Federal "hate crimes" definition expanded to include crimes against gays qua gays - Page 3 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Federal "hate crimes" definition expanded to include crimes against gays qua gays

...

Page 3 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Page 3 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10-23-2009 , 03:47 PM

#51

elwoodblues

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 5,393

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mempho

So, does this bill attempt to limit the 1st Amendment or is just limited to upping the penalties for existing crimes?

I haven't read this particular piece of legislation, but hate crimes generally provide stiffer penalties when a crime is committed because of race, gender, sexual orientation. Whether you believe this is a 1st Amendment limitation or not is your call.

10-23-2009 , 03:49 PM

#52

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

It creates thought crimes.

10-23-2009 , 03:50 PM

#53

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by elwoodblues

Whether you believe this is a 1st Amendment limitation or not is your call.

FYI, this claim has been rejected by the courts.

10-23-2009 , 03:56 PM

#54

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Intent has long been a factor in determining whether to convict someone. Why is this any different?

10-23-2009 , 04:00 PM

#55

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

Intent has long been a factor in determining whether to convict someone. Why is this any different?

There's no difference.

But people can legitimately debate whether a murder is more heinous because it is motivated by racism or bias, rather than for some other reason.

10-23-2009 , 04:06 PM

#56

elwoodblues

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 5,393

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

Quote:

Whether you believe this is a 1st Amendment limitation or not is your call.

FYI, this claim has been rejected by the courts.

Um, no.

10-23-2009 , 04:09 PM

#57

Mempho

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

It creates thought crimes.

Boro,

I'm uneducated on this piece of legislation. How does it do this? Or were you leveling me?

10-23-2009 , 04:14 PM

#58

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by elwoodblues

Um, no.

Um, yes.

10-23-2009 , 04:25 PM

#59

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mempho

Boro,

I'm uneducated on this piece of legislation. How does it do this? Or were you leveling me?

No, I'm not leveling you. There is a crime already, like murder. This crime has a punishment associated with it. Then, a second charge is created if the victim is one of a favored political class, blacks, latinos, women, elderly, gays, bisexual transgendered equestrians, whatever. This charge is specifically based on what your intention was. In other words, it is a thought crime.

10-23-2009 , 04:26 PM

#60

elwoodblues

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 5,393

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

Um, yes.

Really, the courts have said that YOU CAN'T BELIEVE SOMETHING VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT IF WE SAY IT DOESN'T? Really??? I'd love to read that opinion. That would be quite the first amendment violation in and of itself.

10-23-2009 , 04:27 PM

#61

elwoodblues

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 5,393

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

I think you mean motive, not intention.

10-23-2009 , 04:28 PM

#62

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Yes. My bad.

10-23-2009 , 04:40 PM

#63

tubasteve

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 14,283

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claunchy

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, for one.

But, hey, that's only one case and you've still never seen anything in the news, so I'm pretty sure that's conclusive evidence that these laws aren't being applied uniformly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Oh come on, it's perfectly reasonable to make the presumption that the overwhelmingly white justice system is going to apply these laws in a manner biased towards the interests of poor and politically disfavored 12% of the population.

nice straw men

10-23-2009 , 04:44 PM

#64

Brian J

TOTP Master

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 10,650

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Is it a white justice system if the jury is black?

10-23-2009 , 04:45 PM

#65

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by elwoodblues

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. All i said is that the courts have rejected First Amendment challenges to hate laws.

10-23-2009 , 04:51 PM

#66

govman6767

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 7,549

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooliganHRV

what if fat people decide to riot

[/QUOTE]

we'll win

10-23-2009 , 05:09 PM

#67

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. All i said is that the courts have rejected First Amendment challenges to hate laws.

his tiresome point is that he wasn't talking about the Court.

He said "You can think whatever you want"
You said "the court rejects one of those thoughts"

Your comment was a non-sequitur, but he thought it was intended to refute what he said. And then blahblahblah.

That'll be $25 from both of you, send check in mail ty.

10-23-2009 , 05:10 PM

#68

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,575

Claunchy/Fly

Do you honestly believe that there is/will be equal application of this legislation amongst people of different races?

Last edited by General Tsao; 10-23-2009 at 05:16 PM. Reason: REMOVED UNNECESSARY QUESTION

10-23-2009 , 05:34 PM

#69

UATrewqaz

banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 9,699

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooliganHRV

most hate crimes are bs what is the difference between beating up a black guy and yelling racial slurs then beating up a fat guy and yelling " you fat piece of sh*t" while you are pounding his head in..

The difference is that fat people don't block vote for parties promising them special rights.

10-23-2009 , 05:42 PM

#70

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by vulturesrow

We had some good discussions in the past in this forum on hate crime laws. Basically I find them to be the closest thing we have to a "thought crime" in our country. For this reason I think they are probably some of the worst laws (that are still enforced,nits) that are on the books in the USA.

All the examples of crimes affected by hate crimes legislation given in the thread are things that we all agree should be illegal, so I don't see how it creates any thought crime. Are there other things considered hate crimes that people are tried for?

10-23-2009 , 05:45 PM

#71

tubasteve

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 14,283

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Raker

The problem is making these crimes "more" illegal that similar ones through harsher penalties. That is where the alleged "thoughtcrime" comes into play.

10-23-2009 , 05:47 PM

#72

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubasteve

The problem is making these crimes "more" illegal that similar ones through harsher penalties. That is where the alleged "thoughtcrime" comes into play.

How come none of you guys saying "thoughtcrime" are addressing Erik's question?

10-23-2009 , 05:49 PM

#73

Max Raker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 15,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubasteve

The problem is making these crimes "more" illegal that similar ones through harsher penalties. That is where the alleged "thoughtcrime" comes into play.

Is premeditation a thoughtcrime?

Overall, I guess we need a ton on data about hate crime prosecutions here that we don't have to really see what effect these bills are having. But don't black people who commit crimes against white people naturally (ie in the absence of any legislation talking about race) get harsher penalties than the opposite? I believe this was likely true in the recent past, but am not sure.

10-23-2009 , 05:50 PM

#74

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

The actual crime is not the thought crime, it's the hating that is made into the thought crime.

10-23-2009 , 05:53 PM

#75

tubasteve

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 14,283

I'm just saying that the reason some people might consider it thought crime is that they are making it more illegal to kill someone because he is black then say, to kill someone because they cheated on your wife. Why does it matter?

I understand that it might matter to society (under the premise that harsher punishments for racism supposedly discourage it), but logically speaking, I don't see a difference. If someone is convicted of first degree murder they deserve their penalty regardless of their motive.

Page 3 of 8

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last

...

Page 3 of 8

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last