South Carolina Democrats frustrated over no hate crime law

ABC News ^ | May 2, 2023 | JEFFREY COLLINS Associated Press

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Democrats in the South Carolina Senate have turned debate about a bill to set guidelines for history curriculum on subjects like slavery and segregation into discussion about why the body can’t take a vote on a hate crimes bill.

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Democrats in the South Carolina Senate turned debate about a bill to set guidelines for history curriculum on subjects like slavery and segregation into discussion about why the body can't take a vote on a hate crimes bill.

South Carolina and Wyoming are the only states in the U.S. without a law allowing extra punishment for hate crimes — which a judge or jury determines were motivated by hate over someone's race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or physical or mental ability.

For the past three years, a hate crimes bill has made it through the South Carolina House and to the Senate floor, only to stop there. The outlook for the bill this year is grim. The Republican-dominated chamber has not held any debate or brought the proposal up for a vote despite the support of survivors of a racist attack that killed nine at a Charleston church, in addition to business leaders.....

“There are a number of people who think that not only is it feel-good legislation, it is bad legislation,” Massey said.

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Hate Crimes' Laws are unconstitutional IMHO. So you hate, just about all of us hate something. The crime is acting on it, to which there are already laws.

[escapefromboston]

Hate crime laws should not exist. If you commit a crime it shouldn’t matter what your feelings were.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Jurisprudence has expanded to include not only actions, but also thought and potential harm.

[Clutch Martin]

Pathological reasons for committing crimes or psychological reasons for committing crimes that are inexcusable is no excuse for procedural leniency either.

There is no last word in committing inexcusable acts upon others. If extenuating categories are lumped into law in order to strengthen the law, then the law is not being served correctly. Adding or compounding different caveats in order to strengthen sentencing is the wrong approach.

[Skwor]

Pure and simple, hate crimes are thought crimes and yes they are unconstitutional. We already have a process for addressing crimes of a more heinous nature. See below for basic sentencing guidelines in the USA:

The judge will consider additional sentencing factors, such as:
The nature of the crime and its circumstances
Whether the offender has any criminal history
Whether drug or alcohol addiction was a factor, in which case the defense will likely argue that treatment would be more appropriate than punishment
Whether the offender was the main offender or an accessory (someone who assists the main offender)
Whether the offender was under great personal stress or duress when he or she committed the crime
Whether anyone was injured or the crime was particularly likely to result in injury
Whether the offender was particularly cruel to a victim, or particularly destructive, vindictive, etc.
Whether the offender displayed remorse or regret

The people pushing hate crimes know this, a sensible person should be asking what is the real motive to the whole idea of a hate crime.

[Ikeon]

We should first outlaw the abuse of opiates and other drugs that make people useless bags of meat. Because manmade laws work!! /s.

[V_TWIN]

AKA another tool to get Whitey.

[Codeflier]

It’s punishing thought, and is the foundation for censorship. All hate crime laws should be eliminated. It’s also very subjective, which makes for a slippery slope.

[Sacajaweau]

In fact, hate, as a point of law, can not be defined.

Ex..I hate Broccoli...what it means is...I don't like the taste of broccoli...nothing to do with "so called" hate.

I hate my mother...my mother made me go to my room and that didn't make me happy....nothing to do with "so called" hate.

[FLT-bird]

Good! There should be no such thing as a “hate” crime.

There are 2 elements of a crime:

Actus Reus - the physical criminal act

Mens Rea - the guilty mind

Once you have both, the person is guilty. Period. Note, it does not say that the perp is more guilty if they committed the crime because of money.....or because they hate the religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation/national origin of the victim or if they committed the crime because the victim wore purple shoes and they really hate purple shoes.

That is all IRRELEVANT. To say that we’re going to punish more for certain naughty thoughts is injecting politics into it. Why should we punish more for the categories mentioned than because the perp hated for some other reason? They are already guilty. Punish them for committing the actual crime itself, not for thought crimes.

[FLT-bird]

Exactly. There is supposed to be equal justice under law but when certain categories are protected more than others....as evidenced by the fact that perps get punished more severely for certain motives rather than others, then justice is not equal for everybody.

“ie its bad if you commit the crime but if you do so for reasons that violate one of MY sacred cows, then we’re going to punish you extra special hard”.

[ronnie raygun]

Hate crime law that protects only people of color

[metmom]

Very well said.

[Altura Ct.]

‘Hate crime’ laws are BS.

[bigfootbob]

I remember hating the notion of hate laws, I am glad to know there are 2 states that understand the craziness of the aggravated enhancement. Even though in today’s world it’s lazy and convenient to declare something R-A-C-I-S-T, hate laws are just that.

[nagant]

Our legislators are increasing prison times for defendants based on woke-inspired motive. Meanwhile they are taking the death penalty, the ultimate increased punishment, off the table.

Rape can draw a life sentence, but rape and murder only result in the same sentence. What keeps a rapist from murdering his only witness?

[bk1000]

The biggest problem is that it seems only Whites can be charged with “hate crimes”. It also looks like a great many “hate crimes” are hoaxes perpetrated by “persons of color”

[Ancesthntr]

I absolutely despise South Carolina Democrats. They are responsible for crossing over in 2008 to vote for John McCain, thereby destroying Fred Thompson’s bid for the presidency. Thompson would have, in my opinion, been able to defeat Obama, whereas McCain clearly had no interest in doing so. Further, in 2020 South Carolina turned things around and made it possible for Joe Biden to win the nomination… and just look at where we are now.

I really cannot stand South Carolina Democrats.

[oldtech]

So much guesswork might be present in determining a hate crime, so that might be enough to not assess whether or not something is determined to be a hate crime. Justice is supposed to be blind.