Posted on 02/15/2006 2:14:08 AM PST by Arnold Zephel
Agree. That is what I meant in the first place, particularly since I don't believe that what you categorize as the "hate" component deserves special punishment.
We're talking about a specific narrow case in which *somebody else* identified them with this group, not necessarily because they did. -snip- 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.
You are confusing the neutrality of the wording of the statute with the motivation for and application of the same. You are either being deliberately disingenuous or incredibly idealistic. You and I know that these laws were primarily and prominently lobbied for by specific minority groups. Now I am sure that we can agree that it shouldn't matter who promoted a law, as long as the law is just and enforced equally, but it is not.
As as for the "groups" of which you speak, who are they? Where is the list of approved "groups" against whom "hate crimes" can be committed? Or is any group allowed? You say that it is more of a crime to murder a man because he is gay (or perceived to be gay), and that the extra punishment is because of the crime against the group. What crime? Causing fear? If that is the case, then anyone who mugs a subway rider should be guilty of a hate crime against the group "subway riders", because those who take a taxi or have their own car aren't similarly persecuted. They don't fear being victimized on their way to work.
I could go on and on, but the point would be the same. The crime is what it is and should be punished as such. Any added element, "causing fear", is just trying to punish thoughts and beliefs, which is exactly what those who propose these laws want, to punish those who disagree with them.
Yes, most trolls are.
> No. It's you trying to make some crimes more special than others.
No, it's you!
>No, it's you.
No, it's you!
OK, maybe I *am* 10. :)
Just as an aside, enhanced sentences based on the victim of a crime is nothing new in our legal system.
For example, many states impose harsher sentences in murders where the victim is a judge, witness, child, police officer, person under the perp's care etc.
Motive behind a crime also can serve to increase punishment. For example, murder for hire is treated more severely than murder for revenge in many jurisdictions.
Though all men are created equal, crimes can be quite different. We don't give out blanket punishments for murder without looking at the facts surrounding the crime.
> All men are EQUAL under the law.
Oop... guess that leaves you out, Gramma. :)
*snort*
Yup, proving your status as troll beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I do believe in enhanced sentences for aggravating circumstances such as the murder of a policeman or judge because they are authority figures and if someone strikes at them it shows the perp would have no qualms on offing an "ordinary" citizen. But that's not what this troll is saying.
You may have a great sense of humor but Trailerpark Badass is right. We disagree with your stand.
I'm not saying that at all. If someone murders you or your family based on your race or religion, their sentence will be increased. Hate crime laws don't only apply if the victim is a minority. If they murder you in order to steal your car, not caring about your race or religion, their sentence will not be increased.
All Crimes on a person are crimes of hate period
That's really not true. Someone who murders you as part of a carjacking probably doesn't have anything against you, they just want your car.
and it it is against me or my family they should get the same punishment as someone who commits a so-called hate crime.
In your opinion, then, the motiviation behind a crime shouldn't matter? That is, someone who murders a witness in order to shut them up should not be punished any more heavily than someone who kills another person in a fit of road rage?
If that's what you're saying, then you're proposing an incredibly wooden approach to the law where all crimes would need to be treated exactly the same, regardless of the facts surrounding such crimes. That goes against around a 1000 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
If that's the case, you also have to logically support sentence enhancements for hate-motivated crimes. We punish someone more for murdering a judge because of the fact that such a murder is meant to spread fear in our legal system. In many parts of the world, judges are routinely targetted in order to intimidate the entire judicial system.
Similarly, when a murder is committed against someone based on their race, religion etc., we punish the perp more because such murder is meant to spread fear throughout a certain segment of the population.
Negative.
"Judge" or "Police Officer" is not a 'racial' or 'ethnic group' which is the basis for hate crime legislation.
> You and I know that these laws were primarily and prominently lobbied for by specific minority groups.
I don't actually know such a thing, and in fact I think the laws are so widely dispersed and so textually different that I think your "specific minority groups" must at minimum be pretty broad. But I don't think it's relevant, as you continue:
> Now I am sure that we can agree that it shouldn't matter who promoted a law, as long as the law is just and enforced equally, but it is not.
Ah! Here we get to the nubbin of the matter. You are not objecting to the law, then, but how it is applied? Or, sorry, it's not clear whether you think the law is unjust or if you think it is being applied unfairly. Please clarify and explain why you think so.
> As as for the "groups" of which you speak, who are they? Where is the list of approved "groups" against whom "hate crimes" can be committed? ...
Once more: "approved groups" is a red herring. More follows.
> What crime? Causing fear? If that is the case, then anyone who mugs a subway rider should be guilty of a hate crime against the group "subway riders", because those who take a taxi or have their own car aren't similarly persecuted.
Interesting! A very astute point. And I also want to point out to others in this group how polite this gentleman is being -- and how we are managing to further the argument this way. Thank you, Chief. :)
I had to think about this one for a minute but it still doesn't wash. The problem is that the muggers are not motivated by hostility toward the group. They don't give a rat's ass about their targets, they just want the money. They would be equally happy jacking up taxi riders or telecommuters or drivers or even the unemployed.
Take that same mugger and brainwash him until he hates subway riders. Have him frothing at the mouth whenever he sees a Metro sign or stairs descending into the sidewalk. Let him loose and watch him do his thing, this time screaming "I'm going to kill every subway rider everywhere" -- and presto, you have a hate crime.
Now of course this guy needs to be locked up in a loony bin more than anything else. But do you see my point? A hate crime doesn't exist without actual hate involved. *That's* the message. Not simply fear, but hate that causes fear. The hate is the message, and the fear -- and the chilling effect -- is the result.
> Any added element, "causing fear", is just trying to punish thoughts and beliefs,
Sorry, Chief, I thought we'd already covered the "thoughts" aspect -- you can have whatever thoughts you want, you can even express them in unpleasant ways. The only thing you can't do is back them up with actions.
> which is exactly what those who propose these laws want, to punish those who disagree with them.
When did this paranoia streak come in? Sorry, you're going to have to justify this based on the laws themselves and how they are applied.
Fair enough. They tried that in England in the 17th Century. Juries were given the option of either giving the death penalty or finding the defendant not guilty. As a result, a lot of murderers were let off since juries felt that a murder comitted as part of a drunken brawl didn't deserve the death penalty.
You'd end up with the same thing if we tried that now. Faced with, say, a drunk driver who killed someone in an accident, many juries would let the perp go rather than impose the death penalty.
Similarly, rapes would become much harder to convict, especially date rapes.
Our law can't be wooden. If every single crime is treated exactly the same, regardless of the facts surrounding the crime, our legal system would become unjust. You'd end up with a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh or the Beltway Shooters being punished on the same level as someone who killed their spouse in a crime of passion.
Troll, just give up already.
>Yup, proving your status as troll beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Wow. A troll that proves another poster is a troll? What will they think of next? Baiting fishhooks with chunks of fish?
No, DS. I simply disagree.
No, I hunt trolls.
I'm with the Road Killed Beeber Association of troll hunters.
And I've been watching you troll this thread.
How about you run home to DU little troll.
True. But so what? In both cases, we punish people for targetting certain subgroups within our population. Plus, hate crime laws protect everyone in society, whereas laws dealing with murders of judges and police officers apply only to a very narrow slice of the populace.
If anything, a criminal who kills a judge is perhaps less loathsome than someone who targets Jews or Whites or Asians. You can at least rationally understand why someone would want to murder a judge or a witness.
"True. But so what?"
You said "If that's the case, you also have to logically support sentence enhancements for hate-motivated crimes. " -post 71.
Hate crimes are defined as crimes based off of ethnic, lifestyle, or racial basis.
Your statement above as quoted is then flawed.
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.