bluebell Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, that's evidence for a hate crime. But racial slurs alone don't have a criminal punishment attached, unless combined with something else True. Racial slurs on their own won't get you in trouble. Racial slurs while hitting someone, for example, will get you 5 more years in prison than a person that commits the exact same crime on the exact same victim but without the slurs. So essentially, hating someone enough to hit them is one crime. Hating someone enough to hit them while using slurs is two crimes. When looked at from that perspective, I can understand why some people interpret that as charging someone for hate speech, which shouldn't really be legal because hate speech is technically protected by the constitution.
Amulek Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 11 minutes ago, Gray said: Not playing games. Okay, since race is protected, who exactly is being left out of hate crime law protection? Are there carpenters out there without any ethnicity? Fat ones or skinny ones? 1
ttribe Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: True. Racial slurs on their own won't get you in trouble. Racial slurs while hitting someone, for example, will get you 5 more years in prison than a person that commits the exact same crime on the exact same victim but without the slurs. So essentially, hating someone enough to hit them is one crime. Hating someone enough to hit them while using slurs is two crimes. When looked at from that perspective, I can understand why some people interpret that as charging someone for hate speech, which shouldn't really be legal because hate speech is technically protected by the constitution. I don't believe it's actually two crimes; I believe it's considered an aggravating factor and can be the basis for stronger sentencing. Such aggravating factors are considered in most criminal cases. For example, I was just an expert witness for the state in a fraud case and the jury found a number of aggravating factors that were then given consideration by the judge in sentencing the defendant. 3
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Gray said: Not playing games. Okay, since race is protected, who exactly is being left out of hate crime law protection? Are there carpenters out there without any ethnicity? I think you are missing the point of the distinction of classes in prosecution. If race covered all classes, why would they include religion, sexual orientation, etc.? I can’t be guilt of a hate crime for hating, beating up, or killing cops simply because they have a race. That is obviously an unrelated class. What about those without a vocation (homeless), they are often targets of violent hate on YouTube, yet they can’t be charged with hate crimes unless the motivation was race rather then homelessness. Edited January 26, 2018 by pogi
bluebell Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: I don't believe it's actually two crimes; I believe it's considered an aggravating factor and can be the basis for stronger sentencing. Such aggravating factors are considered in most criminal cases. For example, I was just an expert witness for the state in a fraud case and the jury found a number of aggravating factors that were then given consideration by the judge in sentencing the defendant. Maybe it would be more accurate to use the word 'charges' instead of 'crimes'.
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 12 minutes ago, pogi said: I think you are missing the point of the distinction of classes in prosecution. If race covered all classes, why would they include religion, sexual orientation, etc.? I can’t be guilt of a hate crime for hating, beating up, or killing cops because they are of any race. What about those without a vocation (homeless), they are often targets of violent hate on YouTube, yet they can’t be charged with hate crimes unless the motivation was race rather then homelessness. Okay, I think, that's a fair point. I think that's an argument for looking at expanding hate crime laws to include other areas where victims are likely to be targeted based on some other category. Clowns? No, that's going too far.
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 6 minutes ago, Gray said: Okay, I think, that's a fair point. I think that's an argument for looking at expanding hate crime laws to include other areas where victims are likely to be targeted based on some other category. Clowns? No, that's going too far. That's the point I made earlier...where do you draw the line? Unless you include every class possible, then inequality will be legislated. I, for one, am not in favor of expanding the powers of the government beyond their intended scope.
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 30 minutes ago, pogi said: That's the point I made earlier...where do you draw the line? Unless you include every class possible, then inequality will be legislated. I, for one, am not in favor of expanding the powers of the government beyond their intended scope. You simply follow what's happening on the streets. Who is being systematically victimized based on identity? What communities are being terrorized by something equivalent to the KKK? I can't think of any actually not covered by existing hate crime law categories, but there may be some. Hate crime laws don't expand powers of government beyond what's already going on in law enforcement.
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Hate crime laws don't expand powers of government beyond what's already going on in law enforcement. Yes they do. They expand their power to prosecute our thoughts, words, beliefs as aggravating factors to the actual action. 1
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 20 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes they do. They expand their power to prosecute our thoughts, words, beliefs as aggravating factors to the actual action. As mentioned previously, that's already a factor in criminal law
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 48 minutes ago, Gray said: As mentioned previously, that's already a factor in criminal law And as I mentioned previously, this would be an "expansion". I am against any "expansion" of what I already view as a violation of the first amendment.
USU78 Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 3 hours ago, Gray said: Sounds like a fancy argument for lettin' criminals off easy. Hardly. It is, rather, a recognition that a whole lot of smart people over a very long time, following Aristotelean principles, developed a legal system that dwarfs the law by mob mentality, which has been for sixty odd years the federal judiciary's and the federal congress's erosion of our angloamerican legal heritage.
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, USU78 said: Hardly. It is, rather, a recognition that a whole lot of smart people over a very long time, following Aristotelean principles, developed a legal system that dwarfs the law by mob mentality, which has been for sixty odd years the federal judiciary's and the federal congress's erosion of our angloamerican legal heritage. So are you in favor or 'posed to lettin' criminals off easy?
Amulek Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: You simply follow what's happening on the streets. Who is being systematically victimized based on identity? That seems like a rather post hoc kind of way for a legal system to work. Well, when they start targeting fat people, then we'll make it a hate crime to target people based on their weight. And when they start targeting people based on political affiliation then we'll make it a hate crime to target people based on their political affiliation. Oh, and when they start targeting people based on...you get the idea. That's why hate crimes are just a bunch of feel-good laws. They don't really do anything except give politicians and prosecutors the chance to stand up to the people who are voting to keep them in office and say, 'Look! We did something.' And then hope you don't pay attention when pretty much nothing changes after that. 1
USU78 Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Gray said: So are you in favor or 'posed to lettin' criminals off easy? Just stop it.
Gray Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 23 minutes ago, Amulek said: That seems like a rather post hoc kind of way for a legal system to work. That's how it should work. There were no laws on the books about computer hacking in the 1940s. It's reactive - it has to be.
pogi Posted January 26, 2018 Author Posted January 26, 2018 11 minutes ago, Gray said: That's how it should work. There were no laws on the books about computer hacking in the 1940s. It's reactive - it has to be. Hate has been around for much longer then the 1940's and is protected by the constitution. That is a slippery slope to punish someone for the hate associated with a crime. Hate is not illegal...was not, rather. 1
RevTestament Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 6 hours ago, bluebell said: As far as the law is concerned, it doesn't matter what what the Muslim says. Killing someone because of their religion is a hate crime in most states. Muslims generally don't kill others because of their religion. Here is a typical scenario. European Christian draws a cartoon of Muhammed. Muslim is offended by cartoon and decides to defend the honor of Muhammed and Allah, which to him means killing the artist - whoever it is. In fact the artist doesn't even have to be Christian. So the Muslim harbors no particular ill will to any particular religion. He believes he is just doing his duty as a Muslim.
bluebell Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Muslims generally don't kill others because of their religion. Here is a typical scenario. European Christian draws a cartoon of Muhammed. Muslim is offended by cartoon and decides to defend the honor of Muhammed and Allah, which to him means killing the artist - whoever it is. In fact the artist doesn't even have to be Christian. So the Muslim harbors no particular ill will to any particular religion. He believes he is just doing his duty as a Muslim. The laws seem pretty straightforward, in the U.S., if someone targets a specific race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. for harm or violence, then that person can be charged with a hate crime. It doesn't matter whether the person believes they were following his duty or whatever. Obviously if a person wasn't targeting a specific race, religion, or sexual orientation then that person didn't commit a hate crime.
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 5 hours ago, Gray said: Okay, I think, that's a fair point. I think that's an argument for looking at expanding hate crime laws to include other areas where victims are likely to be targeted based on some other category. Clowns? No, that's going too far. Clowns and mimes do not deserve rights and should forfeit them all on becoming such an abomination. 2
RevTestament Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: The laws seem pretty straightforward, in the U.S., if someone targets a specific race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. for harm or violence, then that person can be charged with a hate crime. It doesn't matter whether the person believes they were following his duty or whatever. Obviously if a person wasn't targeting a specific race, religion, or sexual orientation then that person didn't commit a hate crime. Funny how that went from being a hate crime to not a hate crime... which is my point.
california boy Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 Just so you know what kind of numbers we are dealing with. Probably won't make much difference to changing any minds. But here it is anyway. Anti-LGBTQ Violence Claimed One Life For Every Week In 2017 1
Gray Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 16 hours ago, pogi said: Hate has been around for much longer then the 1940's and is protected by the constitution. That is a slippery slope to punish someone for the hate associated with a crime. Hate is not illegal...was not, rather. Terrorism is illegal, and hate crime is in the region of terrorism. Some people sympathize with the ideology of those who commit hate crimes though, which I believe is where a lot of the political push back comes from. Intent to kill someone is also not illegal. Only when you attempt or succeed in doing it does intent come into play in criminal law.
pogi Posted January 27, 2018 Author Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: Terrorism is illegal, and hate crime is in the region of terrorism. Canada and Chile are in the same region too (the Americas) Hate crime is very, very different from terrorism. Hate shouldn't be a crime, ever. 1 hour ago, Gray said: Some people sympathize with the ideology of those who commit hate crimes though, which I believe is where a lot of the political push back comes from. I would guess that is true of the vast minority. Either way, it doesn't change how I feel. 1 hour ago, Gray said: Intent to kill someone is also not illegal. Only when you attempt or succeed in doing it does intent come into play in criminal law. Therefore we should allow criminal prosecution of all thoughts, feelings, and beliefs? Edited January 27, 2018 by pogi 1
Gray Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, pogi said: Canada and Chile are in the same region too (the Americas) Hate crime is very, very different from terrorism. Hate shouldn't be a crime, ever. It's almost the same thing. Only difference is size of group targeted. Quote I would guess that is true of the vast minority. Either way, it doesn't change how I feel. Therefore we should allow criminal prosecution of all thoughts, feelings, and beliefs? Hate crime laws do not criminalize thoughts, feelings, or beliefs. Not even for libertarians, which is a bit of a shame. Edited January 27, 2018 by Gray
Recommended Posts