First test for the Hate Crimes Bill?

Hate crime legislation a load of horse crap.............

There are enough legal avenues to take without adding inane extras.
 
Courts already have some discretion over punishment. There is a maximum punishment for vandalism, and it shouldn't be increased markedly just because of the vandal's thoughts. What if someone hates Jews but sprays "Mike was here"? Hate crime legislation is punishing people for having bad thoughts, which is a scary concept.

What they think is not my concern. The COTUS allows them to think anything they choose. Were someone to paint a swastika on my house I would take that as a threat. The swastika has a very specific meaning and intent. IMO it is used as a threat. Same for a noose. Someone who tags my house with a happy face does not, IMO have the same intent. I do not believe this is the same as punishing someone for having bad thoughts. They are being punished for threatening someone. I do not believe that a weapon or physical actions need to take place for it to be considered a threat. Painting a swastika on my house (being a jew) is meant as a threat of violence IMO.

Why someone was murdered makes a huge difference. Was the person murdered for his money? (capital murder) Was the murder negligent? (voluntary manslaugher) Was the murder purely accidental? (involuntary manslaughter) Was the murder planned in advance for a particular person or was it a temper trantrum gone terribly wrong? (first degree vs. second degree)

I don't understand how you can say that why someone was murdered makes no difference, but why someone vandalized a house makes a huge difference. That's the reverse of the saying "let the punishment fit the crime".

Tech pretty much summed up what I was going to say. The only thing I would add is that murder (intent to kill) is the extreme of the crime. Whether someone intended to kill someone out of racial hatred, anger or paid to kill make little difference in that the person is dead, you intended to kill them and you should never see he light of day. Whether someone gets a 150 yr term or you add on 50 yrs for hate crime to give someone 200 yrs, make little difference since a life span is less than the sentence anyway (parole not with standing).
 
Hate crime, hate speach. Its all Orwellian double speak.
Are you any less dead if someone clubs you over the head to steal your bling as opposed to a skin head clubbing you over the head because you wear a yarmulke? Why not enforce the current laws or make them tougher?
This reminds me of a scene from Spinal Tap. When the rocker is trying to explain that their amplifiere goes to 11. When Rob Reiner asked him why not make 10 louder, the rocker gave him a blank stare and said: "this one goes to 11" :lol:
The swastika was a nice touch. Plays on the emotions. Of course anyone can make claims on this forum without having to divulge any proof.

Hate speech is protected by the COTUS and I made no suggestion that it should be changed. I also specifically said that murder is not something that I think hate should be related to because the person is dead regardless.

The fact that you do not like my example because of the 'emotion' is exactly my intent. That is also the intent of the criminal. To make a specific type of threat against a specific person is emotional. As a jew, a swastika means something very different to me. As a black person, a noose would mean something very different to me. The person committing the crime knows this and they do it with a very specific intent. I do not believe a person should get the same punishment for paining a happy face on my garage door as they would for painting a swastika. IMO, the crimes are not equal. Just as a person with a gram of coke should not be punished the same as a person who is busted with a kilo. Both are guilty of possession, but one has intent to sell (or a really bad habit and buys in bulk for personal use). Different crimes, different times.
 
Hate speech is protected by the COTUS and I made no suggestion that it should be changed. I also specifically said that murder is not something that I think hate should be related to because the person is dead regardless.

The fact that you do not like my example because of the 'emotion' is exactly my intent. That is also the intent of the criminal. To make a specific type of threat against a specific person is emotional. As a jew, a swastika means something very different to me. As a black person, a noose would mean something very different to me. The person committing the crime knows this and they do it with a very specific intent. I do not believe a person should get the same punishment for paining a happy face on my garage door as they would for painting a swastika. IMO, the crimes are not equal. Just as a person with a gram of coke should not be punished the same as a person who is busted with a kilo. Both are guilty of possession, but one has intent to sell (or a really bad habit and buys in bulk for personal use). Different crimes, different times.

Criminal law is not about making the victim feel better. It is there to punish the commission of a crime.

In Texas a criminal case is named "The people of the state of Texas versus Garfield1966" if you have committed a crime in Texas. It's not "victim vs perpetrator" because the crime is committed against the people, and the people (via the prosecutor) take you to court. Obviously the victim plays a part but it's really the state doing this.

How you feel would be more relevant in a civil case such as "Garfield1966 versus KKK member".

If it's all about the victim and not the act itself, then why is murder punished at all? The victim's dead anyway, so just let the murderer out as long as he promises not to do it again.
 
Criminal law is not about making the victim feel better. It is there to punish the commission of a crime.

In Texas a criminal case is named "The people of the state of Texas versus Garfield1966" if you have committed a crime in Texas. It's not "victim vs perpetrator" because the crime is committed against the people, and the people (via the prosecutor) take you to court. Obviously the victim plays a part but it's really the state doing this.
All criminal cases are prosecuted that way.

Some (most) states allow victims to make statements during the penalty phase, but victims have limited rights in criminal cases.

More here if you are interested.
 
JS,

That's a good point but do you believe a person who tags a house with a happy face should receive the same penalty as a KKK who hangs a noose (or tags a house with the 'N' word)on a black families home? Should a person with 1g of coke be given the same penalty as a a person with a kilo? The punishment needs to fit the crime and in my opinion the people I just mentioned should not receive the same punishments.
 
JS,

That's a good point but do you believe a person who tags a house with a happy face should receive the same penalty as a KKK who hangs a noose (or tags a house with the 'N' word)on a black families home?

no

Should a person with 1g of coke be given the same penalty as a a person with a kilo?

well, yes, in that the punishment should be nothing (I don't think banning recreational drugs makes any sense), but in our nanny state, no, they don't get the same punishment

The punishment needs to fit the crime and in my opinion the people I just mentioned should not receive the same punishments.

How does that justify hate crime legislation? Current law provides varying punishments already. Hate crime legislation is nothing but feel-good-ism.
 
Back on topic...........it seems hate crimes are are going to be a one-way street !

If someone paints honky, white cracker or gringo on my garage, is that going to be considered a hate crime ?.............highly unlikely ! :down:
 
no



well, yes, in that the punishment should be nothing (I don't think banning recreational drugs makes any sense), but in our nanny state, no, they don't get the same punishment



How does that justify hate crime legislation? Current law provides varying punishments already. Hate crime legislation is nothing but feel-good-ism.


I do not think that drugs should be illegal either but I was just using that as an alternative example.

With out the 'hate crme' how does one differentiate between the happy face and the swastika? With out the difference of intent, they are both graffiti and I do not think that is the case.
 
What they think is not my concern. The COTUS allows them to think anything they choose. Were someone to paint a swastika on my house I would take that as a threat. The swastika has a very specific meaning and intent. IMO it is used as a threat. Same for a noose. Someone who tags my house with a happy face does not, IMO have the same intent. I do not believe this is the same as punishing someone for having bad thoughts. They are being punished for threatening someone. I do not believe that a weapon or physical actions need to take place for it to be considered a threat. Painting a swastika on my house (being a jew) is meant as a threat of violence IMO.



Tech pretty much summed up what I was going to say. The only thing I would add is that murder (intent to kill) is the extreme of the crime. Whether someone intended to kill someone out of racial hatred, anger or paid to kill make little difference in that the person is dead, you intended to kill them and you should never see he light of day. Whether someone gets a 150 yr term or you add on 50 yrs for hate crime to give someone 200 yrs, make little difference since a life span is less than the sentence anyway (parole not with standing).
So, by reading some opines in this thread, because of the thoughts or actions of "hate", looks like we should not have closed GITMO :shock:

Just as the swastika of 60 years ago and up till now represents "hate" to some people, seems the Amercan flag and anything from Western culture will be swelling our prisons to the rim with Muslim Extremists hell bent on destroying us..........because they "hate" anything "Western" <_<

View attachment 8505
 
So, by reading some opines in this thread, because of the thoughts or actions of "hate", looks like we should not have closed GITMO :shock:

Just as the swastika of 60 years ago and up till now represents "hate" to some people, seems the Amercan flag and anything from Western culture will be swelling our prisons to the rim with Muslim Extremists hell bent on destroying us..........because they "hate" anything "Western" <_<

View attachment 8505


I do not understand what you are trying to say.
 
Back
Top