Utah Faith Leaders and SB86

[pogi]

23 Utah faith leaders all signed a letter urging Utah law makers to pass a victim targeting bill, SB86.  The LDS Church did not sign the letter and has no comment on the bill.

Quote

SB86 would allow prosecutors to seek a one-step increase for offenders convicted of a misdemeanor crime against a person or their property based on a belief or perception of the victim's ancestry, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, national origin, race, religion or sexual orientation. A class A misdemeanor, for example, could become a third-degree felony at the time of sentencing.

In the letter, the faith leaders state:

Quote

The not-so-subtle message to all others of those same race, ethnicities and religions is simple: You don’t belong here, go somewhere else. That was the same message Mormons got from 19th century mobs in Missouri and Illinois: Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered because of their religion," according to the letter to which 23 faith leaders have signed on.

First, if this is true, some Mormons have some serious repenting to do!  It makes me really upset to hear this!  Having said that, I will withhold my opinions on this particular bill for now.

The Church said in 2016 that hate crime legislation might disrupt the religious liberty and LGBT compromise made the year before. Some people are upset that that comment might doom this measure.  

Here is a KSL article explaining the bill:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46244195&nid=148&title=utah-faith-leaders-support-victim-targeting-bill-cite-joseph-smith

What are your opinions on this bill? 

Should these groups have greater protections?  Or, should we just considered them regular Americans with regular American rights and protections? Or, should these message crimes not be seen as "ordinary crimes" because victims are singled out and suffer a greater injustice (according to the letter)?  In your opinion, would creating a more harsh punishment change anything, or should we simply better enforce the laws that are already in place?  

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by pogi

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

23 Utah faith leaders all signed a letter urging Utah law makers to pass a victim targeting bill, SB86.  The LDS Church did not sign the letter and has no comment on the bill.

In the letter, the faith leaders state:

First, if this is true, some Mormons have some serious repenting to do!  It makes me really upset to hear this!  Having said that, I will withhold my opinions on this particular bill for now.

The Church said in 2016 that hate crime legislation might disrupt the religious liberty and LGBT compromise made the year before. Some people are upset that that comment might doom this measure.  

Here is a KSL article explaining the bill:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46244195&nid=148&title=utah-faith-leaders-support-victim-targeting-bill-cite-joseph-smith

What are your opinions on this bill? 

Should these groups have greater protections?  Or, should we just considered them regular Americans with regular American rights and protections? Or, should these message crimes not be seen as "ordinary crimes" because victims are singled out and suffer a greater injustice (according to the letter)?  In your opinion, would creating a more harsh punishment change anything, or should we simply better enforce the laws that are already in place?  

 

I'm wary of creating special classes of victims, mostly because I don't see that these kinds of escalating punishments actually cut down on crime.

I don't understand your bolded statement.  Are you saying that Mormons need to repent because we didn't sign the letter?

[rongo]

I think crimes should be prosecuted based on existing law, and not given different status as "hate crimes." That is, if someone is harassed, assaulted, etc., then it should be prosecuted as harassment, assault, etc., and not as a "hate crime." I think when we pile on additional layers or classes or types of violations within the core violation, it is more a political wedge than anything else. 

When the Mormons were mobbed, while prejudice and hatred were at the heart of it, it was still assault, property damage, etc., and should have been prosecuted as such. I don't think crying "hate crimes" makes it any better. If someone beats a Mormon because he's a Mormon, then he should be prosecuted for assault, not a worse "hate crime" because of motive.

That's my view.

[Gray]

All sentencing takes intent into account. Should a terrorist be charged the same as a murderer? Hate crime is a form of terrorism (intent is to terrorize the community, not just harm the direct victim(s)), and should be met with additional punishment.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Gray

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand your bolded statement.  Are you saying that Mormons need to repent because we didn't sign the letter?

Thanks for the opportunity to clear this up.  No, I was not commenting on the bill or the letter itself.  I was remarking that it is sad commentary that in Utah of all places, some minority groups feel unwelcome by some in the dominant faith and culture.  Of any faith group, Mormons should be the example of this.  I suspect that most are, but there are always idiots like "Wife With A Purpose".  

I am simply echoing President Gordon B. Hinckley's message:

Quote

No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race [religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. I might add] can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.  Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ.

Repent ye, repent ye!!!

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

All sentencing takes intent into account. 

If that's true, then it seems like there really isn't any need for additional laws.  

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the opportunity to clear this up.  No, I was not commenting on the bill or the letter itself.  I was remarking that it is sad commentary that in Utah of all places, some minority groups feel unwelcome by some in the dominant faith and culture.  Of any faith group, Mormons should be the example of this.  I suspect that most are, but there are always idiots like "Wife With A Purpose".  

I am simply echoing President Gordon B. Hinckley's message:

Repent ye, repent ye!!!

I havne't read the letter yet and didn't realize that they had written it because Mormons were making nonMormons feel unwanted.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think crimes should be prosecuted based on existing law, and not given different status as "hate crimes." That is, if someone is harassed, assaulted, etc., then it should be prosecuted as harassment, assault, etc., and not as a "hate crime." I think when we pile on additional layers or classes or types of violations within the core violation, it is more a political wedge than anything else. 

 

That's what these kinds of things feel like to me.  It seems like it's more a way to editorialize using the law than actually stopping people from breaking it.  I remember reading an article a few years ago about all the different laws that people create after a child is killed (Kristen's law, Megan's Law, etc.) and how they don't really help much.  

Emotionally charged laws are problematic from my perspective.

I think that this article helps explain why-

Criminal justice law has developed to the extent that almost every heinous crime is already illegal. And these new laws, which supposedly cover a gap in the penal code, more often than not address a specific situation as if it is part of a wider epidemic. Ted Frank, the founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness, put it well in his opinionpiece, writing that "a crime or event that warrants a new law is by definition a rare occasion." And citizens, in his opinion, should take action to limit these "apostrophe laws."

But that isn't to say that nothing has been done to solve the problem. In South Carolina, for example, the state Senate passed a law in early 2017 to ban the use of individual and animal names in bill titles. According to the state's Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, the law was passed because a name on a bill "adds an emotional aspect of the bill that really is a distraction from the merits."

These examples are only a small sample of the destructive emotion-laden legislation in the books across the country. And while most are written with good intentions, their unintended consequences have evidently created more problems than they solve. To make room for knee-jerk emotional appeal, they have sacrificed substance and created legislation that is duplicative, draconian, wasteful ?? or all three.

Here's another article-

Bills named after sympathetic victims are the worst form of knee-jerk lawmaking, but it's a surefire political vote-getting device. A politician holds a press conference standing next to the victim's family; this gets the bill on the news. Because of terse media coverage, voters think said law will actually do something for a victim or potential future victims, no matter what the real legal changes are.

Politicians cater to the voters’ demands, pass the law, and proudly announce they have done something, regardless of whether it was good policy.

As law professor Ilya Somin notes, the public sees a high-profile case and has a "something must be done" reaction. Politicians cater to the voters' demands, pass the law and proudly announce they have done something, regardless of whether it was good policy or even relevant.

I know this letter is not talking about creating laws in the name of victims but I think the sentiment behind name laws and the legal change presented in the letter are very similar.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If that's true, then it seems like there really isn't any need for additional laws.  

No need for anti-terrorism laws either?

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I havne't read the letter yet and didn't realize that they had written it because Mormons were making nonMormons feel unwanted.

The letter was not written because of something that Mormons have done specifically.  It is a more general letter.  I am just speaking to the irony of anyone feeling not welcome in Utah of all places, because of their religion, etc.  It is my assumption that some Mormons are involved, we being the dominant presence. 

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

No need for anti-terrorism laws either?

Aren't terrorists engaged in things already covered by existing law (murder, property destruction, etc.)? And other terrorism specific things, such as conspiracy, etc. aren't hate crimes, regardless of the motive for the terrorism. 

Give some examples of anti-terrorism laws not covered by my above very general overview, and we can see how they compare to hate crimes legislation. I don't think hate crimes legislation is necessary, given existing laws against the harmful acts.

[The Nehor]

I have no problem with the Law. Hate crimes are more dangerous to public order and are more prone to recidivism. If I assault someone who tries to steal my girlfriend I am less of a threat to the public than if I am assaulting someone who is black or white or Catholic or gay because that is what they are. I am attempting (consciously or not) to create an atmosphere of fear for the targeted group. The sentence should be harsher. The second person is undermining society much more than the former and is (generally speaking) more evil.

Note that this is not a difference in what is criminal but a difference in possible grade of punishment.

Edited January 24, 2018 by The Nehor

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

Aren't terrorists engaged in things already covered by existing law (murder, property destruction, etc.)? And other terrorism specific things, such as conspiracy, etc. aren't hate crimes, regardless of the motive for the terrorism. 

 

Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. The point  of hate crimes is to terrorize certain communities based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Terrorism itself is usually more political or nationalist in focus, but otherwise it's essentially the same thing.
 

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

Give some examples of anti-terrorism laws not covered by my above very general overview, and we can see how they compare to hate crimes legislation. I don't think hate crimes legislation is necessary, given existing laws against the harmful acts.

Information about federal anti-terrorism laws:

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2331.html

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2339a.html

 

 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. The point  of hate crimes is to terrorize certain communities based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Terrorism itself is usually more political or nationalist in focus, but otherwise it's essentially the same thing.

I like how this CNN article put it:

Quote

At the end of the day, does it really matter if something is or isn't labeled a hate crime or an act of terror? The pain and anguish felt by the survivors of such violence and the victims' families is just as unbearable ... no matter what you call it.

Also, hate crimes are only a form of terrorism if it fits 3 characteristics: 1) it has to take place in the USA, 2) it has to be dangerous to human life, and 3) it is intended to intimidate civilians or affect government policy by "mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping" (see CNN article).

The question is this, does a more harsh penal code prevent further crime?  If not, what is the point?  The argument for the Bill is "to keep all Utahns safer".  My question is how is this Bill going to accomplish that?  The Bill's sponsor Sen. Thatcher says, " "I'm interested in stopping people who are using criminal actions to threaten and intimidate entire communities".  Again, how is this bill going to prevent hate crimes?  It wont.  

The Bill is not going to make Utah safer.  Instead of leading to more equality, it makes minority groups who simply want to be treated and viewed as regular Americans, something other than regular Americans.  The only thing this Bill will accomplish is to enforce that blacks, Jews, gays, etc. are different.  Kind of ironic, no?

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by pogi

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I like how this CNN article put it:

Also, hate crimes are only a form of terrorism if it fits 3 characteristics: 1) it has to take place in the USA, 2) it has to be dangerous to human life, and 3) it is intended to intimidate civilians or affect government policy by "mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping" (see CNN article).

The question is this, does a more harsh penal code prevent further crime?  If not, what is the point?  The argument for the Bill is "to keep all Utahns safer".  My question is how is this Bill going to accomplish that?  The Bill's sponsor Sen. Thatcher says, " "I'm interested in stopping people who are using criminal actions to threaten and intimidate entire communities".  Again, how is this bill going to prevent hate crimes?  It wont.  

The Bill is not going to make Utah safer.  Instead of leading to more equality, it makes minority groups who simply want to be treated and viewed as regular Americans, something other than regular Americans.  The only thing this Bill will accomplish is to enforce that blacks, Jews, gays, etc. are different.  Kind of ironic, no?

 

 

 

So more harshly punishing Neo-Nazis who randomly attack Jews is going to make the Jews feel different and unequal and they would be the ones hurt by the bill? Really?

Edit: Our penal code does need work and many of our sentencing standards are too harsh. Mandatory minimums came about at the same time we started privatizing prisons and our incarceration shame should be a national scandal.

I am less concerned with hate crimes about recidivism and more about how long we can justly keep them off the streets so we can at least delay the recidivism.

Edited January 24, 2018 by The Nehor

[MiserereNobis]

A situation that I feel justifies harsher sentencing for hate crimes:

The KKK burning a cross on someone's yard is a different crime than a random person lighting your tree on fire.

 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

No need for anti-terrorism laws either?

Wasn't the behavior constituting the terrorist act already illegal before calling it terrorism and passing yet another law making it not just illegal, but really really illegal?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

No need for anti-terrorism laws either?

If something is already illegal, and the courts already take intent into consideration like you said, then what is the point of anti-terrorism laws?

Sincere question. 

[rongo]

40 minutes ago, Gray said:

The point  of hate crimes is to terrorize certain communities based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc. 

Who decided that?

I think the point of "hate crimes" is usually just to be hateful --- to do mean things to people haters don't like for bigoted reasons. Things which are illegal, anyway (vandalism, assault, threats, etc.). I don't think the conscious thought of "hate crimes" is usually to install an atmosphere of terror, although it sometimes can be (e.g.cross burning). 

Is "bullying" a "hate crime?" All bullying, or just when the victims are protected classes? And even then, in every case? Is all bullying between "dominant" classes against "protected" victims a hate crime, or can it sometimes simply be "regular" bullying" (the kinds that's been around forever)? When a "protected" class's home or car is vandalized, is it always a "hate crime," or is it possible that sometimes it's simply vandalism (that has always been around forever) and "hate" or "terror" isn't always a factor?

It is well-known that I am a Mormon. If a disgruntled student smashes my windows, does me being a sometimes hated minority denote that it was a hate crime? What if the student is black --- must it be because I am white? 

I think motives are so impossible to prove in these cases that it really comes down to segments of the public wanting to levy harsher penalties than people would otherwise get with identical crimes because of friction in the culture wars. I think it's much better to simply apply existing law equally to all parties, and put away the crystal ball or attempts to prove motive. 

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So more harshly punishing Neo-Nazis who randomly attack Jews is going to make the Jews feel different and unequal and they would be the ones hurt by the bill? Really?

If their goal is equality under the law...yes.

There is a great South Park clip in this link that you should all watch:

https://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/police-state/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-hate-crime/

Yes, even South Park writers get it right sometimes!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

23 Utah faith leaders all signed a letter urging Utah law makers to pass a victim targeting bill, SB86.  The LDS Church did not sign the letter and has no comment on the bill.

In the letter, the faith leaders state:

First, if this is true, some Mormons have some serious repenting to do!  It makes me really upset to hear this!  Having said that, I will withhold my opinions on this particular bill for now.

The Church said in 2016 that hate crime legislation might disrupt the religious liberty and LGBT compromise made the year before. Some people are upset that that comment might doom this measure.  

Here is a KSL article explaining the bill:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46244195&nid=148&title=utah-faith-leaders-support-victim-targeting-bill-cite-joseph-smith

What are your opinions on this bill? 

Should these groups have greater protections?  Or, should we just considered them regular Americans with regular American rights and protections? Or, should these message crimes not be seen as "ordinary crimes" because victims are singled out and suffer a greater injustice (according to the letter)?  In your opinion, would creating a more harsh punishment change anything, or should we simply better enforce the laws that are already in place?  

 

Dang

It is amazing the difference in perception.  I would probably be in favor of something like that in California to protect us FROM groups that hate US.

We had a lot of backlash from Prop 8 here.   Once again, Utah vs Calif.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I like how this CNN article put it:

Also, hate crimes are only a form of terrorism if it fits 3 characteristics: 1) it has to take place in the USA, 2) it has to be dangerous to human life, and 3) it is intended to intimidate civilians or affect government policy by "mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping" (see CNN article).

The question is this, does a more harsh penal code prevent further crime?  If not, what is the point?  The argument for the Bill is "to keep all Utahns safer".  My question is how is this Bill going to accomplish that?  The Bill's sponsor Sen. Thatcher says, " "I'm interested in stopping people who are using criminal actions to threaten and intimidate entire communities".  Again, how is this bill going to prevent hate crimes?  It wont.  

The Bill is not going to make Utah safer.  Instead of leading to more equality, it makes minority groups who simply want to be treated and viewed as regular Americans, something other than regular Americans.  The only thing this Bill will accomplish is to enforce that blacks, Jews, gays, etc. are different.  Kind of ironic, no?

 

I don't know. We give murderers harsher prison sentences than robbers. Does that prevent further crime?

Edited January 24, 2018 by Gray

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know. We give murderers harsher prison sentences than robbers. Does that prevent further crime?

That's because of the difference between murder and burglary. Not because why they murdered or stole was because they hated the victims. 

Should looting be a hate crime if black looters are targeting white and Asian stores?

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Wasn't the behavior constituting the terrorist act already illegal before calling it terrorism and passing yet another law making it not just illegal, but really really illegal?

Sure. But let the punishment fit the crime. Terrorism involves additional levels of maliciousness beyond murder.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If something is already illegal, and the courts already take intent into consideration like you said, then what is the point of anti-terrorism laws?

Sincere question. 

The crime (and resultant harm) is more severe, so the punishment should match.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Gray