Posted on 02/15/2006 2:14:08 AM PST by Arnold Zephel
What they fail to acknowledge is the that the definition of "minority" is very subjective. Who decides which groups are considered "minorities"?
Most importantly, why are "minorities" more valuable than "non-minorities"?
In this country and throughout the world Baptists are a minority. Everywhere you go there are more non-Baptists than there are Baptists.
Your lefty friend sounds pretty dumb, and in fact he's wrong.
But there *is* such a thing as a hate crime, and it *is* more significant than other types. Not flaming massively send-in-the-Guard more, but more.
A hate crime is not only an action against an individual but against a group of people (it does not have to be a minority.) It has as its purpose not only the actual crime part but a chilling or threatening effect against a lot of people. It's that public threat which adds significance.
There aren't special classes of victims, no. But that's a red herring. There are special classes of perpetrators.
welcome to FR.........
How could America subject itself to this crap? (What's next, "Benny Hill"?)
All violent crimes have a chilling or threatening effect against a lot of people.
Welcome to FR.
Hope you enjoy your stay.
I don't know, I am beginning to think that Islam is a hate crime.
Sounds kind of catchy, no?
Sorry. Load of crap. What you are affirming is that someone should receive extra punishment for their thoughts. Or what other people believe are the perps thoughts. And that's crap.
You didn't have any profanity -- try again.....
> All crimes are hate crimes.
Any cop will tell you that's baloney. A convenience store doesn't get robbed because the perp hates the store owner. He just wants the money.
> What a "Hate Crime" says is that some people are better than others and thus a crime against them is a worse that a crime against me or my family.
No, again you have been misled by the framing. A black guy can commit a hate crime against a white guy just as easily as the reverse. No hate crime statute anywhere says otherwise. The fact that a group of people is under attack -- no matter what the group -- is the issue.
> What you are affirming is that someone should receive extra punishment for their thoughts. Or what other people believe are the perps thoughts. And that's crap.
We can dispose of the offhand "what other people believe are the perps thoughts" quickly: If I were to wave a baseball bat in your face and scream "You faggot you deserve to die", you don't exactly have to guess what I'm thinking. 'Kay? If the statement about the motivation is not made as part of the crime, though, there's no chilling effect, hence it's not a hate crime.
As for punishing their thoughts, again no, same reasoning. They can commit the same crime with the same thoughts in their head and it can *not* be a hate crime if they leave out the threats to the rest of the threatened class.
Your just claiming that motive matters. And that is not a concept to be immediately dismissed. Motive has ALWAYS mattered in criminal cases, both as to the crime charged and the sentence imposed.
If I cause the death of someone, my motive for doing so can be the difference between a murder-1 death penalty, and a negligent homocide probation.
But "hate crime" legislation as enacted is not simply determining a "motive" in the sense of whether you intended harm. It is instead imputing a motive based on the minority status of the victim, and judging motive not based on intention, but purpose.
In my previous example, while "motive" meaning "what did you intend" made the difference, "motive" meaning WHY you did it made no difference in itself. If I were to kill someone because I wanted their money, it wouldn't be any different than if I were to kill someone because they wouldn't go on a date with me.
If your goal is to prevent intimidation, you should pass a law making "intimidation" a crime, separately chargeable. Then if someone commits a murder or arson, and you can prove the purpose was to deprive OTHER people of their rights through intimidation, you could get a separate conviction, rather than simply making the SAME act count as different crimes simply because of the minority status of the victim.
I don't endorse "intimidation" laws either, but at least they would be honest (might be unconstitutional, but would be honest).
You CANNOT punish someone for what they think whether it's verbalised or not. What you are also pushing is that some victims have special status. Bunk. A victim is a victim.
Your leftist bilge is flawed thinking.
If people are TRULY equal, there are NO "special" classes of people. All are equal under the law. No one should have more protection than another.
> You CANNOT punish someone for what they think whether it's verbalised or not.
Agreed. As stated above, hate crimes do not. They punish actions.
> If people are TRULY equal, there are NO "special" classes of people. All are equal under the law. No one should have more protection than another.
Agreed again. All classes of people are protected equally with hate crimes legislation, as stated above.
Did you not read my post at all? Or are you just not paying attention?
> Your just claiming that motive matters.
...
> In my previous example, while "motive" meaning "what did you intend" made the difference, "motive" meaning WHY you did it made no difference in itself.
We are very close to the same page here. I assert that in a correctly-defined "hate crime", two actual crimes are committed: the visible act, and the terrorism (there's no better word!) that is the message the perpetrator wants to pass.
> If your goal is to prevent intimidation, you should pass a law making "intimidation" a crime, separately chargeable. Then if someone commits a murder or arson, and you can prove the purpose was to deprive OTHER people of their rights through intimidation, you could get a separate conviction, rather than simply making the SAME act count as different crimes simply because of the minority status of the victim.
Many hate crime statutes are indeed structured this way. The jury must first find the defendant guilty of the physical crime committed. Then it must retire again to deliberate whether the crime constitutes a hate crime under some carefully controlled definitions. It requires two separate decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.