[rahdam]

Here's the impetus:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'm willing to hear people out on this.
Can someone explain why hate crimes legislation is necessary? Assault is the act, we have a law on the books which makes the act of assault criminal.
Why is the reason for the assault factored into the classification of the crime? Is the government attempting to legislate thoughts?

[herbicidal]

Simply, because given enough time the "powers that be" can change the definition of hate, to include all sorts of cool things. Very useful for suppressing free speech, and suppressing individual terms/words that they think are politically incorrect. They can also use it to create "hate crime tribunals" which operate outside of normal law, which usually presume you are guilty. I'm from Canada, up here people have gone to jail for things such as holocaust denial.

Doesn't matter if you can prove you are correct, truth does not enter into the verdict.

--- I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it.

[Blse]

Well, here's the idea:

Basically, the govt. is trying to provide extra deterent for people who plan on acting out their discriminatory attitudes, as well as discourage such attitudes from developing in the first place. The theory is that, given that certain groups in our society have been discriminated against in the past, we must remain vigilant and continue to spread the message that expressing such attitudes in interactions with others is absolutely not acceptable. We must make acting on such resentment a societal taboo. The idea is that this extra-deterent, in the form of a stiffer penalty, will reduce disrcimination in society overall, or at least the expression of discriminatory attiudes.

So, no it's not an attempt at mind control (or "legislating thoughts"). It's an attempt to create a society where resentment for an entire group of people is discouraged and seen as taboo, lessening the violent expression of such sentiments. You might, of course, still disagree with the method or supporting theory.

[daydreamer]

yes in a way they are legislating thought, if you act on that thought or emotion in a criminal way.

criminal laws are for protecting people. thinking that a person deserves to be hurt for some reason or another, and that that's ok, because they are gay or black or jewish or purple... can perpetuate a mob behavior towards such groups. extra emphasis that these types of crimes will not be tolerated is warranted; all people deserve to feel safe. it's proactive. proactive laws often institute policies that make offenders a bit more uncomfortable. it is an attempt to promote a long-needed social change.

the message is clear: think what you will about the inferiority and deserving of violence of any particular member of a certain group, but be damned if you act on it.

if you're not a potential offender you've nothing to worry about.

[Mader]

Wow, so now when some guy beats up his girlfriend, it is a hate crime!

Call me stupid, but any violent crime is a hate crime.

[Conservationist]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can someone explain why hate crimes legislation is necessary?

Assault has become so commonplace we want a real punishment for political dissidents.

[Nikita]

The link won't open on the computer here (very frustrating), so I'll just speak generally and briefly due to the delay here.

Defining assault in the confines of hate crime would seem to be applying mens rea to the crime. We have varying degrees of murder dependent on mens rea (most specifically self-defense, heat of the moment, and pre-meditation), so why not apply intent to assault? Mental intent is not exactly new to criminal law, it's just that assault has been generalized as assault (be it criminal or tortious).

Originally Posted by Blse

Basically, the govt. is trying to provide extra deterent for people who plan on acting out their discriminatory attitudes, as well as discourage such attitudes from developing in the first place. The theory is that, given that certain groups in our society have been discriminated against in the past, we must remain vigilant and continue to spread the message that expressing such attitudes in interactions with others is absolutely not acceptable. We must make acting on such resentment a societal taboo. The idea is that this extra-deterent, in the form of a stiffer penalty, will reduce disrcimination in society overall, or at least the expression of discriminatory attiudes.

If you assume that this is true, I really don't agree that the effect would be to reduce discrimination. If anything, I think that legislation highlighting differences and segregating people into groups only further divides. The "us vs. them" mentality solidifies and is given voice by governmental bodies and their enforcement arms. This would seem to go back to what rahdam said about questioning the need to define assault in terms of hate crime when assault is a crime to begin with.

And to those of you who are inclined to suggest that I just contradicted myself, I haven't. rahdam asked for a valid line of reasoning applying hate crime to assault. Intent was the obvious legal reasoning. Blse's comment went to potential policy behind creation of hate crime legislation, and that was addressed according to social principles.

[Taluric]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, no it's not an attempt at mind control (or "legislating thoughts"). It's an attempt to create a society where resentment for an entire group of people is discouraged and seen as taboo, lessening the violent expression of such sentiments.

	Originally Posted by Nikita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The "us vs. them" mentality solidifies and is given voice by governmental bodies and their enforcement arms.

I believe both of these statements to be true, however I tend to just write it off to Congress having a) too much time on their hands and b) too much idealism that's become disconnected with the concerns actual people by whatever means.

They mean well, they want to do well, but its like a five year old with a squirt gun filled with pepper spray. They see a friend who's sad so they shoot at them to make them happier but all it does is make them cry. A child wouldn't understand they caused it (neither does congress) so they take their gun to another friend who's sad and try again.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Conservationist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assault has become so commonplace we want a real punishment for political dissidents.

Hanging out outside the gay bar with five of your very straightest friends and a baseball bat makes you a political dissident?

...interesting.

[hubcap]

So its worse if I kill someone because they're a minority?

The entire concept of "hate crime" is assinine to me. Dead is dead.

If the current punishments for crimes aren't enough deterrent then making something a "hate crime" will serve no purpose other than to send the message that the government wants to control your feelings or thoughts.

The concept seems like some sort of political correctness run amok.

[Chronos]

Isn't hate crime legislation originally intended as one of the tools to fight organised hate groups such as the KKK? In that sense, then, hate crime law can be compared with the RICO act, which was targeted against organised crime.

[saberu]

lobbyists who are paid to protect civil rights need new work

and congressmen who pass legistlation need legistlation to pass

justification for new laws is a footnote

[SeaCzar]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is the reason for the assault factored into the classification of the crime?

Let me play Devil's advocate here, because I agree with much that has been posted. Certainly, this legislation should not be used to further political correctness (which stifles ideas and debate), nor should it be used to inhibit free speech.

Yet, does anyone remember the black guy in Texas that was dragged to his death behind a pick-up truck by three white guys, solely because he was black? Two of the three perpetrators got the death penalty for this crime; the third got life with no possibility of parole. If the guy was white and gay, do you think that the same punishment would have been meted out? I'd think not, and the crime is identical. Personally, I think all three should swing, regardless of whether the guy was black or gay. My guess would be that if you are going pass "hate cimes" legislation, do so without specificity. Hate is hate, irrespective of how its sliced.

[Blse]

	Originally Posted by Mader To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wow, so now when some guy beats up his girlfriend, it is a hate crime! Call me stupid, but any violent crime is a hate crime.

Well, there are violent crimes comitted for no other reason than self-promotion where the criminal acts without considering his feelings towards the victim. For instance, home invasions, muggings, and rape may occur because the criminal is seeking to fullfill one of his personal desires (for money or sex), not because he hates the victim.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's the impetus: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm willing to hear people out on this. Can someone explain why hate crimes legislation is necessary? Assault is the act, we have a law on the books which makes the act of assault criminal. Why is the reason for the assault factored into the classification of the crime? Is the government attempting to legislate thoughts?

You know, it is down right scarry when someone asks a perfectly rational question here.

The more people ignore standards, the more they forget the rationality behind them. What you see are a bunch of weak minded politicians buying favors from weaker minded people.

[SShack]

From the department of shameless self-promotion, I posted my editorial from today's paper on hate crimes over in my blog
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

P.S. to SeaCzar, the Hate Crime law that was just signed was actually named after both Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, who was that guy who got dragged to death.

But it's notable that just as with Matthew Shepard, this new law would actually have no impact on the murderers' sentencing anyway.

[Warrior]

My opinion is that charging someone with a hate crime is deciding what they were thinking when they committed a crime and, if those thoughts are not approved thoughts, they get more punishment. Just a way to make people try to think the approved thing.

Frankly, if anything rises to the level of racism (or similar for gays, etc.), it is hate crime laws. You're telling a whole group of people "you're not good enough to be covered under the same law as everyone else - we're going to have a special, seperate law for you".

[themuzicman]

Why is it more wrong for 5 straight guys to hang outside a gay bar looking for a victim than for the same 5 guys to hang outside a lawyer bar looking for a rich victim?

[thod]

If one was charged with a crime such as murder, then one is free to attempt to mitigate that charge, for example one may cite provocation as a defence. It is important that such defences be put to the jury for their consideration. Should the law decide what is and is not a valid defence, then is supplanting the role of the jury. Thus an attempt to use the defence of "He was gay" can easily be rejected leading to the full penalty of murder.

The concept of the 'hate crime' only seems to apply to certain groups. We see the usual suspects on this list, yet there are many groupings that are not. For example, there have been many men convicted for killing prostitutes, who form a distinct group. We see many on the religious right who oppose prostitutes, are they then 'hate criminals'. It would seem that anyone that expresses disapproval of a group could be said to be a group hater of that group and silenced as a result.

What are we saying if we say that the persons who kill outside the gay bar are more heinous than the persons who do so outside any other bar. The loss to the victims family is the same, nor we can attribute higher value to the two victims. Thus we are left with the degree of wrongdoing by the perpetrators. Assuming identical means of execution, we are left only with the mindset of the perpetrators. If we are to say that killing with a passion, hatred, is worse, then we are saying that killing with a cool head is less worse. Presumably the socio-path who feels nothing is the least guilty of all.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is it more wrong for 5 straight guys to hang outside a gay bar looking for a victim than for the same 5 guys to hang outside a lawyer bar looking for a rich victim?

If the five guys in question are doing so as an act of "political dissidence" against rich people, that's actually an interesting question. I would venture to say that at the very least, the act is hardly a socially-acceptable means of expressing one's opinion. Do you think otherwise?

[Shauru]

I understand most people's aversion to more crime legislation but it really boils down very simplistically to this.

If your motivation is solely the difference between my race, age,sex, sexual orientation, etc. You get your ass handed to you extra because what you are in essence doing is serving as a means to intimidate other people of the same group.

Now, a lot of people seem to get upset, and call this special rights for certain citizens, etc. But this just does not hold up, just take a look at the wording.

Race, religion, sexual orientation, age. Nowhere does the legislation ever say "only if perpetrated by white heterosexual christian males" The wording in all the hate crimes legislation allows for the fact that if you straight people wander into a gay club and we gays beat the shit out of you, then you too can sue our spandex panties off.

So stop asking "Should we have hate crimes legislation?" and ask the real question at the bottom of all hate crimes legislation, "Should there be legislation to provide penalties for violent criminals who could be proven to be acting in a means that serves to intimidate a group of individuals?" I say yes.

[Conservationist]

	Originally Posted by Shauru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If your motivation is solely the difference between my race, age,sex, sexual orientation, etc. You get your ass handed to you extra because what you are in essence doing is serving as a means to intimidate other people of the same group.

Why not ask the real question:

Is diversity a workable idea?

We should start by consulting history.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Conservationist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is diversity a workable idea?

Completely infeasible. The gulfs that exist between male and female, between gay and straight, between old and young, and between people of Irish ancestry and people of Scottish ancestry are simply too vast to bridge, and any culture that attempts to bring such diversity together under one roof will inevitably fail.

[SShack]

Originally Posted by Shauru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I understand most people's aversion to more crime legislation but it really boils down very simplistically to this. If your motivation is solely the difference between my race, age,sex, sexual orientation, etc. You get your ass handed to you extra because what you are in essence doing is serving as a means to intimidate other people of the same group. Now, a lot of people seem to get upset, and call this special rights for certain citizens, etc. But this just does not hold up, just take a look at the wording. Race, religion, sexual orientation, age. Nowhere does the legislation ever say "only if perpetrated by white heterosexual christian males" The wording in all the hate crimes legislation allows for the fact that if you straight people wander into a gay club and we gays beat the shit out of you, then you too can sue our spandex panties off. So stop asking "Should we have hate crimes legislation?" and ask the real question at the bottom of all hate crimes legislation, "Should there be legislation to provide penalties for violent criminals who could be proven to be acting in a means that serves to intimidate a group of individuals?" I say yes.

Ah, that used to be my justification for supporting hate crimes legislation myself, until I came to a realization that hate crimes don't actually accomplish that goal. More and more people are comfortable with publicly stating their non-heterosexual nature and despite violent attacks, there's no sign that hate crimes actually intimidate a group of people. Is it appropriate to increase penalties for a crime because of a claim of consequences that is utterly unprovable?

The FBI does in fact, track hate crime claims against the "majority." The last numbers I saw from 2007 had quite a few claims of folks targeted because they're white and even a few because they're heterosexual.

[Shauru]

Is diversity feasible? Not really sure how to answer this question about diversity, diversity exists in the world by nature, us little humans aren't going to affect that fight.

And as far as proof of the effectiveness, granted, but there is no proof for or against really.

All these questions are put to rest by human evolution. They've done breeding experiments with foxes to eliminate aggressive behavior and have found that certain physical characteristics change with the mental. The same physical changes that have been observed in human evolution. Some, based on the fox experiment, theorize humanity is evolving to a more docile form. As human existence depends on social cohesion, which is not achieved by brutish behavior, it's likely the need for these laws will be obsolete.

Ultimately we are a primitive race, the majority of whom will benefit from social engineering practices, which some of us may find objectionable ethically, but most people aren't INTJs.

All in all I'm neutral on the hate crimes thing. But if it proves to the many that this law really doesn't hurt heterosexuals, and truly doesn't cause thought crimes, then perhaps it can convince the holdouts that theres no reason I can't get married, etc. Ultimately there is little harm that can come from this.