GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People

christiefan915 said:
By definition, a "hate crime" is separate from a robbery, so the perps would be punished for two crimes instead of one. If an aggressor was charged with attacking a person strictly because of race, that's one crime. If the aggressor steals the wallet in addition to the attack, that's two crimes. Two crimes=more punishment.
Click to expand...

So you would be punishing the crime and what he was thinking while he committed the crime?

If blacks attacked me, and yelled racial epithets at me (I am white) while they robbed me, would this be a hate crime?

If a gay man beat up a straight woman, and called her names while he did so, would this be a hate crime?



I understand that premeditation earns a harsher sentence, we have avoided punishing based on the thoughts of the perpetrator. Should we now cross that line?
 
Mottleydude said:
The problem I have with the hate crimes bill is that it comes awfully close to being a form of double jeapordy, which is constitutionally prohibitied.

If I physically attack a person I have committed a crime called assault.

If I physically attack a person with a premeditated motive, then that is a crime called aggravated assault.

Would not any so called hate crime be aggravated assault?

So essentially those convicted of a hate crime are being punished more harshly for attacking a minority then a non-minority.

The ethical problem here is that this sets a legal precedent that it is worse to assault a minority then a non-minority and is a double standard. The principle being here that it's not ok to assault anyone.

Therefore since citizens are all ready protected from crimes of violence by the law and since violent criminals are punished according to the degree of violence doesn't "Hate Crimes" legislation really equate to a "thought crime"? Isn't one actually being punished for what one thinks as opposed to what one actually does?

That's the slippery slope I see with hate crimes legislation. Laws all ready exist to protect citizens from acts of violence and to punish violent criminals. So with hate crimes legislation isn't it the thoughts that are being punished and not the action?

Isn't punishing thoughts unconstitutional? Do I not have the right to think what ever I want as long as I obey the law?
Click to expand...

Actually, if you physically attack someone... that is BATTERY.

Assault is the FEAR of bodily harm.

BATTERY is the actual physical contact.

Here endeth the lesson.

;)
 
WinterBorn said:
So you would be punishing the crime and what he was thinking while he committed the crime?

If blacks attacked me, and yelled racial epithets at me (I am white) while they robbed me, would this be a hate crime?

If a gay man beat up a straight woman, and called her names while he did so, would this be a hate crime?

I understand that premeditation earns a harsher sentence, we have avoided punishing based on the thoughts of the perpetrator. Should we now cross that line?
Click to expand...

We're not punishing for thoughts but for actions. If racists/bigots kept their thoughts to themselves, we'd never have hate crimes or civil rights violations because that motive would be publicly unknown.

Are you familiar with the SPLC? I see you're living in Alabama.
 
christiefan915 said:
We're not punishing for thoughts but for actions. If racists/bigots kept their thoughts to themselves, we'd never have hate crimes or civil rights violations because that motive would be publicly unknown.

Are you familiar with the SPLC? I see you're living in Alabama.
Click to expand...

Civil Rights violations should be prosecuted. My point is that hate crimes should not be treated as worse than other violent crimes.
 
cawacko said:
Ken, I got my white ass jumped and mugged by four black dudes about a month ago and spent a week and a half in the hospital and am still not healed now. If they ever catch the guys who did should they be charged with a hate crime? We are different races you know? Or only if I was gay should these guys be charged with a hate crime if they are caught? Or should the gentlemen that beat my ass be quizzed on how they voted on Prop 8 to know if they hate gays?

I know all you can do is post cartoons but if you were ever so inclined Ken to actually write something feel free to do so now.
Click to expand...

RETARDED
 
WinterBorn said:
Should violent crimes against one group be punished more heavily than violent crimes against another group?

Should we use the sexual orientation of the victim as a basis for the sentences handed down?

If I, as a heterosexual, get beaten up, why is that less of a crime than if a gay man gets beaten up?
Click to expand...

RETARDED
 
Mottleydude said:
The problem I have with the hate crimes bill is that it comes awfully close to being a form of double jeapordy, which is constitutionally prohibitied.

If I physically attack a person I have committed a crime called assault.

If I physically attack a person with a premeditated motive, then that is a crime called aggravated assault.

Would not any so called hate crime be aggravated assault?

So essentially those convicted of a hate crime are being punished more harshly for attacking a minority then a non-minority.

The ethical problem here is that this sets a legal precedent that it is worse to assault a minority then a non-minority and is a double standard. The principle being here that it's not ok to assault anyone.

Therefore since citizens are all ready protected from crimes of violence by the law and since violent criminals are punished according to the degree of violence doesn't "Hate Crimes" legislation really equate to a "thought crime"? Isn't one actually being punished for what one thinks as opposed to what one actually does?

That's the slippery slope I see with hate crimes legislation. Laws all ready exist to protect citizens from acts of violence and to punish violent criminals. So with hate crimes legislation isn't it the thoughts that are being punished and not the action?

Isn't punishing thoughts unconstitutional? Do I not have the right to think what ever I want as long as I obey the law?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's unconstitutional because I'm pretty certain that they can slam you with however many charges they want for the same crime as long as its in the same trial. DJ only applies to trying again after the defendant has been acquitted.
 
cawacko said:
It happened so quick and I didn't see it coming so I was knocked out right away. My guess is I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it just happened. But it was in downtown LA and LA is not exactly known for its racial harmony. To me, whether I got my *ss beat because I was white or just unlucky it doesn't matter. They won't catch these guys but if they did i think they should be punished the same regardless.
Click to expand...

Caw, it was not a racially motivated crime.
 
WinterBorn said:
So of they take his wallet they will get a lesser sentence?

This smells like punishing people for what they are thinking while they commit a crime. Its hard to prove and unfair.
Click to expand...

We punish people for what they were thinking all the time.

That's the difference between murder and manslaughter.
 
WinterBorn said:
The main reason I disagree with you is based on the same idea that Mottleydude posted. The idea that we add punishment for what people are thinking goes against what I believe law enforcement and justice should be doing.
Click to expand...

Except that it's the basis for a hell of a lot of law. You've got a hell of a lot of bones to pick in the "what they were thinking" area before you arrive at hate crimes.

For instance, if we're construction workers, and I accidentally wack you in the head with a board one day, and you wind up in the hospital, I probably owe you a lot of money, but I'm not going to prison. If I intentionally smashed the board into your face, I am going to prison. What's the difference there? Intent. Something in my head.
 
cawacko said:
4 people jumping one person is pretty retarded WM. See, we do agree on something.
Click to expand...

A crime committed by one person who's of one race against a person of a different race is not always a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if its because of your race.

I was skimming and thought you had posted a hypothetical; I'm sorry, I didn't realize it actually happened or I wouldn't have been so flippant.
 
cawacko said:
Ken, I got my white ass jumped and mugged by four black dudes about a month ago and spent a week and a half in the hospital and am still not healed now. If they ever catch the guys who did should they be charged with a hate crime? We are different races you know? Or only if I was gay should these guys be charged with a hate crime if they are caught? Or should the gentlemen that beat my ass be quizzed on how they voted on Prop 8 to know if they hate gays?

I know all you can do is post cartoons but if you were ever so inclined Ken to actually write something feel free to do so now.
Click to expand...


It has been proven in other courts; that if the attack was done because of race or if any racial comments were made, prior to/during/ after the attack, that it is a hate crime.

I hope they find your attackers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top