Posted on 02/15/2006 2:14:08 AM PST by Arnold Zephel
Yours? Very cute. 5 day old Blue Points?
> Voila! And so does yours. All men are equal under the law. Enforce the laws we have and drop "hate crime" status.
Two crimes have been committed, one against an individual, one against a group. Punish them both. The killing or beating or whatever gets its normal freight, and the terrorism message gets a separate one.
> Stop giving special protections to certain groups.
Already disposed of this one. There are no special protections to certain groups. See above.
> As to your ascertion about epithets, give me a break. Name-calling makes it more heinous?
It wasn't the clearest example. The epithet was not the issue, though I believe other respondents picked up on that. A better example would be, "You're a faggot, SO I'm going to kill you!"
> How old are you? 10?
Maybe I am 10. But I figure I know how to spell, so that makes up for any difference between us. :)
> So what you are saying is that if someone kills me then that is not a "Hate Crime" but if he kills a Islamic or a Black or a Gay then that is a hate crime.
Nope. Not what was said at all, and the fact that you think so suggests you didn't read the rest of the discussion. I suggest you do that before we continue.
That isn't always true. Plenty of crimes, such as fraud, car theft etc. don't involve any hatred by the perp against the victim.
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.
Hate crime laws don't actually say that. If someone comitted a crime against you or your family based on your race, religion etc., the hate crime laws would still apply.
They still don't build trolls like they used to.
Right here you say yourself that it is the message that warrants the extra punishment, not the physical crime. Short of communicating a specific threat, you can't punish someone for what they think (even if they mutter it out loud), that is the point we are trying to get across. I could go out right now and shout "I hate gay people", or "I am going to burn down black churches" at the top of my lungs and I would not be committing a crime. Now if I called in a bomb threat to a specific church, then I have broken the law, and should be punished.
Letting someone or some group know that you hate them may be reprehensible, but it is not criminal. Once we start deciding who it is legal to like or dislike, where do we stop?
> If anything, those that would commit "hate crimes" (crime motivated by some particular status of the victim) are easier to deal with. Once you identify who they are after, then you can narrow down your suspect list by eliminating a large portion of the population.
That means they are easier to *catch*, but it doesn't say anything about the seriousness of their crime.
> If a person identifies themselves as needing "special status" because of what they believe/who they sleep with/their skin color,
We're talking about a specific narrow case in which *somebody else* identified them with this group, not necessarily because they did. For example: a man who is *suspected* of being, or *believed to be*, gay but is not could still be subject to a gay-based hate crime.
This is not any kind of commentary on affirmative action or anything like that, and to tie these two things together is a red herring. This is not a leftist-rightist issue. There is no assumption here that the individual victim requires any special protection, and indeed they doesn't get any; the exact same crime can be committed without the hate elements to any Joe Schmoe on the street and the same penalty should be exacted. Conversely, WASP Joe Schmoe can be subjected to that crime *with* the hate elements and it is still a hate crime -- because there is a *second victim*, and that is the target group.
The Jacoby quote you cite is a perfect example of why I say this entire issue has been misframed. Once more: the choice of group to which the victim belongs (or is perceived to belong!) is irrelevant. No group has any special status, nor should it. It is the terror-inspiring *message* that makes something a hate crime, and that can be directed at any group whatsoever.
One man beats another and it is a single crime no matter what is spoken. There is no crime against a group. It is inequal to give any group more favorable status under the law. You are still stuck on "hate thoughts". Thoughts are not illegal. Acting on them is. Adding a special punishement for thoughts and opinions is a communist idea.
There IS no group. That is Marxist thinking. What about "equal under the law" don't you get?
What you are trying to push is that saying something makes it more heinous. It does not. Stop the Marxist "group" think crap. It is NOT a conservative view. And you are on the wrong forum. Go home to DU
> I could go out right now and shout "I hate gay people", or "I am going to burn down black churches" at the top of my lungs and I would not be committing a crime.
A valid point. (Although I think a case could be made for "harrassment" if you did it regularly, or "conspiracy" if you work toward that goal with somebody, or a few other things. But those are nits.)
The difference is that you did not actually go and carry out your threat as you were yelling it. Once you do that, you become a credible threat -- meaning that the people you threaten have a perfectly good reason to take you seriously, and to be worried. This is an archetypal "chilling effect" and is still a violation of rights.
> Letting someone or some group know that you hate them may be reprehensible, but it is not criminal.
Agreed. But making a credible threat is worth some judicial intervention too, don't you think? And what threat is more credible than one backed up by a body, or a burned-down church?
But hate crime laws aren't structured this way. They're as applicable to a black-on-white hate crime as they are to a white-on-black hate crime.
In fact, a hate crime law that only protected one racial, religious etc. group would not pass constitutional muster.
There actually seems to be some evidence that minorities are charged with hate crimes at a higher rate than white people:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp66dSummer2003p49.htm
Welcome to FR.
> There IS no group.
Wow, you've been watching The Matrix too long. :)
Let's see. DJ McWoW's homepage:
"I'm a housewife, mother and grandmother, married to the same man for 36 years. All of my children are Freepers."
Congratulations! You've just identified yourself with four different groups: housewives, mothers, grandmothers, and Freepers. Well, OK -- technically you didn't say *you* were a Freeper, but I think we can assume, since you're here plus with what you've said, that you are. But still -- lookitthat! Groups!
You may also notice a more recent post in which I point out that the victim of a hate crime doesn't actually have to belong to the target group, just that the perpetrators identify the victim to be part of that group. So it's not you, or me, or some government official creating these divisions and groups -- it's the criminal. Fitting, wouldn't you say?
Thanks.
They still don't build trolls like they used to.
How do you commit a crime against a "group?" How does one define a "group?" WHO gets to define the "group?" Where is the word "group" mentioned in our Constitution?
This country is a collection of individuals, not groups. We have individual rights and liberties, not group rights and liberties.
Those who have stated that such a concept is an anathema to our system of government and social organization are 100% correct.
Never seen it but you obviously have.
But still -- lookitthat! Groups!
Get a grip.
You may also notice a more recent post in which I point out that the victim of a hate crime doesn't actually have to belong to the target group
Actually, you've been so trounced in your foolish arguments that you have no clue what you're saying anymore.
So it's not you, or me, or some government official creating these divisions and groups -- it's the criminal.
No. It's you trying to make some crimes more special than others.
> They still don't build trolls like they used to.
I wouldn't know. Apparently I'm only 10. :)
Yes, groups with no legal standing and no relevance to the administration of justice.
It's not that people don't understand what you are trying to say, it's that we don't agree with you.
Oh and my group? Is the human race. All men are EQUAL under the law.
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.