Utah Faith Leaders and SB86

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Motive is regularly taken into account in prosecuting and sentencing. That's why we have first degree murder vs second degree murder. That's why there's a difference between murder and justifiable homicide.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

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?

But hate crime perpetrators are terrorizing communities. It goes beyond the people they directly hurt. If you target black people for murder, you're terrorizing that community, and in effect it's like a death threat issued to them.

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

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

But if the courts take intent into consideration then a more severe punishment would already be given to a more severe crime without giving them a special label, right?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

But hate crime perpetrators are terrorizing communities. It goes beyond the people they directly hurt. If you target black people for murder, you're terrorizing that community, and in effect it's like a death threat issued to them.

Should serial rape of a specific gender be considered a hate crime?  

Women are regularly terrorized by specific types of criminals and/or crimes.

 

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

My point is that the penalty should match the crime.  If the purpose of sentencing is simply to deter criminals, we could always resort to chopping their hands off.   Ideally restitution is preferred over retribution where possible (that is the libertarian in me).  Crime should not be penalized further because of motive.  To prosecute and punish for thoughts and beliefs (first amendment rights) is a bad, bad idea.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Should serial rape of a specific gender be considered a hate crime?  

Women are regularly terrorized by specific types of criminals and/or crimes.

 

Potentially, yes.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Motive is regularly taken into account in prosecuting and sentencing. That's why we have first degree murder vs second degree murder. That's why there's a difference between murder and justifiable homicide.

I'll quote bluebell:

"But if the courts take intent into consideration then a more severe punishment would already be given to a more severe crime without giving them a special label, right?"

This is already done, without the special "hate crime" labels. I don't think "hate crimers" have adequately articulated the benefits of hate crime legislation. They haven't to me, and it looks like they haven't well-enough in Utah.

[Gray]

Just now, pogi said:

My point is that the penalty should match the crime.  If the purpose of sentencing is simply to deter criminals, we could always resort to chopping their hands off.   Ideally restitution is preferred over retribution where possible (that is the libertarian in me).  Crime should not be penalized further because of motive. 

Hate crimes involve additional criminality. so harsher punishment matches a deeper crime.

 

Just now, pogi said:

 

To prosecute and punish for thoughts and beliefs (first amendment rights) is a bad, bad idea.

In that case, there couldn't be any distinction between 1st degree murder, manslaughter and self defense.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I'll quote bluebell:

"But if the courts take intent into consideration then a more severe punishment would already be given to a more severe crime without giving them a special label, right?"

This is already done, without the special "hate crime" labels. I don't think "hate crimers" have adequately articulated the benefits of hate crime legislation. They haven't to me, and it looks like they haven't well-enough in Utah.

No, we have special labels already - the crime charged with depends on the case against the person. Hate crime is another special label to distinguish a different kind of crime. The idea of hate crimes isn't a novel new way of looking at law enforcement. It's in line with established norms.

Some states don't seem to take them seriously, often due to some sympathy with the ideology of the perpetrators.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Gray

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, we have special labels already - the crime charged with depends on the case against the person. Hate crime is another special label to distinguish a different kind of crime.

So, if/when this doesn't pass in Utah, to what should we attribute this? Are Utahns racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.? Why aren't Utahns/Mormons on board and behind this, do you think? Why aren't the Brethren up in arms and whipping members up to support this?

Edited January 24, 2018 by rongo

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Hate crimes involve additional criminality. so harsher punishment matches a deeper crime.

What is the "additional" part?

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

In that case, there couldn't be any distinction between 1st degree murder, manslaughter and self defense.

No, there is a difference between intention and motivation.

[Amulek]

Call me crazy, but I think the government has more than enough ways to put people away as it is. 

[pogi]

I can't find this South Park clip by itself, so this will have to do...

Edited January 24, 2018 by pogi

[Bob Crockett]

I find hate crime legislation to be obnoxiously unconstitutional.  See the South Park episode.  Only politically correct, favored and obnoxiously loud classes get the benefit of hate crime legislation, not despised minority groups, such as fetuses.  

Edited January 24, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

Hate crimes involve additional criminality. so harsher punishment matches a deeper crime.

Tautology

[strappinglad]

In the past the authorities would sentence a man to death for a particular crime. The sentence would be carried out and the criminal buried. Some time later the criminal would be exhumed and hung again because " that will show him". Recently we  see the case of the sports doctor who molested dozens of girls and women. He was sentenced to 40- 175 years behind bars. Even the judge said it was a death sentence. He actually got more time than most murderers. If this was called a hate crime, would it add to his sentence? Let's make it 200 years , that will show him !

[RevTestament]

6 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?  

Not in favor of this bill. Intent is already difficult to prove. How do you prove someone had intent to target a theft victim because of race? Is this going to open up to cases of trying to prove intent with statistics of black on white crime? Or how about black on black crime which are proportionately greater? How do you prove you are black enough to qualify as a victim of race? If a black man is stealing a bag from a black woman, and says 'give me that you dumb n<word>, does that make it a crime based on intent to take advantage of a weaker gender or even a racially motivated crime?

For the law to be trying to prove hate, I think will just render what should be a healing process into a more contentious one. Our society is already enough into identity politics without a law like this feeding the fires more. If a case is particularly heinous, I think judges already have the capability to throw the book at the perpetrator, and render the full penalty of the law rather than leniency. People need to get over victimizing themselves. Hate crimes will also invariably encroach on free speech. It's just not a place America should go - if Europe is any indication of how it will turn out.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

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!

I am not watching South Park.

The idea of some kind of ideal law that supersedes and creates complete equality is a beautiful but no one short of God could execute it and would look unfair to us because we do not see what God sees. Equality under the law? What does that mean? Does it mean that all crimes under the same statute should be punished equally? The pregnant female drug mule and the known drug kingpin should be sentenced equally if they are carry the same load of drugs? That a half-deranged parent who kidnaps their child from their spouse out of a feeling of desperation they will never see them again should be treated equally to someone kidnapping a child to be sold overseas?

There is a reason we give judges discretion in sentencing (unless you are a crazy person favoring insane mandatory minimums). Broadening or increasing the sentencing options when someone is a threat to society is a GOOD thing.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

But if the courts take intent into consideration then a more severe punishment would already be given to a more severe crime without giving them a special label, right?

Changing the category of the crime increases the sentencing options for the judge.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

So, if/when this doesn't pass in Utah, to what should we attribute this? Are Utahns racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.? Why aren't Utahns/Mormons on board and behind this, do you think? Why aren't the Brethren up in arms and whipping members up to support this?

Because it might interfere with laws they support that allow discrimination against gay people in certain cases. What is euphemistically called "religious freedom" laws.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

What is the "additional" part?

Terrorizing the community. Functions like making death threats.

 

6 hours ago, pogi said:

No, there is a difference between intention and motivation.

Intent and motivation are both a part of it.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

Tautology

Don't be soft on crime.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Gray said:

Potentially, yes.

Would it cut down serial rape do you think?

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Would it cut down serial rape do you think?

No idea. But it might be just.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

My point is that the penalty should match the crime.  If the purpose of sentencing is simply to deter criminals, we could always resort to chopping their hands off.   Ideally restitution is preferred over retribution where possible (that is the libertarian in me).  Crime should not be penalized further because of motive.  To prosecute and punish for thoughts and beliefs (first amendment rights) is a bad, bad idea.

Paul Butler, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former federal prosecutor agrees with you. In the quote below he's responding to a question in an interview one whether or not hate crime laws are really punishing thought crimes-

You know, as a civil libertarian, as a big fan of the First Amendment, I have to say it concerns me. So, if we think about the Rutgers bullying case, if Mr. Ravi had been convicted of intimidating the victim there because he was a nerd or because he was skinny, then he'd get five years in prison. Because he was convicted of intimidating him because he's gay or is perceived to be gay, he gets 10 years.

So it does seem like we're getting awfully close to punishing thought crimes. I think bigotry, including homophobia, is wrong, but I think, in a free society, you have the right to think what you want, no matter how wrong it is.