[Liberator]

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

Minority lawyer, minority plaintiff and a minority judge.

Also, I can guarantee that you will never see a black or a hispanic or a asian up on charges for commiting a hate crime against a white person.  I can guarantee it.

See this is all about "intent" it doesn't take into account anything you can prove with forensics or science, it's all about punishing people because of a thought they had.

This is the exactly the same and the 11+ UN resolutions against the violence in Dharfur, never actually does anything, but it's admirable because of the "intent".  They mean well by passing all these resolutions.

Well wishes or ill intent mean bupkis in the real world.  At the end of the day the victim of a hate crime will have the same injury as the guy in the next courtroom that got beat up by someone his same color or sexual orientation.  And thousands are still gonna die in Dharfur because the UN won't do what it's designed to do.

It doesn't affect anything other than someones political bull****.

[General Battuta]

Blah, blah, blah. If you're going to make an emo rant about how everyone thinks you're stupid, don't go ahead and act stupid.

If intent can be proved in the courtroom, then the crime qualifies as a hate crime. Otherwise it doesn't.

Your objection is spurious; it amounts to 'you shouldn't be convicted of a crime unless there's evidence for it!'

Also, I can guarantee that you will never see a black or a hispanic or a asian up on charges for commiting a hate crime against a white person.  I can guarantee it.

Son, you just went down in ****ing flames.

That took me five seconds to Google and now you look like an idiot. Why didn't you take five seconds to do some research?

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.

Oh, okay, so when we killed a few thousand people in a bombing in a time of war, that was no different than when Muslim fundamentalists blew up a building in peace time? Because the effects were the same: a few thousand people died. After all, you don't believe circumstances matter, huh?

I mean, by your logic, there's no difference.

By your logic, in fact, the invasion of Iraq was a greater act of terrorism than 9/11 because the body count was higher...which means the US government should receive a greater punishment than Al-Qaeda leadership.

Huh. I'm gonna bet you didn't want to say that.

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.

And the law doesn't. The law punishes people for striking out at entire minority groups by 'making an example' of one individual.

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.

I don't.

I don't even.

Did you miss lynching? Jim Crow? Gay guys being targeted and shot to death all over Iraq, or, worse, being killed by anal glue torture? Minorities are targeted because they are minorities. This is not because they 'feel bad'. It's because they are hated and oppressed.

Every time a hate crime occurs it is meant to send a message. Just like terrorism, it is meant to inspire fear, to control and intimidate.

EDIT: I posted while angry because you were clearly not thinking the issue through with a level-head.

However, you did have one good point: hate crimes must be equally and fairly enforced. I believe everybody's reaction to terrorism indicates that white Americans, too, are harmed by hate crimes.

[Blue Lion]

Minority lawyer, minority plaintiff and a minority judge.

I'm pretty sure you just said minorities will band together and ignore the law to attack white people. I mean are you implying that a minority judge cannot look at a case with a minority victim fairly?

Look at what you just wrote.... minorities will collude together to send all the white people to jail. Do you know who is in jail now? Do you really think the jails are all white people thrown in jail by these minority cabals or something?

Also, I can guarantee that you will never see a black or a hispanic or a asian up on charges for commiting a hate crime against a white person.  I can guarantee it.

GB already got this. Whoopsie on you.

See this is all about "intent" it doesn't take into account anything you can prove with forensics or science, it's all about punishing people because of a thought they had.

I like how intent is in quotes, as if we're not sure if it exists.

If a prosecutor thinks a crime is a hate crime, they will produce evidence and witnesses to convince the judge or jury that is the case...... just like everything else in a court!

This is the exactly the same and the 11+ UN resolutions against the violence in Dharfur, never actually does anything, but it's admirable because of the "intent".  They mean well by passing all these resolutions.

Ok you can't argue that this is super scary because all the minorities will use it to punish people they think are racists and then argue it "never actually does anything".

It's either the horrible law that will put all the white folk in jail or it's not. You can't argue from both sides.

Well wishes or ill intent mean bupkis in the real world.  At the end of the day the victim of a hate crime will have the same injury as the guy in the next courtroom that got beat up by someone his same color or sexual orientation.  And thousands are still gonna die in Dharfur because the UN won't do what it's designed to do.

Actually it means the guy who did it spends more time in jail and that's just fine with me. The people who intend to spread their hateful views through violence will not be on the street for longer.

Although props on bringing Dharfur into this. I have no idea what the UN and Dharfur have to do with guys beating up gay guys in America but I'm sure you'll come up with some rambling reason.

It doesn't affect anything other than someones political bull****.

Oh I would daresay it affects the people charged with it, which would be the entire point.

[Janos]

once i walked down the street and suddenly the minorities came and abducted me and accused me of hate crime

there was a muslim judge and an atheist judge and i think one of them was gay

the jury was also a minority, there were latinos and vegans and blacks and a nigerian and an irish and some of them were asians and one was an old-school  nazi  and i had no chance whatsoever and i was judged of a hate crime because i was A) thinking (they probed my mind with those dirty polish fingers of theirs) and B) white.

then they banded together and threw me in jail and now i write this letter from a jail. the jail is filled with 500 million white christians. we are completely helpless, overrun by minorities. oh wait, now the zarathrustran guard is coming to oppress m

[Ford Prefect]

You too, huh? Did they appoint a jar of mayonnaise as your attorney? That's what they gave me, then they just yelled at it for half an hour.

[Colonol Dekker]

  What the heck is this topic on about, i always try to read back a few posts and those last two are just what teh fluck inducing.

[Scotty]

Janos is being snarky.

[redsniper]

and it's great!

[TrashMan]

If intent can be proved in the courtroom, then the crime qualifies as a hate crime. Otherwise it doesn't.

Intent is notabily difficult to actually PROVE. You can speculate on it, but you can't really prove it.

Sure, you can say he did it because of his race, but the other guy can just say he did it cause the first guy insulted him, stole from him or invent something else.

[iamzack]

Hate crimes are typically pretty obvious. They usually say that they committed the crime because the person was gay, black, etc.

[General Battuta]

If intent can be proved in the courtroom, then the crime qualifies as a hate crime. Otherwise it doesn't.

Intent is notabily difficult to actually PROVE. You can speculate on it, but you can't really prove it.

Sure, you can say he did it because of his race, but the other guy can just say he did it cause the first guy insulted him, stole from him or invent something else.

Exactly. You need hard evidence to prove it. Either a confession, a prior statement, a lot of character witnesses - something tangible.

[Bobboau]

so what if I want to protest a neo-nazi clubhouse, and I as some less smart followers of my protest movement decide it would be a good idea to spray paint something like 'go back to germany' on the side of their building, or someone assaults one of these neo-nazis in the street because of the nazi's beleife that they are inherintly superior to everyone else and that just pisses the one guy off.

these are all clearly crimes and the individuals who did them should rightfully be punished, but wouldn't they qualify as hate crimes? seeing as the neo-nazis are being picked on because of their idology, and/or an attempt to intimidate them into leaving.

[iamzack]

I don't think "actual or perceived racist ideology" is a protected group under the hate crimes law.

[General Battuta]

I couldn't be sure without going back to look, but I believe that for a group to qualify for protections, membership in the group cannot be a voluntary matter.

Homosexuals, minority racial groups, women - these are not things people choose to be or not be.

[iamzack]

Actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

So religion is in there, but that's something one is usually indoctrinated with from an early age.


Of course "perceived" is important because you don't actually have to be gay to be murdered for being gay.

[High Max]

Yeah, many people here like to label people as gay even if they are not. I remember people saying things like "are you gay" and other stupid things to me more than once. Even simple things like wearing tall socks might be enough for people to make fun. But I rarely hear anyone being murdered for being gay, though I have heard it on the news before. Sadly, many people might not like Arabs here simply because of their race or religion and people here assuming they are all terrorists, which is stupid, I feel. Many in this country can't realize that only a minority of the total population of Arabs are terrorists. It's common sense to not think everyone in one race is the same, so it's common sense to know that most are not terrorists.

[Bobboau]

are there not decisively racist religious groups?

and even if it doesn't follow the letter of the law, I'm talking theory, the purpose of these laws is supposed to be that it would protect minorities from a hostile general population, but the law could be used by some minority to beat down legitimate protest against it (see Church of Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, those assorted Mormon fundamentalist derived towns).

[General Battuta]

With respect to theory, I can be quite definite about this statement, having taken a bit of philosophy of human rights:

I couldn't be sure without going back to look, but I believe that for a group to qualify for protections, membership in the group cannot be a voluntary matter.

Homosexuals, minority racial groups, women - these are not things people choose to be or not be.

[iamzack]

Assault/murder are not legitimate protesting strategies, so I don't know what you are talking about, bobbo.

[StarSlayer]

I think he is worried about it setting a precedent that could be later used to ramp up protections against legal protesting for organizations like the above mentioned groups.  Though I agree with Battuta,  you can choose not to be an asshole, you can't choose your birth traits and that is what the law should be protecting.  So long as thats clearly defined in the legislation then it shouldn't be some gateway to protecting Neo Nazis/Wetboro/NAMBLA what have you.