Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel2

LDS Church won’t oppose Utah LGBT Hate Crimes Bill

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

It really isn't protecting minority groups per se.  It protects all genders, all religions, all sexual orientations, all races, etc.  So everyone is protected in one way or another.   It doesn't seem to protect atheists, for example, and other groups that should be protected equally under the law.  Maybe atheists are included in the fine print, I don't know, but you get my drift. 

I understand what you're saying.  And I think you understand that the history of the world is full of certain minorities being persecuted.  I don't think that hate crimes legislation is necessarily the best approach, but it is something. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

It really isn't protecting minority groups per se.  It protects all genders, all religions, all sexual orientations, all races, etc.  So everyone is protected in one way or another.   It doesn't seem to protect atheists, for example, and other groups that should be protected equally under the law.  Maybe atheists are included in the fine print, I don't know, but you get my drift. 

The reason people dislike hate laws is because the way they are framed is as protecting some groups more than others rather than trying to deal with a broader political angle. The other counterargument for what I presented is that within sentencing the reason for a crime is already dealt with. So particularly with murder and assault already the reasons are brought up and punishment adjusted accordingly. So why are hate crime laws even needed? An other issue is that even if hate laws make sense (as I think they do) they're poorly sold to the broad public and juries don't embrace the charges when brought by prosecutors. That is there's a gap between the theory of the legislature and the practical issues that prosecutors deal with particularly in jury trials. A final issue brought up by criminal justice reform proponents is that crimes are already over prosecuted with too much incarceration. Jails are overfilled and once you get key figures out of the crucial 15-30 age group their propensity to crime is drastically reduced. That's particularly the case with hate crimes.

Of course all these counter-arguments have their own sets of further counter-arguments. Legislatures often pass laws not just to affect practical prosecution but to communicate to constituents. That's not necessarily bad. They also are designed to try and limit judges ability to reduce charges. (Not something everyone agrees is good) Having further charges can give more leverage for a prosecutor ("plead guilty to assault or we'll charge you with a hate crime"). And so forth.

Personally I think our criminal justice system is a mess and in dire need of reform and rethinking particularly at the state level. Of all its problems though whether or not there are hate crimes seems one of the least of the problems.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

My problem with hate crimes laws is that they can go far beyond what is appropriate.  This is happening a lot in Europe where people are having to pay fines simply for posting what is considered "hate" on their social media.  If a transgender woman walks into a womens bathroom, and some women object, will that be considered a hate crime?  Maybe not today but who knows tomorrow.  Hate crimes must be limited in scope and only in association with another crime like assault.  Simply voicing opinion regardless of what the opinion is should never be associated with a hate crime by itself.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Simply voicing opinion regardless of what the opinion is should never be associated with a hate crime by itself.

Canada now has laws which target opinion and even which pronoun is used in a conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And completely ignorant of what hate crime legislation is about.

The reason hate crime punishment exists is that hate crimes are often a form of terrorism. If I beat someone up because they cheated me in a business deal or were after my girlfriend I am a threat but the threat is personal and while I should be dealt with I am not fomenting fear. If I am targeting gay people, black people, Catholics, or whatever with violent attacks then it becomes impersonal. The community becomes an unsafe place for people fitting that description. Then if it is not just me but a lot of people feel that way then people can justifiably be afraid for their safety in their community. It becomes a form of terrorism, an effort to control and limit the lives of a group with the threat of violence. At that point you put them in a protected group and punish those causing said terror, taking them off the streets for longer because their crime is more detrimental to society or possibly terrorizing them into not attacking people with the threat of an increased sentence. Either works.

It also correctly increases the punishments for those with unjustifiable hate. If I hate and attack someone who directly hurt me that is a normal human response. I still should not attack them but it if understandable why I would want to. If I beat someone because they are black or gay or Catholic even though they have done nothing to me that is irrational. I am much more dangerous. That is not a normal human response. That is ingrained xenophobic hate and I need correction and punishment much more then I would in the first scenario.

The Nehor...I had not thought of it that way. I had never heard an explanation. I have to rethink this a little. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry but I can't see how the church is so awesome for doing this, where it should have been a given! 

So they're darned if they do, and darned if they don't?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, motives matter.  I hear the counter-arguments.  I'm still stuck:

1. The notion that murdering someone you don't hate is somehow less-serious than someone you do hate, I just can't.  Cold blooded killers are less of a threat than a killer who hates all [x]?  Just because we've got an idea of who the murder is targeting, that makes it somehow a worse offense?
2. Human courts of justice trying to accurately measure the hate someone has.  I know, our earthly courts try and judge based on our best guesses at motive.  We do it poorly.

Where hate crime legislation exists and is used in prosecutions, it is very difficult to prove a hate enhancement -- and rightly so -- but when a terrorist enters a synagogue yelling Allah hu aqbar shooting as many Jews as  possible, there is little difficulty in understanding the nature of the act and that it involves hatred toward the Jews.  That is why the ADL supports this legislation, and anti-Jewish attacks are now way up in this country.  We need to make it far costlier, and to put away such people for longer periods.  There is no guess-work involved. Only hard evidence is likely to convince a jury.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

My problem with hate crimes laws is that they can go far beyond what is appropriate.  This is happening a lot in Europe where people are having to pay fines simply for posting what is considered "hate" on their social media.  If a transgender woman walks into a womens bathroom, and some women object, will that be considered a hate crime?  Maybe not today but who knows tomorrow.  Hate crimes must be limited in scope and only in association with another crime like assault.  Simply voicing opinion regardless of what the opinion is should never be associated with a hate crime by itself.

The hate speech laws are where I part ways sharply with this common European model (though it is important to note European nations are not uniform in their approaches). They do not have a First Amendment and there is no broad free speech protection. While I can see the advantages of their approach and why they choose to go that way I do not agree with it. It seems to me to be too dangerous.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So they're darned if they do, and darned if they don't?

Here use this handy guide:

If the church is silent they are complicit with the wrong choice possibly happening.

If they speak out and person thinks they are wrong they are improperly interfering and violating the Church and State boundary.

If they speak out and person thinks they are right then it is sad that the church had to encourage members who should have known that already.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Nehor, are you having an identity crisis?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nehor, are you having an identity crisis?

No, just changed out my profile pic. Have used that pic of Lord Mannoroth for a long time. Decided a pic of one of my pets would be a nice change.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I like the little thing.  Can't really tell what it is though.  Feel I should be able to.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I like the little thing.  Can't really tell what it is though.  Feel I should be able to.

It is a sugar glider.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a sugar glider.

I’ve always wanted one of those!

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’ve always wanted one of those!

I have two brothers. They can be a bit of work but they are adorable and very entertaining.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ah yes, you referred to him a bit ago.  I think that is why my brain was telling me I was an idiot for not knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry but I can't see how the church is so awesome for doing this, where it should have been a given! 

I agree. Why would a church feel the need to involve itself in a mater of politics.  I wish there was a better separation of church and state in Utah.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I agree. Why would a church feel the need to involve itself in a mater of politics.  I wish there was a better separation of church and state in Utah.

mlk-day-graphic-crop-for-blog.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, 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? 

The odds of him being charged for a hate crime are pretty good, in your scenario, based on his comments on the race of the victim.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't studied this issue in the past, but I think I have a grip on it now, somewhat. In my mind, I believe the church at one time worried that the guantlet would come down on them if the hate crimes bill passed, thinking that even feelings could be considered that way. And in light of the November 2015 policy on gays, I see why they worried that they could be indicted for a hate crime. But maybe now that the bill is making clear it's not about feelings etc. but actual criminal behaviour according to the law that it will then come under a hate crime. "We must find ways to show respect for others whose beliefs, values, and behaviors differ from our own, while never being forced to deny or abandon our own beliefs, values, and behaviors in the process. Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves." Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/utah/articles/2019-01-24/mormon-church-says-its-not-opposed-to-hate-crime-bill

Republican Utah state Sen. Daniel Thatcher is sponsoring hate crimes legislation again this year, and said the church's statement makes a "night and day" difference in the chances it will get a hearing for the first time since 2016.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It rarely requires a trained psychiatrist to determine whether it was a crime of passion or a crime of hate. Serial killers do generally get much more severe sentences then murders in a crime of passion.

In terms of the victim, at the core does it make a difference? I don't see any. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The hate speech laws are where I part ways sharply with this common European model (though it is important to note European nations are not uniform in their approaches). They do not have a First Amendment and there is no broad free speech protection. While I can see the advantages of their approach and why they choose to go that way I do not agree with it. It seems to me to be too dangerous.

I think I have changed my mind, if we stop short of prohibiting hate speech. Thanks. I am okay with hate crimes legislation for the reasons you gave above. However, I don't think there should be any discrimination. For instance, any individual who attacks a stranger because they belong to a group that is hated by them, should be prosecutable. Someone referenced that Republican Senator who was shot playing baseball. I want him protected too because It was nothing personal, and that makes it more harmful to the common good, which is for us to not be in fear because of our race, religion, or politics. I have fears that if I don't become a target, my children or grandchildren might be someday because of their race, religion, or politics.  

This last post of yours fixed my lingering concerns.

3DOP   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...