it), but it doesn't really do a lot to help an already overloaded judicial system except to make it more difficult to prosecute any subsequent criminal cases.  Which doesn't help anyone.

[Blue Lion]

Again, how can you tell the difference, are you telepathic?  Is there some cadre of telepaths that are going to come forth from the aether and tell you?

If you can't tell the motivation for a crime then they don't get charged. Or they do and just aren't convicted of it. Judges, prosecutors and juries determine this. I don't (unless I'm on a jury) and the victims certainly don't.

You seem to be under the impression that this will turn into any crime against a minority will be an automatic hate crime. We've had these laws for at least 15 years and it hasn't happened yet. Why is that? Because most people aren't like that. They don't react solely on race or religion or whatever.

I guess that's where we fall out, Hate Crime legislation exists tp make certain segments of society feel better(who will, in all likelyhood, never actually need to make use of it),

If by "feel better" you mean "certain groups don't have to worry as much about people beating the crap out of them becuase they're different", then yea, they are special.

The current part wasn't added in because there were gangs of gay men beating up straight guys, no one is saying it. But that situation is protected all the same.

but it doesn't really do a lot to help an already overloaded judicial system except to make it more difficult to prosecute any subsequent criminal cases.  Which doesn't help anyone.

How does tacking on 5 years to a guy for beating up a gay guy because he's gay make it harder to prosecute assaults?

[Liberator]

Oh...how about the part where they prove he did it because he was gay?  That could add weeks to a case as the claim is investigated.  Besides, what difference is 5 years gonna make?  Your gonna lock a guy up for 5 years for getting into what amounts to a bar fight most of the time?

BTW, this will turn any crime involving a minority a hate crime.  It can't help but.

[NGTM-1R]

Oh...how about the part where they prove he did it because he was gay?  That could add weeks to a case as the claim is investigated.  Besides, what difference is 5 years gonna make?  Your gonna lock a guy up for 5 years for getting into what amounts to a bar fight most of the time?

Yeah, you lock guys up for bar fights for five years when somebody spent a week in the hospital. As a federal law, prosecuted in federal courts, it will only be applied to serious felonies, stuff were people got killed or badly injured.

Motivation is not difficult to prove or disprove. If they beat you up and took your wallet, that's robbery. If they beat you up walking out of a gay bar, that's a hate crime. We have "hate crime" as a special circumstance addition to other crimes here, for example. It's pretty much never a difficult case to prove when it's applied. You interview a few of the guy's friends and family, or just the victim, or you catch the idiot boasting about it or threatening people with it. You accuse a system run by people much more intelligent than you or I (they have to know case law, for chrissakes) of stupidity? They pick the battles they can win, they don't just toss around special circumstance tags for the lulz of it.

BTW, this will turn any crime involving a minority a hate crime.  It can't help but.

Prove it. Give me an actual reason why this should ever be so.