Hate crimes yea or nay?

[Chuck Bao]

This should be a poll.

Okay, I’m reading several threads on this issue about the rider on the Afghanistan troop support bill. We probably all agree that this is partisan political skullduggery at its worst.

I am going to give my opinion first before the poll. I believe that hate crimes are an act of terrorism. It is an act to not only kill people but intimidate others to drive them away.

If you want to break this down to only kill people and punish accordingly, so be it. And, then the War on Terrorism is about what exactly? With the whole idea that terrorism is just a normal crime, surely normal laws apply. Or, is it an actual war? Oh, come on make up your mind.

I do not expect my slanted poll will win. I do not expect some of you will ever get it.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Both options are toolbaggish and pointed.

Thanks for trying, though.

[Chuck Bao]

Both options are toolbaggish and pointed.

Thanks for trying, though.


Okay, can you explain further. Seriously, maybe I'm the one just not getting it.

[Chuck Bao]

And, I should have said in the title "Hate Crimes Rider on a War Bill". My mistake and I apoligize.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Most people who are against Hate Crimes don't know wtf hate crimes are.

Froze should break it down and create a poll.

[JLEW1818]

so if I'm in love with the sooners.. and I'm at a bar...and the Sooners lose to the horns..... and this group of horn fans kick my ***, and knock my teeth out...

is that a hate crime??

[badger]

I voted for treat 'em all the same.

[KABOOKIE]

But , but he was soooo mean to me before he killed me.

Here comes stupid liberal to save the daaaaaaay!!! This crime deserves extra punishment!


:rolleyes:

[Penguin]

Intent should always figure into the equation. If intent should not be considered, then why is there such a thing as manslaughter? Why does a drunk driver that killed somebody get a lighter sentence than a mass murderer? Intent.


If you're killing somebody to send a message to a government/nationality/race/etc., then, yeah, there should be an extra special sentence for the bad guy.

[Half a Hundred]

Intent should always figure into the equation. If intent should not be considered, then why is there such a thing as manslaughter? Why does a drunk driver that killed somebody get a lighter sentence than a mass murderer? Intent.


If you're killing somebody to send a message to a government/nationality/race/etc., then, yeah, there should be an extra special sentence for the bad guy.

This.

[Rogue]

All tied up 6-6.
Penguin sways the day!

[Chuck Bao]

Somebody needs to set a flaming Penguin in Kabookie's yard and then see how he responds to true fear. ;)

[JLEW1818]

where is the go cry me a ****ing river option at?? if you get your feelings hurt?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

My question would be, doesn't the juries already for the most part factor this stuff in. I mean if a gay guy gets beat up because some guy thought he was checking him out. Does a Mom on a jury really think a guy with that type of judgment should be on the streets with her daughter? What happens when he thinks her daughter was staring at him so he rapes her because she secretly wanted it? It is like the Matthew Sheppard thing, if they had done that to a black, white, straight, gay, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever, we should as a people been just as disturbed and likewise they aren't probably going to get a slap on the wrist for ANY of those groups

[Leroy Lizard]

If you're killing somebody to send a message to a government/nationality/race/etc., then, yeah, there should be an extra special sentence for the bad guy.

But a hate crime isn't necessarily an attempt to send a message. Sometimes they do it simply out of rage, with no other motive. In that sense, it should be treated like any other crime. Whether someone kills a person to steal his money or because he's white, it makes no difference.

[Curly Bill]

If I kill someone because I don't approve of their driving would that be a hate murder or just a regular old murder?




Naw seriously...what would it be? ;)

[Leroy Lizard]

If I kill someone because I don't approve of their driving would that be a hate murder or just a regular old murder?

It depends on the ethnicity of the victim.

[Curly Bill]

It depends on the ethnicity of the victim.

So, as long as its a staight white male, I'm probably OK right? :D

I mean killing a straight white male is hardly even a crime, he probably even deserves it as an oppressor of those less fortunate. ;)

[KABOOKIE]

A flaming penguin? Nope!

[JLEW1818]

So, as long as its a staight white male, I'm probably OK right? :D

I mean killing a straight white male is hardly even a crime, he probably even deserves it as an oppressor of those less fortunate. ;)

i don't think its illegal to kill a straight white male
:eek:

[bluedogok]

Sorry Chuck but this situation is really nothing but politics at its worst.

I am not against "hate crimes legislation" per se, I am against it being used politically to torpedo a completely unrelated piece of legislation. Presented in the right context it would probably garner more support but the left is using this as a political bomb which does a disservice to those who wish it to pass. So in effect the left is using legislation targeted at a demographic that is a large support group for them to kill something unrelated, if I was part of that demographic I would be offended because the democrats don't seem to be taking their cause seriously and instead are using it as a political ploy.

All we have heard during the previous administration from the left was how the right was trying to "divide the country", well isn't the left trying to do the same exact thing with this particular piece of legislation attached to an unrelated appropriation bill? Hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with an appropriations bill. I still feel as I stated in the other topic there some be no such thing as "riders", EVERY piece of legislation should have to pass or fail on its own merits and not because it is attached to something else that is a "bigger" concern...but then I don't really agree with the committee process as it is constructed either, it lends itself to too many backroom deals and behind the scenes manipulation. Plus, if legislators actually had to read and decipher what they are voting on it might lead to better legislation (yeah, I know, it's a lot to ask).

[KABOOKIE]

i don't think its illegal to kill a straight white male
:eek:

Only white people can be haytas

[A Sooner in Texas]

Intent should always figure into the equation. If intent should not be considered, then why is there such a thing as manslaughter? Why does a drunk driver that killed somebody get a lighter sentence than a mass murderer? Intent.


If you're killing somebody to send a message to a government/nationality/race/etc., then, yeah, there should be an extra special sentence for the bad guy.

+10,000

[A Sooner in Texas]

If I kill someone because I don't approve of their driving would that be a hate murder or just a regular old murder?




Naw seriously...what would it be? ;)

Justifiable homicide.

;)

[Chuck Bao]

Sorry Chuck but this situation is really nothing but politics at its worst.

I am not against "hate crimes legislation" per se, I am against it being used politically to torpedo a completely unrelated piece of legislation. Presented in the right context it would probably garner more support but the left is using this as a political bomb which does a disservice to those who wish it to pass. So in effect the left is using legislation targeted at a demographic that is a large support group for them to kill something unrelated, if I was part of that demographic I would be offended because the democrats don't seem to be taking their cause seriously and instead are using it as a political ploy.

All we have heard during the previous administration from the left was how the right was trying to "divide the country", well isn't the left trying to do the same exact thing with this particular piece of legislation attached to an unrelated appropriation bill? Hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with an appropriations bill. I still feel as I stated in the other topic there some be no such thing as "riders", EVERY piece of legislation should have to pass or fail on its own merits and not because it is attached to something else that is a "bigger" concern...but then I don't really agree with the committee process as it is constructed either, it lends itself to too many backroom deals and behind the scenes manipulation. Plus, if legislators actually had to read and decipher what they are voting on it might lead to better legislation (yeah, I know, it's a lot to ask).

I agree about the politics angle, but if you focus on only that angle it turns so partisan and it could be that you miss the whole point. The War on Terrorism is not just against foreigners, but should be equally applied to local people terrorizing our own.

I get others' reservations about such a bill and OMG this is setting up a protected class and extending gay rights. As far as I can tell it's not. If you accidentally kill a gay man or woman, you are not going to get any different sentence. But, if you purposedly kill a gay person in the hope of driving them out of your community and intend to inflict fear. I ask you how that is not terrorism?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Both options are toolbaggish and pointed.

Thanks for trying, though.Wow, no sh*t! Glad I still have him on ignore!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Intent should always figure into the equation. If intent should not be considered, then why is there such a thing as manslaughter? Why does a drunk driver that killed somebody get a lighter sentence than a mass murderer? Intent.


If you're killing somebody to send a message to a government/nationality/race/etc., then, yeah, there should be an extra special sentence for the bad guy.Murder1 with extra passion> Murder 1? What a fu*kin' waste of time...

[Leroy Lizard]

If you accidentally kill a gay man or woman, you are not going to get any different sentence. But, if you purposedly kill a gay person in the hope of driving them out of your community and intend to inflict fear. I ask you how that is not terrorism?

That would be.

But suppose a man kills another because he is gay, and nothing more. There was no purposeful attempt to drive gays out of the community or instill fear i them. Just hatred. Now what?

[LosAngelesSooner]

I say put a bullet in his head in the middle of town square at noon.

[Leroy Lizard]

Would you advocate the same punishment if the victim was not gay and was shot in an attempted robbery?

[Okla-homey]

That would be.

But suppose a man kills another because he is gay, and nothing more. There was no purposeful attempt to drive gays out of the community or instill fear i them. Just hatred. Now what?

That would be murder. Which is a capital crime. Of course, it would still be murder if the perp killed his victim because he was trying to drive homosexuals out of the community. No need to invent new crimes just because the victim happens to meet a certain demographic.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Unless that demographic needs special protections to prevent heinous crimes against it when a trend toward heinous crimes has been noted against that demographic over time. And let's not mention that cops are all for hate crime legislation...I digress...

But it's STILL too early for these kinds of thoughts. Go to bed. :D

[Penguin]

I fail to see why this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. Everybody moans and complains when a bad guy gets off due to a technicality. It seems to me that a law like this would be another avenue for conviction. For example, if a church bomber gets off because a fingerprint was slightly smudged, he could be released. However, with a law like this, a DA can prosecute him for intending to terrorize a community.


Also, now I see people saying that we shouldn't be piling on laws onto criminals. When did this attitude change? Used to, raping a 5 year old would get a bad guy 25 years. Now, in some states, they face the death penalty. Why? Because the people of that state wanted yet another punishment law to give the jury more options.

[Okla-homey]

. And let's not mention that cops are all for hate crime legislation...I digress...



you love the ipse dixit don't you?

[MrJimBeam]

Are we punishing people for feelings and thoughts that would normally be protected by the 1st amendment? Maybe? They go to jail for commiting a crime and then go to extra jail because they have certain thoughts we don't like.

[C&CDean]

Hate crime crap is crap. Murder is murder. People do it for all kinds of reasons. Profit, jealousy, rage, racism, etc.

My biggest beef with this crap is that it's pretty much a one-way street. Check out the number of black/ethnic folks who kill whites. Then check out the number of white folks who kill black/ethnic folks. Huge difference. Lots more folks of color killing whitey than the other way around. But hey, that's cool, they're just paying us back for the 200 years of abuse. Them killing us ain't a hate crime, it's justice.

This thing is so screwed up it just needs to be trashed. How about just fully enforcing the current laws on murder? You kill somebody with all the criteria for murder 1, you cook. Simple as that. Besides, you ain't gonna be any deader if you killed them because they were whatever.

[Collier11]

I believe that if you kill someone because of race, religion, sexual preference, etc... it is a hate crime. I also believe it is nearly impossible to prove intent therefore having a bill to provide stricter punishment doesnt make much sense

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I believe that if you kill someone because of race, religion, sexual preference, etc... it is a hate crime. I also believe it is nearly impossible to prove intent therefore having a bill to provide stricter punishment doesnt make much sense

No it's not.

Intent is what defines the differences between the tiers of offense now. That's the current argument I'm in the middle of in the other thread. To move intent one step further and add the premise of intent influenced by the specificity of the victim's established class.

[StoopTroup]

I would love to think that by instituting another Law it would make our Country an even safer place for everyone to live in...but we have become unable to enforce most laws anymore. At this point we do well to enforce laws in the middle of chaotic events.

Remember those two guys that went around in a Chevy shooting people at Home Depot from the trunk of their car? They should never walk the streets in this World ever again. Yet...they continue to get appeal after appeal. The only way the Death Sentence shouldn't have been brought upon them was if they were willing to wave an appeal process and sit in jail till the end of their lives.

The Death Sentence should be a process for criminals to use so they can either try and make amends for their crimes...or forever hold their peace as a Doctor injects them with Vicks Formula 44Death.

I am not a proponent of the Death Penalty as I think you should have a choice to live out your sentence without appeal. But once you've made your choice to do so...I don't want to hear one peep out of you so that the families and friends of those you killed have to be reminded of how you forever changed their lives. Once you've chose to live out your sentence...they should slam the cell shut. Feed you and provide you with a new Bible, Toothpaste, Toothbrush, soap, a towel and maybe some clothes when you've worn through them and that's about it till your dead.

[Collier11]

No it's not.

Intent is what defines the differences between the tiers of offense now. That's the current argument I'm in the middle of in the other thread. To move intent one step further and add the premise of intent influenced by the specificity of the victim's established class.

My point is, no matter if you are a law abiding citizen or a known racist, if you go out and stab to death someone of another race, it would be extremely dificult to prove that you did that just cus you hate that person of another race unless you admitted to it

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Okay, can you explain further. Seriously, maybe I'm the one just not getting it.

Obviously. And I quote from your poll. Sneaky, Chuck.


Hate crimes are acts of terrorism and should receive extra punishment.


The US constitution and criminal code should treat everyone equally and fairly, including foreign nationals.

Note the bolded portions. Both poll options are slanted toward a certain respective political posture. Not that there's anything wrong with that, so hey. Rock on.

[olevetonahill]

A Black man goes in a bar in South Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself= Hate Crime

A white man goes into a bar in North Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself = Stupid Honkey

[MrJimBeam]

A Black man goes in a bar in South Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself= Hate Crime

A white man goes into a bar in North Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself = Stupid Honkey

Black man goes into a bar in North Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself = He owed some mother****er money.

[Collier11]

A Black man goes in a bar in South Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself= Hate Crime

A white man goes into a bar in North Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself = Stupid Honkey

Past exprience Vet? ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

My point is, no matter if you are a law abiding citizen or a known racist, if you go out and stab to death someone of another race, it would be extremely dificult to prove that you did that just cus you hate that person of another race unless you admitted to it

Difficult to prove or not, admitted or not, where is its place in our current criminal code? Violations of rights, which is what hate crimes are, are traditionally the bailiwick of the civil court. The State prosecutes the crime.

[Collier11]

So youre just saying that hate crime has no place in criminal courts?

[KABOOKIE]

Unless that demographic needs special protections to prevent heinous crimes against it when a trend toward heinous crimes has been noted against that demographic over time.


Like white people who make a wrong turn leaving Arrowhead Stadium and end up in Raytown. :D

[Tulsa_Fireman]

So youre just saying that hate crime has no place in criminal courts?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Crime belongs in the criminal court system. Not hate crime.

Let the State prosecute the crime. Let the victim pursue the grievance as a result of the violation of the victim's rights through the current venue for such actions, the civil court system.

[Collier11]

I can go with that, as I said before, while I do agree that there is a such thing as hate crimes, I dont see where the courts could ever prove it criminally so I am with you

[Uncle Ernie]

If I kill someone because I don't approve of their driving would that be a hate murder or just a regular old murder?




Naw seriously...what would it be? ;)

Traffic control?

[Half a Hundred]

A white man goes into a bar in North Tulsa, Gets the **** beat out of himself = Stupid Honkey

If you can prove that the beating was to "send a message" to other white guys to stay out of the bar, that would be a hate crime.

[olevetonahill]

If you can prove that the beating was to "send a message" to other white guys to stay out of the bar, that would be a hate crime.

Vice a versa Huh :rolleyes: :pop:

[KABOOKIE]

If you can prove that the beating was to "send a message" to other white guys to stay out of the bar, that would be a hate crime.

Ya see, white people are ****ing smart enough to get that message without going to "that bar". :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

you love the ipse dixit don't you?No more or less than anyone else on here.

But since you guys always try to deny the facts:



Americans Support Hate Crimes Legislation

Polls have consistently demonstrated broad public support for hate crimes legislation. A 2007 Gallup poll showed that 68% of Americans favored expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. A 2007 Hart Research poll showed large majorities of every major subgroup of the electorate — including such traditionally conservative groups as Republican men (56%) and evangelical Christians (63%) — expressed support for strengthening hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, the LLEHCPA is endorsed by over 280 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including: the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, Presbyterian Church, Episcopal Church, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Young Women’s Christian Association and National Disability Rights Network.http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/5660.htm


About The Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009:

The Federal Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913) passed the U.S. House on April 29, 2009 by a vote of 249 to 175. The bill expands 1969 federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation, gender expression or identity and disability. Previous hate crime laws gave the Justice Department authority to prosecute crimes motivated only by race, color, national origin and religion.

The Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 was first introduced in 2007. The bill, sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), passed by a vote of 237 to 180.http://gaylife.about.com/od/hatecrimes/p/matthewshepard.htm


We also learned that 85 percent of law enforcement officers responding to the survey agree with Commander O'Malley's belief that hate crimes -- hate-motivated crimes are more serious than similar crimes not motivated by bias.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 13, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION
The East Room 2:48 P.M. EDT

That's right...The President was President Bush II.

[LosAngelesSooner]

My point is, no matter if you are a law abiding citizen or a known racist, if you go out and stab to death someone of another race, it would be extremely dificult to prove that you did that just cus you hate that person of another race unless you admitted to itIt isn't that hard. For instance: the doofus racists in Tennessee who made the video stating that they were gonna go around shooting X number of Blacks until they went and killed Obama.

Criminals aren't the smartest bunch, usually. And racist, bigoted criminals are the dumbest of all.

Proving intent is quite often very easy.

[Collier11]

is there not a difference between person A saying "I dont like you cus you are (insert race/religion, sexual pref), now I am going to kill you" as opposed to saying "I dont like you cus you are (insert race/religion, sexual pref) therefore I am going to kill you because of it"?

[Half a Hundred]

Ya see, white people are ****ing smart enough to get that message without going to "that bar". :D

Would we need criminal law in the first place if people were all "smart"?

[Half a Hundred]

is there not a difference between person A saying "I dont like you cus you are (insert race/religion, sexual pref), now I am going to kill you" as opposed to saying "I dont like you cus you are (insert race/religion, sexual pref) therefore I am going to kill you because of it"?

I'd say that neither of those are a hate crime in a strict sense. Too personalized.

A hate crime is more like "I don't like (group), therefore I'm going to attack someone in that group to send a message to them to 'stay in their place'"

Criminal law is not about offenses against individuals. It is about offenses against society as a whole. Promoting conflict between groups within society is something that we've determined would be a very bad thing.

When you kill someone, you aren't prosecuted in criminal court for the sake of the victim. You're prosecuted there for the sake of society, one of whose members you forcefully took away from it. So this isn't an individual issue. When you commit a crime to strike against a group, rather than just harm an individual, then you've harmed society in a substantially different way.

[LosAngelesSooner]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/jack-price-gay-beating-da_n_320454.html


Shocking video of the brutal beating of Jack Price (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/jack-price-hate-crime-dan_n_317519.html) has been released just as news of a second arrest (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/nyregion/14beating.html) in the case was announced.

Daniel Rodriguez was taken into custody in Norfolk, VA Tuesday night. He had eluded police since his alleged partner in crime Daniel Aleman was arrested and charged with aggravated assault as a hate crime on Sunday.

Police say the suspects perpetrated the unconscionable beating early Friday morning after yelling anti-gay slurs at Price at a deli near his College Point home.

Price suffered a broken jaw, fractured ribs, a lacerated spleen, and the "collapse of both of his lungs (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,565865,00.html)." He identified his attackers before being placed in a medically-induced coma.

The video shows the men repeatedly punching and stomping Price as he tries to fend off his attackers. At one point in the video, a car that looks to be a livery taxi drives right by the assault without stopping.

After the suspects leave him bloodied in the middle of the street, the 5-foot-6, 130 pound (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7062514) Price can be seen miraculously stumbling away.

Aleman was being held on $20,000 bail Tuesday and charges are pending against Rodriguez.ID'd his attackers before they put him in a medically induced coma. Tough little guy.

[KABOOKIE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/jack-price-gay-beating-da_n_320454.html
ID'd his attackers before they put him in a medically induced coma. Tough little guy.

No, that makes him a snitch. If he was troughly tough he would kicked the **** out of those morons.

[LosAngelesSooner]

No, that makes him a snitch. If he was troughly tough he would kicked the **** out of those morons.God you're a low-life. :rolleyes:

[KABOOKIE]

God you're a low-life. :rolleyes:

I know, right! I totally ****ed up "truly!!" Troughly! Ha! :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

:rolleyes:

*shakes head and walks away*

[Curly Bill]

:rolleyes:

*shakes head and walks away*


Yeah right.

[Collier11]

LOL

[Collier11]

:rolleyes:

*shakes head and desperately thinks of something else to rattle the cage*

thats more like it :D

[The Remnant]

This is a non issue.

[LosAngelesSooner]

thats more like it :D
Hardly. :rolleyes:

[KABOOKIE]

Whatever stalker bitch. :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

No more or less than anyone else on here.

But since you guys always try to deny the facts:



I got news for you, the "organizations" you cite you assert support hate crimes legislation does not equate to "law enforcement favoring" same.


the International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, Presbyterian Church, Episcopal Church, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Young Women’s Christian Association and National Disability Rights Network.

Those outfits are all shills for the Donk party. That first bunch, the IACP, opposes concealed carry. That makes 'em Marxists right there.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I got news for you, the "organizations" you cite you assert support hate crimes legislation does not equate to "law enforcement favoring" same.



Those outfits are all shills for the Donk party. That first bunch, the IACP, opposes concealed carry. That makes 'em Marxists right there.


ZANG!!!!!:D:D:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

*sigh* Ah, Junior...


Whatever stalker bitch. :rolleyes:

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2736088&postcount=31

Now, to the adults around here:


I got news for you, the "organizations" you cite you assert support hate crimes legislation does not equate to "law enforcement favoring" same.

Those outfits are all shills for the Donk party. That first bunch, the IACP, opposes concealed carry. That makes 'em Marxists right there.Sure, it could be purely political that they support it...

...OR it means that cops don't want to worry that every yahoo they pull over is packing heat.

But you can call it "Marxist" if you want. :rolleyes:

And either way, it proves, yet again, that I wasn't making **** up since you're even admitting that what I asserted was true: Law enforcement officers support hate crime legislation.

[Chuck Bao]

If I didn't know better I would think some of you are quite okay with harrassment and intimidation of minorities.

Of course I know better and I know that none of you are okay with that concept.

I believe that the vast, vast majority of those opposing hate crimes legislation would in real life step up and defend someone being threatened just because they are minorities.

For some odd reason some of you are afraid to admit that there is such thing as hate crimes. If I didn't know better I would also assume that the war on terrorism is about skin color.

Ummm, let's be clear here. Are some of you actually saying that the war on terrorism should involve loss of rights and even protection as enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention, but terror inflicted by our own on our own should be treated as just a normal crime case? Does that sum it up, or am I missing the point again?

[OUHOMER]

Was thinking about this today and reflecting on some of the comments. I do believe that if a crime is labeled as a hate crime they must show intent against which every group was affected.

But also where does it stop.

Lets say small town USA in the south makes 100 arrest a month. 95 of those arrested were all black and 5 where white. Can it be said the local police dept is a hate group.

Do we have to go to the census to find the population relationship to find out? Do we have to prove that the local cops were told to focus on black only?

Does a beating or killing of someone the only way to call it a hate crime? Does harassment constitute a hate crime ?

Like I said i was just thinking

[Curly Bill]

What I'm not OK with is creating a protected class of peeps because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc...

[KABOOKIE]

Um what is your point?

[OUHOMER]

What I'm not OK with is creating a protected class of peeps because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc...

I can agree with this.

[LosAngelesSooner]

What I'm not OK with is creating a protected class of peeps because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc...Even if those groups are being disproportionately targeted for violent crimes based entirely on that qualification and it's been proven to be the case over thousands of cases over decades of research?

Even when it's supported by studies, by cops and by the law?

Come on, man...


Was thinking about this today and reflecting on some of the comments. I do believe that if a crime is labeled as a hate crime they must show intent against which every group was affected.

But also where does it stop.

Lets say small town USA in the south makes 100 arrest a month. 95 of those arrested were all black and 5 where white. Can it be said the local police dept is a hate group.NO.

Not even "kinda." No. Not at all. Not a little bit.

[uote]Do we have to go to the census to find the population relationship to find out? Do we have to prove that the local cops were told to focus on black only? [/quote]No.

Although if you DID find that cops were told to focus on ANY one group, you'd have all sorts of a mess on your hands.


Does a beating or killing of someone the only way to call it a hate crime? Does harassment constitute a hate crime ?

Like I said i was just thinkingI believe that harassment CAN constitute a hate crime, but I'll defer to the lawyers on the board to answer that one since I'm not sure.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I can agree with this.I can't.

It's a different type of crime, therefore it requires a different type of punishment.

[Curly Bill]

Even if those groups are being disproportionately targeted for violent crimes based entirely on that qualification and it's been proven to be the case over thousands of cases over decades of research?

Nope...

Lets say I'm murdered because I'm just a regular old white guy..

A black dude is murdered because he's a black guy...

You're murdered because you're a liberal cage rattling white guy...

We're all the same amount of dead, and the peeps committing these crimes should be punished one and the same.

[OUHOMER]

Even if those groups are being disproportionately targeted for violent crimes based entirely on that qualification and it's been proven to be the case over thousands of cases over decades of research?

Even when it's supported by studies, by cops and by the law?

but each case has to be proved to be a hate crime. no matter how many studies are done. If I ran my car into a bunch of ( name a group) don't you have to prove i did it as a hate crime and not an accident?


NO.

Not even "kinda." No. Not at all. Not a little bit.

[quote]Do we have to go to the census to find the population relationship to find out? No.

Why not if the numbers dont add up?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Nope...

Lets say I'm murdered because I'm just a regular old white guy..

A black dude is murdered because he's a black guy...

You're murdered because you're a liberal cage rattling white guy...

We're all the same amount of dead, and the peeps committing these crimes should be punished one and the same.Clearly you're missing the point. A hate crime is MORE than just the initial crime itself.

Here...check out this page. Maybe it'll help you:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nhatecrime12.html

There's more than just the one crime being committed. There is also the crime of terrorism being committed against all other members of that minority.

Thus the deserved extra punishment.

Seriously...when did all you uber-Conservatives become such pussies on crime?? Damn...

[KABOOKIE]

Lets say I'm murdered because I'm just a regular old white guy..

You deserved it. No crime.


A black dude is murdered because he's a black guy...

Hate crime


You're murdered because you're a liberal cage rattling white guy...

Hate crime X100

[Curly Bill]

Minority group: We want equality! We demand equality...

Minority group: We want those that commit crimes against us to be punished extra!...

What's wrong with this picture?

[LosAngelesSooner]

but each case has to be proved to be a hate crime. no matter how many studies are done. If I ran my car into a bunch of ( name a group) don't you have to prove i did it as a hate crime and not an accident?
Absolutely.

Why not if the numbers dont add up?Because the crimes committed are valid crimes and the criminals caught were guilty (this is an assumption in order to make your analogy work). In this case you have the simple, and accepted, example where a minority is engaging in more crime than the majority. This is nothing new. Down here in NZ the population is approx 20% Polynesian, but the prison's population are approx 75% Polynesian.

Also, on a side note, earlier someone (Homey? Dean?) suggested that more hate crimes are committed on whites than on blacks. According to the FBI this is not even remotely true. While Whites comprise significantly more of our population, there are fewer hate crimes committed on whites than on blacks.

Also, you guys DO realize that Whites are protected by hate crime laws, don't you?

I'd copy and paste the graph for you guys, but it wouldn't transfer well. So you'll just have to click a link and scroll down a little bit to see the figures on Anti-White crimes vs. Anti-Black crimes.

I think the numbers will open some of your eyes a little bit.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nhatecrime12.html

[Curly Bill]

Clearly you're missing the point.
...

I well know what the point is, I think the point is retarded.



(Note that I did not say that you are retarded, hell, that'd be a hate crime I guess) ;) :rolleyes:

[OUHOMER]

If the KKK goes and beats or kills a black or a gay or a jewish guy. I can see that as a hate crime.

If joe blow white guy gets into a fight at a local pub and beats or kills with a black or a gay or a Jewish guy, I dont see that as a hate crime unless he running across the room yelling I will kill your group.

But all the minority groups have to do is throw that card and bingo. Its a hate card, because we all know from all the studies. it had to be a hate crime

[Half a Hundred]

Nope...

Lets say I'm murdered because I'm just a regular old white guy..

A black dude is murdered because he's a black guy...

You're murdered because you're a liberal cage rattling white guy...

We're all the same amount of dead, and the peeps committing these crimes should be punished one and the same.

Criminal law is about offenses against society
Civil law is about offenses against individuals

We already have a hate crime provision in civil law - part of intentional or negligent infliction of severe emotional distress, one of the terms of which is exploitation of a known vulnerability or distinction. This sort of legislation lets society have the same sort of redress for a similar offense.

[Curly Bill]

Criminal law is about offenses against society
Civil law is about offenses against individuals

We already have a hate crime provision in civil law - part of intentional or negligent infliction of severe emotional distress, one of the terms of which is exploitation of a known vulnerability or distinction. This sort of legislation lets society have the same sort of redress for a similar offense.

I'd prefer to see more common sense law, that says one person is no better than another, and as such does not deserve preferential treatment in the eyes of said law.

[LosAngelesSooner]

If the KKK goes and beats or kills a black or a gay or a jewish guy. I can see that as a hate crime.

If joe blow white guy gets into a fight at a local pub and beats or kills with a black or a gay or a Jewish guy, I dont see that as a hate crime unless he running across the room yelling I will kill your group.

But all the minority groups have to do is throw that card and bingo. Its a hate card, because we all know from all the studies. it had to be a hate crime
Dude...that isn't how it works. You have the burden of proof.

If you're in a bar and you get in a fight with a black/gay/Jew/Klanmember, and you totally kick his black/gay/Jewish/Klanmember ***, that is NOT a hate crime. It's a fight. And if he swung first, it's a crime on him. If you started it, it's a crime that you've committed, but it STILL isn't a hate crime.

Now, if you went to that bar, saw the black/gay/Jew/Klansman, started yelling racial/bigoted slurs at him and then followed him out and totally kicked his ***, then yes...that IS a hate crime and deserves punishment for the attack as well as your attempt to beat down and oppress a particular group of people.

And to help this thread out, I've included a photo of Black/Gay/Jewish/Klansmen.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3495/1779/1600/confused.jpg

[SCOUT]

If I didn't know better I would think some of you are quite okay with harrassment and intimidation of minorities.

This is an interesting take on the subject as a whole. I am opposed to hate crime legislation, but your statement isn't even close to how I feel. I am not "quite okay" with the harassment or intimidation of anyone. I believe that harassing and intimidating a white straight guy is unacceptable just as I believe that harassing and intimidating a gay, midget, black, handicapped person is wrong.

[Curly Bill]

This is an interesting take on the subject as a whole. I am opposed to hate crime legislation, but your statement isn't even close to how I feel. I am not "quite okay" with the harassment or intimidation of anyone. I believe that harassing and intimidating a white straight guy is unacceptable just as I believe that harassing and intimidating a gay, midget, black, handicapped person is wrong.

This ^^^^^^^^.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Definition


A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.


Background


In response to mounting national concern over crimes motivated by bias, Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 on April 23 of that year. This law required the Attorney General to collect data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." The Attorney General delegated the responsibilities of developing the procedures for and implementing, collecting, and managing hate crime data to the Director of the FBI, who in turn assigned the tasks to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include both physical and mental disabilities as potential bias factors, and the actual collection of disability-bias data began in January 1997. Additionally, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 mandated that hate crime data collection become a permanent part of the UCR Program.



Those who developed the guidelines for hate crime data collection recognized that hate crimes are not separate, distinct crimes; instead they are traditional offenses motivated by the offender's bias. After much consideration, the developers decided that hate crime data could be derived by capturing the additional element of bias in those offenses already being reported to the UCR Program. Appending the collection of hate crime statistics to the established UCR data collection procedures, they concluded, would fulfill the directives of the Hate Crime Statistics Act without placing an undue additional reporting burden on law enforcement and, in time, develop a substantial body of data about the nature and frequency of bias crimes occurring throughout the Nation.

Accordingly, the law enforcement agencies that participate in the national hate crime program collect details about an offender's bias motivation associated with the following offense types: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism of property. (The law enforcement agencies participating in the National Incident-Based Reporting System also collect additional offense types for crimes against persons and crimes against property, which the UCR Program publishes as "other." In addition, these agencies collect hate crime data for another category called "crimes against society.")


Participation


A total of 12,073 law enforcement agencies participated in the hate crime program during 2002. Of these agencies, 1,868 agencies (15.5 percent) submitted 7,462 hate crime incident reports to the FBI. (See Table 2.36.) The following hate crime abstract is based on the data received from those law enforcement agencies that provided 1 to 12 months of hate crime reports.


Law Enforcement Reports


The UCR Program data collection guidelines stipulate that a hate crime may involve multiple offenses, victims, and offenders within one incident. Accordingly, in 2002, the 7,462 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI involved 8,832 separate offenses, 9,222 victims, and 7,314 known offenders. (See Table 2.33.) (The term known offender does not imply that the identity of the suspect is known but only that some attribute of the suspect has been identified, distinguishing him or her from an unknown offender.)


Incidents


Of the total single-bias incidents reported in 2002, 48.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 19.1 percent were driven by prejudice against a particular religion, 16.7 percent involved a sexual-orientation bias, 14.8 percent resulted from a bias against an ethnicity or national origin, and 0.6 percent were motivated by a disability bias. (Based on Table 2.33.)



In addition to single-bias incidents, hate crime data collection guidelines permit the identification of multiple-bias incidents. These are incidents in which two or more offense types were committed as a result of two or more bias motivations. Only 3 of the 7,462 incidents reported in 2002 met that criteria. (See Table 2.33.)


Offenses


A victim of an offense, according to the UCR definition, may be either a person, a business, an institution, or society as a whole. When aggregating the number of hate crime offenses committed against individuals, the program counts one offense for each victim. The offense types of murder, rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, and intimidation are possible crimes against persons. When counting crimes against property, the program allots one offense for each distinct incident regardless of the number of victims. Robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism comprise the offense types that are possible crimes against property.



During 2002, a total of 5,960 (67.5 percent) of reported hate crime offenses were crimes against persons, and 2,823 (32.0 percent) were crimes against property. (Crimes against society comprised 0.6 percent of the reported offenses.) Intimidation continued to be the most frequently reported hate crime against individuals and accounted for 52.1 percent of all crimes against persons. Destruction/damage/vandalism of property was the most frequently reported crime against property. Of the instances of crimes against property, 83.1 percent were for the offenses of destruction/damage/vandalism. (Based on Table 2.34.)


Victims


A total of 9,222 individuals, businesses, institutions, or society as a whole were victims of hate crimes in 2002. Approximately 49.7 percent of all single-bias hate crime victims were targets of racial prejudice. Of these victims, 67.2 percent were attacked because of an anti-black bias motivation, and 19.9 percent were attacked because of an anti-white bias motivation. Eighteen percent of single-bias hate crime victims were targets because of the offender's bias toward the victim's religion. Of these, 65.3 percent were targeted because of an anti-Jewish bias motivation. Additionally, 16.4 percent of total single-bias hate crime victims were attacked because of the offender's prejudice against the victim's sexual-orientation; among these victims, 65.0 percent were victims of an anti-male homosexual bias motivation. Approximately 15.3 percent of hate crime victims were targets of ethnicity/national origin bias. Of these, 45.4 percent were victims of anti-Hispanic sentiment. (Based on Table 2.33.)


Offenders


In 2002, there were 7,314 known offenders who committed crimes motivated by biases. The majority of these known hate crime offenders were white, 61.8 percent; 21.8 percent were black; 1.2 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander; 0.6 percent were American Indian or Alaskan Native; 9.8 percent were of unknown race; and 4.9 percent were groups of offenders consisting of multiple races. (Based on Table 2.35.)
So, if we actually want to have an intelligent debate, we need to quit asserting that "If a black guy attacks a white guy then that's okay, but if a white guy attacks a black guy then that's a hate crime."

We also need to understand that Hate Crime Legislation DOES NOT CREATE ANY PROTECTED CLASSES. What it does is qualify what can and cannot constitute a Hate Crime. This is merely definition and all are protected beneath its umbrella. Yes, even the poor, hated and discriminated class of "White Male." ;)

It's just not true, not accurate and it's needlessly inflammatory.

These above quotes and facts are from the FBI's web page.

KNOW what a Hate Crime is before you form an opinion either for it or against it, guys.

[SCOUT]

I made my post with full knowledge of the definition. I stand by what I said. I don't think legislation is necessary to show that committing a crime is bad or really, really, extra special bad. When a criminal case is presented to a jury, motive is shown. A jury has the ability to take things like malice or "hate" into account now. We don't need government mandates in addition to what we already have.

[LosAngelesSooner]

So then we should get rid of 2nd and 3rd degree murder and all of the manslaughter charges and just put people on trial for: murder.

Or get rid of different types of larceny (grand theft, petty, joy riding, grand theft auto) and just prosecute everyone for: theft.

And then, since we won't have any guidelines or punishments set out for any set level of crime (because whether a crime is a crime is bad or really, really, extra special bad won't be legislated), we'll trust the jury to figure out the appropriate punishment.

Using your logic, that is.

[SCOUT]

That isn't really using my logic. My logic was that things like 2nd and 3rd degree murder are already in place. The vehicle to justice already exists in the criminal courts.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Then we've just amended it to include another degree of a crime so that the appropriate vehicle for justice is now in the criminal courts as well.

And we did it 19 years ago, by the way.

[LosAngelesSooner]

And I was using your logic, by the way. Just 'cause you see the flaw in your logic and don't like it doesn't mean I didn't use it. ;)

[Half a Hundred]

I'd prefer to see more common sense law, that says one person is no better than another, and as such does not deserve preferential treatment in the eyes of said law.

The 14th doesn't say equal treatment under the law. It says equal protection under the law.

If by virtue of a certain class distinction, you require a greater level of effort on the part of our justice system to maintain the same level of legal protection as another person, then that's what's constitutionally required. In fact, we're so egalitarian that instead of limiting it to those classes who have historically required greater amounts of protection, we've expanded this protection to any class who can prove that actions have been taken against it as a whole. Thus, the white guy being beat up by minorities at a bar to send a message to other whites example.

It has nothing to do with one person being better or worse than the other. This is about societal stability, not about anyone's personal worth.

[delhalew]

Just as this legislation was presented in the worst political manner, it's purpose is to be used as a political tool.

Hate crime legislation is a hate crime.

Groups A B and C are to receive extra protection from crime AND speech.

It will go there, but apparently we need to be further instructed on how to live our lives. If we are really lucky, we can be not only ostricized, but prosicuted as well for saying somethin deemed offensive by some whiney d-bag. SWEET!!!

[Half a Hundred]

Just as this legislation was presented in the worst political manner, it's purpose is to be used as a political tool.

What makes this any worse than other use of riders, which is a common legislative tool?


Hate crime legislation is a hate crime.

I guess then it will easily be struck down as unconstitutional then.


Groups A B and C are to receive extra protection from crime AND speech.

All groups are receiving extra protection, provided that the individual offense was targeting the group. It doesn't matter if you're tall, blond, male and white - if you're attacked to send a message to other tall, blond white males, it was a hate crime.

I don't see why people are so opposed to legislation that will help promote law and order.


It will go there, but apparently we need to be further instructed on how to live our lives. If we are really lucky, we can be not only ostricized, but prosicuted as well for saying somethin deemed offensive by some whiney d-bag. SWEET!!!

Last time I checked, it's not criminal to say purely offensive things. Thus, the hate crimes legislation wouldn't be applicable for mere words.

Now saying offensive things while committing a crime - that's always been a part of the determination of intent since time immemorial. So saying offensive things isn't enough - but saying bigoted things indicating intent while assaulting someone would be enough.

Examples:

"All you white boys are just the same. You can't dance, you're a bunch of clowns, and you're all ignorant." - Not a hate crime

"Hey, son, you know better than all you white boys to be hanging out here. If you don't get out of here right now, I'm gonna come over there and teach all y'all some respect" - Hate crime

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Motive =/= Intent

[Half a Hundred]

Motive =/= Intent

You're right. This is about intentional harm to a particular class. It's not about motivation.

If a guy kills a minority and admits it's because "I hate all those (minority group members)", strangely enough, that's not a hate crime - most likely first degree murder based on premeditation of a sort, but not a hate crime

If a guy kills a minority, and states that he did it so "those (minority group members) figure out they're not welcome here", that is a hate crime, because there was also an intent to coerce others into a certain behavior based on fear of physical harm. That's technically assault, and as Chuck has been noting, exactly how terrorism works.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Just as this legislation was presented in the worst political manner, it's purpose is to be used as a political tool.

Hate crime legislation is a hate crime.

Groups A B and C are to receive extra protection from crime AND speech.

It will go there, but apparently we need to be further instructed on how to live our lives. If we are really lucky, we can be not only ostricized, but prosicuted as well for saying somethin deemed offensive by some whiney d-bag. SWEET!!!You just demonstrated that you have no idea how hate crime legislation works. Good jorb. :rolleyes:

[MR2-Sooner86]

Is it a hate crime to hate those who hate the haters of the hate crimes they're hating on?

[Curly Bill]

Yes!