LDS Church won’t oppose Utah LGBT Hate Crimes Bill

[Anijen]

On 1/25/2019 at 5:41 PM, strappinglad said:

This law is just another tool in the prosecutors  kit to get a conviction for something. A black guy attacks a gay white male , beats him and steals his watch while yelling ," I hate whites!" .  How many crimes were committed ? Anyone want to lay odds on the guy being charged for a hate crime because of what he yelled? How about a threat of being charged with a hate crime because the victim was gay? 

As a one time prosecutor we generally don't like the "hate crime" codes, because it adds to the elements needed to be proven.

[Anijen]

On 1/25/2019 at 5:45 PM, Buffy said:

I might be up a tree, but if memory serves, the original hate crimes laws were Federal and were tied to the Civil Rights Act of 1968.  This allowed the Feds to come in a prosecute when the state wouldn't.  In the past, there were places that wouldn't prosecute a white man for killing a black man.  The Federal law allowed the Feds to intercede. 

Yes, that is how it started. However, states have always had the right to prosecute crimes committed in their state. It is often a misunderstood. Example John is kidnapped by Jane in State A and is taken to State B. State A can prosecute Jane and go to trial. Then State B can prosecute Jane. Additionally, the Federal courts can prosecute Jane for the crime. Double Jeopardy only disallows one sovereignty from re-prosecuting the same defendant for the same crime.

[provoman]

On 1/31/2019 at 5:31 AM, Gray said:

Do you have something from a credible news source?

CNN

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Police sources: New evidence suggests Jussie Smollett orchestrated attack

 

 

Unfortunate if is true that the actor staged the attack

Edited February 17, 2019 by provoman

[Tacenda]

https://kutv.com/news/local/slc-police-searching-for-man-seen-on-video-assaulting-gay-man 

Sure glad that hate crime laws are not going to be deterred!

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

https://kutv.com/news/local/slc-police-searching-for-man-seen-on-video-assaulting-gay-man 

Sure glad that hate crime laws are not going to be deterred!

Do you think that if there were not hate crime legislation that his abuser would not be arrested?  What is gained?  Nothing - he is still arrested, but now we have laws that are even more harsh IF you are in a protected - read superior, better than - group. Everyone else that is abused is on a lower rung and the criminal is not punished to the same degree. Does that sound equal?  No, it is not. Welcome to the new world of inequality. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Do you think that if there were not hate crime legislation that his abuser would not be arrested?  What is gained?  Nothing - he is still arrested, but now we have laws that are even more harsh IF you are in a protected - read superior, better than - group. Everyone else that is abused is on a lower rung and the criminal is not punished to the same degree. Does that sound equal?  No, it is not. Welcome to the new world of inequality. 

Who are the people who don't belong to a protected group?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Who are the people who don't belong to a protected group?

Excellent question - why are some people in a protected group at all?  Don't all laws protect all citizens?

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Excellent question - why are some people in a protected group at all?  Don't all laws protect all citizens?

The question was rhetorical. In fact, everyone is protected by hate crime laws. Everyone has an ethnicity, everyone has a gender, most have a religion, etc. Hate crime laws protect all citizens.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Gray

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Who are the people who don't belong to a protected group?

All US citizens are protected under the Constitution. However, all protections are not equal. For example those who are incarcerated still have protections, but many of their rights are limited during incarceration. Furthermore, issues concerning age do not get as high a protection such as race.

Protected groups fall under what is termed in classes and adjudicated in tier standards. A suspect class is the gold standard of protected groups. The suspect classification will get strict scrutiny (a high standard courts will use to determine the outcome). The most common suspect classification is race. The Supreme Court will treat as suspect any classification of people who:

• Have an inherent trait
• Have a trait that is highly visible
• Have been disadvantaged historically
• A group that have historically lacked effective representation in due process or political process

There are also groups that will not get "strict scrutiny" but will get intermediate scrutiny. This is a high standard, but less rigorous. Cases which the issues are age (e.g. mandatory hiring age), illegetimacy (cases involving illegitimate children), and others.

Then there is the Rational Basis standard (the default standard). Most issues will fall under this standard. These issues are cases involving 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and others.  

Even foreigners will get protection under the Constitution if they are on US soil at the time. These are basic rights such as; the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection apply both to US citizens and noncitizens. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Anijen

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The question was rhetorical. In fact, everyone is protected by hate crime laws. Everyone has an ethnicity, everyone has a gender, most have a religion, etc. Hate crime laws protect all citizens.

In fact, no - they are not. Hate crime laws only protect specific, special, superior groups to the rest of society. What crimes were not protected when there were no hate crime laws?  You got it - all people were protected in the same way. The problem was with enforcement - not the lack of criminal laws. 

[Daniel2]

On 2/16/2019 at 7:33 PM, provoman said:

CNN

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Police sources: New evidence suggests Jussie Smollett orchestrated attack

 

 

Unfortunate if is true that the actor staged the attack

More than unfortunate—fake/staged hate crimes damage actual victims of legitimate hate crimes.  

It is already challenging enough for those who face such crimes to be taken seriously, just as this thread demonstrates. 

Those found guilty of such falsification and/or perjury should face the full weight of the law.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

In fact, no - they are not. Hate crime laws only protect specific, special, superior groups to the rest of society. What crimes were not protected when there were no hate crime laws?  You got it - all people were protected in the same way. The problem was with enforcement - not the lack of criminal laws. 

Totally incorrect.

Hate crime prohibitions based on religious bias equally protect adherents of all religions just as much as they protect those of no religious affiliation.  These laws say a perpetrator will be punished more severely for using religion or any lack thereof as related to the intent of committing a crime. Those who profess or practice any given religion aren’t protected more or less than those that are atheist or agnostic—the law seeks to protect us all from hate crimes based on religion or any lack thereof.

In the same way, hate crime prohibitions based on racial bias equally protect all citizens of every race and equally regardless of race.

And similarly, hate crime prohibitions based on  gender expression or sexual orientation bias equally protect citizens regardlesss of sexual orientation, gender, or gender expresssion—they prohibit criminal intent based on sexual orientation directed at anyone, whether straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc.

Hate crime legislation protects us all.  

Edited February 19, 2019 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Totally incorrect.

Hate crime prohibitions based on religious bias equally protect adherents of all religions just as much as they protect those of no religious affiliation.  These laws say a perpetrator will be punished more severely for using religion or any lack thereof as related to the intent of committing a crime. Those who profess or practice any given religion aren’t protected more or less than those that are atheist or agnostic—the law seeks to protect us all from hate crimes based on religion or any lack thereof.

In the same way, hate crime prohibitions based on racial bias equally protect all citizens of every race and equally regardless of race.

And similarly, hate crime prohibitions based on  gender expression or sexual orientation bias equally protect citizens regardlesss of sexual orientation, gender, or gender expresssion—they prohibit criminal intent based on sexual orientation directed at anyone, whether straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc.

Hate crime legislation protects us all.  

Criminal commits a crime that is also considered a hate crime. What is the punishment?  Criminal commits a crime against an individual not within a protected group and not only is he punished for the crime - a crime where laws already exist - but also is punished because he had the temerity to attack a protected class of people. These people are considered more important, or superior to all the common people. Hate crimes are not used to punish criminal UNLESS they attack the special, more important groups of people. 

Hate crime ONLY protects the protected classes of those identified as superior to all other groups or peoples. You know it and so so everyone else. If hate crimes did not exist, criminal would still go to jail for the exact same reasons and punished equally for the same crimes.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

More than unfortunate—fake/staged hate crimes damage actual victims of legitimate hate crimes.  

It is already challenging enough for those who face such crimes to be taken seriously, just as this thread demonstrates. 

Those found guilty of such falsification and/or perjury should face the full weight of the law.

Is that the full weight of common laws or for special groups?  The punishments are different. 

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

In fact, no - they are not. Hate crime laws only protect specific, special, superior groups to the rest of society. What crimes were not protected when there were no hate crime laws?  You got it - all people were protected in the same way. The problem was with enforcement - not the lack of criminal laws. 

I understand the perspective you are coming from. However, I would like to clarify a few things. Generally, a hate crime law is not written for protection of a person or class of victims.  Hate crime laws were made to make punishment more severe. The hate the defendant has toward a certain race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc., is the consideration. There are already protections for all people against violent crime.   

The hate crime acts garnered national attention when Matthew Shepard was brutally tortured and murdered. However, these laws were not established to protect victims like Matthew Shepard, but to add to the crime (and punishment) against the perpetrators who hold hatred of the victims type. Here, in Matthew Shepard's case not because they hated the individual [Matthew]  but because they hated homosexuality. IOW the crime was committed because of the perceived status of that person. Moreover, hate crimes can also be committed not just against a person, but also crimes against a property and society. You can read the definition and enhanced sentencing see the actual law here.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Hate crime ONLY protects the protected classes of those identified as superior to all other groups or peoples. You know it and so so everyone else.

If you or a member of your family were targeted and physically attacked by someone only because you were a Mormon, do you believe this could not be classified as a hate crime?

Edited February 19, 2019 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I understand the perspective you are coming from. However, I would like to clarify a few things. Generally, a hate crime law is not written for protection of a person or class of victims.  Hate crime laws were made to make punishment more severe. The hate the defendant has toward a certain race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc., is the consideration. There are already protections for all people against violent crime.   

The hate crime acts garnered national attention when Matthew Shepard was brutally tortured and murdered. However, these laws were not established to protect victims like Matthew Shepard, but to add to the crime (and punishment) against the perpetrators who hold hatred of the victims type. Here, in Matthew Shepard's case not because they hated the individual [Matthew]  but because they hated homosexuality. IOW the crime was committed because of the perceived status of that person. Moreover, hate crimes can also be committed not just against a person, but also crimes against a property and society. You can read the definition and enhanced sentencing see the actual law here.

Anijen, what is the impact of laws that are specifically designed to affect only a certain subset of society and no one else? What is the impact of laws that carry a more severe punishment if committed for only these same specific groups?  Does it just punish the criminal more severely or does it also, in the long run, protect that group because criminal are not completely stupid and begin to avoid those specific groups? 

I am familiar with the law,  but the reality is that those laws were created to more severely punish criminal that commit acts against protected classes. If the same crime is committed against another individual that does not belong to the protected classes they are not punished as severely. This is a classic example of government instituted inequality. If these types of crimes did not exist, criminals would still be punished for the same crimes, but punishment would be equal and the result would be a more just society. 

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Do you think that if there were not hate crime legislation that his abuser would not be arrested?  What is gained?  Nothing - he is still arrested, but now we have laws that are even more harsh IF you are in a protected - read superior, better than - group. Everyone else that is abused is on a lower rung and the criminal is not punished to the same degree. Does that sound equal?  No, it is not. Welcome to the new world of inequality. 

I'm going to have to look into this some more. Thanks!

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Anijen, what is the impact of laws that are specifically designed to affect only a certain subset of society and no one else? What is the impact of laws that carry a more severe punishment if committed for only these same specific groups?  Does it just punish the criminal more severely or does it also, in the long run, protect that group because criminal are not completely stupid and begin to avoid those specific groups? 

I am familiar with the law,  but the reality is that those laws were created to more severely punish criminal that commit acts against protected classes. If the same crime is committed against another individual that does not belong to the protected classes they are not punished as severely. This is a classic example of government instituted inequality. If these types of crimes did not exist, criminals would still be punished for the same crimes, but punishment would be equal and the result would be a more just society. 

Your flaw is thinking that hate laws are designed to affect only a certain subset of society and no one else.  Hate crimes protect every single individual.  No one is excluded.  It is the motivation for the crime that gets extra punishment.  Just like the motivation for any other crime.  Intent is always taken in consideration when determining the severity of a crime.  

Can you name a single individual in this country that would not be covered by hate crime?

 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hate crimes are not used to punish criminal UNLESS they attack the special, more important groups of people. 

Hate crime ONLY protects the protected classes of those identified as superior to all other groups or peoples. You know it and so so everyone else. If hate crimes did not exist, criminal would still go to jail for the exact same reasons and punished equally for the same crimes.

Storm Rider, please do not presume to tell me "what I know."  You are clearly misinformed.

To start with, the law clearly considers "intent" and has long done so, as others have deftly explained earlier in this thread.

Legal and criminal protections based on "protected classes" don't single out smaller or minority "groups of people" that receive special protections that aren't afforded other, larger majority groups.  Protections based on "protected classes" protect EVERYONE, regardless of how they identify or relate to the characteristic(s) which are protected; even if or when they don't relate to it at all (i.e. religion, disability, national origin, etc.)

Said differently, "protected classes" are the personal attributes or characteristics upon and by which we as a society have identified and declared that we will not tolerate discrimination.  In so doing, we all are protected from one another, regardless of how we identify.

Your entire argument that 'there are some groups that are protected more than others' crumbles when one recognizes that hate crimes are even committed and prosecuted based on some victims' status as a membership of a majority group--not only by those in the minority.  Hate crimes are recognized and prosecuted even when committed by perpetrators who share a minority characteristic of any given "protected class" against victims who share characteristics of the majority.  

For example, in 2016, the percentage of racial hate crimes against whites rose at a higher rate than those against blacks (though hate crimes against blacks still represented the vast majority of racially-motivated hate crimes).  Racial minorities can commit and are prosecuted for committing hate crimes against the white majority.  The same is true for any other protected classes. 

Hate crimes can and are also recognized and prosecuted when members of minority groups commit hate crimes against citizens who share their own same attributes.  Blacks can commit hate crimes against fellow blacks (or members of any race), just as gays can commit hate crimes against fellow gays (or straights).

Maybe it's helpful to think that "protected classes" aren't nouns----such protections don't protect groups of people.

Rather, think of "protected classes" as adjectives ---they are the characteristics, which define all citizens in some fashion whether we identify or not with any aspect of said characteristic, upon and by which we as a society eschew discrimination and hate-motivated criminal intent. 

Our Constitution calls for equality and justice for all.  In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to identify "protected classes," but since our founding fathers recognized we aren't perfect, they sought to form "a more perfect union."  Even as they sought to establish laws which mandated equality, they clearly were subject to their own biases (as evidenced by our nation initially identifying blacks as the property of whites, wives as the property of their husbands, etc.).  But they provided the mechanism for our society to continue to recognize newly-enumerated rights based on previously unrecognized attributes, a.k.a. the 'protected classifications' as they relate to and protect us all.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I originally tried linking to the article I mentioned in the previous post, but I kept getting the 403 error, so here's the CNN source identifying the rise of hate crimes against whites in 2016:

Quote

Hate crimes rose in 2016 - especially against Muslims and whites

By AJ Willingham, CNN

Updated 3:47 PM ET, Wed November 15, 2017

 

(CNN)This week, the FBI released its hate crime stats for 2016 and they reveal some interesting trends: Hate crimes in the US saw a rise over the year -- especially incidents targeting Muslims and whites.

(Before we delve into details, it's important to mention that national hate crime statistics are flawed and incomplete. That's because bias and motivations for crimes aren't always clear, such crimes can be underreported by both victims and police, and even when the available data are compiled by the FBI, they still don't give a fully realized picture of where and how criminal hate is expressed in America.)

READ MORE: Hate groups in America, in seven charts

Anti-Muslim crime saw the biggest rise

Of the 6,121 hate crimes reported to the FBI in in 2016, anti-Islamic (anti-Muslim) crimes accounted for 307. This was a more than 19% rise from the previous year.

When you consider sheer numbers, there were more reports of hate crimes against Jews than against any other religious group. In 2016, 684 anti-Jewish incidents were reported -- more than the rest of the religiously motivated hate crimes combined.

 

In addition to the above categories, the 2016 FBI report also included statis for crimes against:

• Eastern Orthodox Christians (28)
• Other Christians (36)
• Hindus (10)
• Sikhs (7)
• Mormons (7)
• Jehovah's Witnesses (2)
• Buddhists (1)

Anti-white crime saw the second-biggest rise

In 2016, anti-white hate crimes rose 17%, to a reported 720 incidents, accounting for about 20% of all racially motivated hate crimes.

When you consider sheer numbers, anti-black crime is overwhelmingly the most commonly reported type of racially motivated crime. There were 1,739 such reported incidents -- roughly half of the 3,489 racially motivated incidents in 2016.

Accounting for the number of incidents and national population demographics, that means black people are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than white people.

In addition to the above categories, the 2016 FBI report also included statistics for crimes against:

• Arabs (51)
• Hispanics or Latinos (344)
• Other races/ethnicities/ancestries (223)

There was an overall rise in hate crimes

The 6,121 hate crime incidents reported in 2016 mark an uptick in national hate crime numbers. That's an increase of more than 4% from 2015.

 

 

(Again, there are several flaws in the data -- including varying numbers of police departments reporting incidents every year. For more information on the context and limits of hate crime statistics, click here.)

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-white-fbi-trnd/index.html

Edited February 19, 2019 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Storm Rider, please do not presume to tell me "what I know."  You are clearly misinformed.

To start with, the law clearly considers "intent" and has long done so, as others have deftly explained earlier in this thread.

Legal and criminal protections based on "protected classes" don't single out smaller or minority "groups of people" that receive special protections that aren't afforded other, larger majority groups.  Protections based on "protected classes" protect EVERYONE, regardless of how they identify or relate to the characteristic(s) which are protected; even if or when they don't relate to it at all (i.e. religion, disability, national origin, etc.)

• Are protected classes subgroups of society? YES  Are they smaller than the society at large?  YES  Do hate crimes specifically target crimes against these protected groups?  YES  Now, please tell me how your highlighted statement has anything to do with reality or has any basis in fact or reality?
• Does every member of society belong to a protected class.  LOL, literally rolling on the floor laughing - NO - only members of these specific subgroups benefit by have additional protections by having crimes committed against them to be punished far more severely than the lower classes of society.
• If an individual is murdered is this crime punished?  YES  If a member of a protected class is murdered is the punishment the same? NO  Why?  Because these special groups are afforded more protections in the law by making any crimes committed against them to be punished more severely.  

Said differently, "protected classes" are the personal attributes or characteristics upon and by which we as a society have identified and declared that we will not tolerate discrimination.  In so doing, we all are protected from one another, regardless of how we identify.

Your entire argument that 'there are some groups that are protected more than others' crumbles when one recognizes that hate crimes are even committed and prosecuted based on some victims' status as a membership of a majority group--not only by those in the minority.  Hate crimes are recognized and prosecuted even when committed by perpetrators who share a minority characteristic of any given "protected class" against victims who share characteristics of the majority.  

For example, in 2016, the percentage of racial hate crimes against whites rose at a higher rate than those against blacks (though hate crimes against blacks still represented the vast majority of racially-motivated hate crimes).  Racial minorities can commit and are prosecuted for committing hate crimes against the white majority.  The same is true for any other protected classes. 

Hate crimes can and are also recognized and prosecuted when members of minority groups commit hate crimes against citizens who share their own same attributes.  Blacks can commit hate crimes against fellow blacks (or members of any race), just as gays can commit hate crimes against fellow gays (or straights).

Maybe it's helpful to think that "protected classes" aren't nouns----such protections don't protect groups of people.

Rather, think of "protected classes" as adjectives ---they are the characteristics, which define all citizens in some fashion whether we identify or not with any aspect of said characteristic, upon and by which we as a society eschew discrimination and hate-motivated criminal intent. 

Our Constitution calls for equality and justice for all.  In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to identify "protected classes," but since our founding fathers recognized we aren't perfect, they sought to form "a more perfect union."  Even as they sought to establish laws which mandated equality, they clearly were subject to their own biases (as evidenced by our nation initially identifying blacks as the property of whites, wives as the property of their husbands, etc.).  But they provided the mechanism for our society to continue to recognize newly-enumerated rights based on previously unrecognized attributes, a.k.a. the 'protected classifications' as they relate to and protect us all.

 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Your flaw is thinking that hate laws are designed to affect only a certain subset of society and no one else.  Hate crimes protect every single individual.  No one is excluded.  It is the motivation for the crime that gets extra punishment.  Just like the motivation for any other crime.  Intent is always taken in consideration when determining the severity of a crime.  

Can you name a single individual in this country that would not be covered by hate crime?

 

If that were true, what were the laws that protected everyone deemed deficient?

[Storm Rider]

This smacks of the type of Left wing gibber jabber and frankly, I just never wanted to drink the Kool aid.  

Crimes are committed. If a woman kills her husband, did she hate him?  Is that a hate crime.  What part of the law would not have punished he for committing murder?  The entire premise of hate laws is specifically designed to protect specific protected classes.  If it was "everyone", there would have been no need for them. That was the function of the law for hundreds of years. Now, those laws have been deemed defective because they did not protect the protected classes.  No johnny, not everyone belongs to a protected class.

[Daniel2]

26 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 

Storm,

Yes or no: do you believe whites are members of a protected class by their classification as white?

EDIT: on second thought, let me rephrase the question to clarify what I meant by the above question, which upon reflection is too ambiguous:

Do you agree or disagree  with the following statement?: “Hate crimes law, as it currently stands in the U.S., treats caucasians as a protected class.”

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Daniel2