FNC: Obama Signs Defense Policy Bill That Includes 'Hate Crime' Legislation

[Madison Redskin]

Of course it works this way. Been that way ever since I can remember. Such is life in the wild rapids of ES tailgate. It's a microcosm of todays political discourse and general attitude towards one another-especially to whom we disagree.

Well then respond to the merits of various arguments that have been made by people supportive of hate crime legislation. Thus far, people have been repeating the ridiculous argument that hate crimes constitute unprecedented thought crimes. As numerous people have pointed out, the law has focused on intent, motivation, etc. for quite some time and for good reason.

[Larry]

Can a person be found guilty of murder but not guilty of a hate crime if the DA brings up charges of a hate crime incited 1st degree murder?

Or are you saying that the DA should mention it at all and let the jurys assign it after the verdict?

Also, what about cases where there is only a judge and no jury?

Just too many holes imo.

You're actually asking the question whether juries can convict somebody of one crime, but not another?

And cases where the defendant chooses not to have a jury?

Gee, what if he pleads guilty?

[Larry]

Society?? More like a constituency block shakedown. If put to a "popular" vote it would not be passed as law IMO. But alas many of our "laws" are functions of greasy wheel constituency blocks.

And your point is that we should immediately eliminate all laws that were passed by politicians?

[Larry]

If these said crimes were committed by an African-American and a Jew would these additional crimes be enforced? Just wondering.

So you're going to claim "selective enforcement" on a law which hasn't been enforced once, yet, because it didn't exist until yesterday?

If the law is selectively enforced, then maybe in 50 years the Supreme Court will throw it out, just like they threw out the Texas sodomy law, and Virginia's death penalty for rape.

[81artmonk]

So you'd be in favor of repealing the law against Murder, since the difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent?

And in your opinion, there's no legal difference between terrorists and other criminals? Since, again, the only thing that makes them terrorists is their motives?

You're being ridiculous. There is a world of difference in someone who kills someone with premeditation and someone who is driving home from a function and gets into a car accident and the result is the death of someone.

[Larry]

BS..my illegal act is not excused except in self defense

Or defense of others. Or, as I understand it, in some cases, to prevent a crime in progress. Or to defend your home or property. Or, if you're a pharmacist, as punishment for attempting to rob the pharmacy. Or if "he needed killin'".

[Thiebear]

I'm not against the "hate crime" bill.

I'm also not surprised the cowards on the hill can't pass it without it being in a bill that "HAS" to pass.

[81artmonk]

So you'd be in favor of repealing the law against Murder, since the difference between Murder and Manslaughter is intent?

And in your opinion, there's no legal difference between terrorists and other criminals? Since, again, the only thing that makes them terrorists is their motives?

Murder is murder. And if the murder was done specifically to hold down, intimidate, punish black people, or white people, or gay people, or Christian people, then it is also a generalized hateful assault on blacks or whites or gays or Christians. So, it can be argued, it actually is even worse.

But you knew that.

So if a person does what you say to a white guy it's only murder, but if they do the same exact thing to a gay guy based on hate/prejudice, it makes the murder even worse??

Am I being punked?? Where are the cameras??

[Destino]

You're being ridiculous. There is a world of difference in someone who kills someone with premeditation and someone who is driving home from a function and gets into a car accident and the result is the death of someone.

The best example I think was the TPing of a tree versus painting racist symbols on a synagogue. You think those crimes should be treated the same way?

[Destino]

So if a person does what you say to a white guy it's only murder, but if they do the same exact thing to a gay guy based on hate/prejudice, it makes the murder even worse??

Am I being punked?? Where are the cameras??

when did gay and white become mutually exclusive? The white victim routine used to argue against previous hate crime legislation doesn't fit here.

[aREDSKIN]

So you're going to claim "selective enforcement" on a law which hasn't been enforced once, yet, because it didn't exist until yesterday?

If the law is selectively enforced, then maybe in 50 years the Supreme Court will throw it out, just like they threw out the Texas sodomy law, and Virginia's death penalty for rape.

Hate crimes laws have been around for a while now in various forms and both of your examples have been committed by said "protected" groups. So my question for the supporters of this legislation is should they (protected group criminals) be subject to these same laws they support for others.

[ljs]

If these said crimes were committed by an African-American and a Jew would these additional crimes be enforced? Just wondering.

that is a good question, although I wonder if a black person would burn a cross (or hang a noose), or a Jewish person would really paint swa stikas??

But I would imagine the answer would be yes- nothing in the law says "only if a white person burns the cross."

[Larry]

So if a person does what you say to a white guy it's only murder, but if they do the same exact thing to a gay guy based on hate/prejudice, it makes the murder even worse??

Am I being punked?? Where are the cameras??

Still lying about that the law says, I see.

The law does not say "white" or "gay" anywhere in it.

[81artmonk]

It isn't illegal to shock communities, isn't illegal to dig up ghosts of the past, isn't illegal to breed distrust and anger between neighbors, isn't illegal to cause greater fallout. If the justification for it is to protect society from fallout, then people like Fred Phelps and the KKK should be prosecuted simply for "hate". (they shouldn't, and neither should hate crimes)

I think you touched on something very important here in this statement. I truely believe that hate crimes and legislation are aimed at eventually leading to what you talk about in the last few lines of that paragraph. Silencing people with voices others don't want heard.

I agree with PokerPacker--hate crime is thought crime. Let's say a normal murder gives 15 years, and a murder with the hate crime addition gets 20 years. That's five years for "hate". Do we give people five years for just hate? It's ridiculous, I vehementaly oppose all hate crime legislation.

I do agree that as long as it does exist it should apply to all minorities (and actually everyone), and the precedent for extending it to homosexuals is wonderful for being a landmark other gay-rights stuff can build off.

I agree, but there will be very difficult avenues to prosecute hate crimes for certian groups. Pretty easy for gays and minorities, but how do you prove a hate crime against whites?? What about a rich person??

[twa]

Or defense of others. Or, as I understand it, in some cases, to prevent a crime in progress. Or to defend your home or property. Or, if you're a pharmacist, as punishment for attempting to rob the pharmacy. Or if "he needed killin'".

Wow...you mean we utilize intent and balance competing factors already?

For some reason we are incapable now w/o a law?

[Larry]

You're being ridiculous. There is a world of difference in someone who kills someone with premeditation and someone who is driving home from a function and gets into a car accident and the result is the death of someone.

You're right.

The difference is intent.

You approve of punishing someone more harshly because of their intent?

[81artmonk]

It isn't illegal to shock communities, isn't illegal to dig up ghosts of the past, isn't illegal to breed distrust and anger between neighbors, isn't illegal to cause greater fallout. If the justification for it is to protect society from fallout, then people like Fred Phelps and the KKK should be prosecuted simply for "hate". (they shouldn't, and neither should hate crimes)

I agree with PokerPacker--hate crime is thought crime. Let's say a normal murder gives 15 years, and a murder with the hate crime addition gets 20 years. That's five years for "hate". Do we give people five years for just hate? It's ridiculous, I vehementaly oppose all hate crime legislation.

I do agree that as long as it does exist it should apply to all minorities (and actually everyone), and the precedent for extending it to homosexuals is wonderful for being a landmark other gay-rights stuff can build off.

The best example I think was the TPing of a tree versus painting racist symbols on a synagogue. You think those crimes should be treated the same way?

Yes by all means. As someone said before me, at what point do you draw the line between action and thought with regard to hate??

[Larry]

Hate crimes laws have been around for a while now in various forms and both of your examples have been committed by said "protected" groups. So my question for the supporters of this legislation is should they (protected group criminals) be subject to these same laws they support for others.

There is no such thing as "protected groups". They don't exist.

And in case that's not a clear enough answer to your question, the law should be applied equally.

(That's why we have laws.)

[aREDSKIN]

that is a good question, although I wonder if a black person would do burn a cross (or hang a noose), or a Jewish person would really paint swa stikas??

But I would imagine the answer would be yes- nothing in the law says one if a white person burns the cross.

I ask because there have bee real cases just like I proposed. Are the hate crime laws only going to be used against someone just because of a difference?

[Larry]

I agree, but there will be very difficult avenues to prosecute hate crimes for certian groups. Pretty easy for gays and minorities, but how do you prove a hate crime against whites?? What about a rich person??

The same way you prove it against anybody else. You have a trial, and the jury decides whether the prosecution proved it's case.

[aREDSKIN]

And in case that's not a clear enough answer to your question, the law should be applied equally.

(That's why we have laws.)

LOL, you know they aren't. Come on you're more experience then that. Lets get real here.

[aREDSKIN]

The same way you prove it against anybody else. You have a trial, and the jury decides whether the prosecution proved it's case.

That presupposes the prosecutor has charged the defendant with a "hate crime" violation to begin with.

[81artmonk]

You're right.

The difference is intent.

You approve of punishing someone more harshly because of their intent?

Well of course. But what some of you are missing is that if I chop a guys head off it's murder, but If I chop his head off because I hate him, does that make it any worse?? IMO no it doesn't. The intent was to kill him, who cares why he did it?? What if he did it becuase he didn't like the color shirt he was wearing, why not add 5 years for being fashion conscience.

What if he did becuase he didn't like his political affiliation, why not tag 5 years on for not being politically correct?

[Prosperity]

Well of course. But what some of you are missing is that if I chop a guys head off it's murder, but If I chop his head off because I hate him, does that make it any worse?? IMO no it doesn't. The intent was to kill him, who cares why he did it?? What if he did it becuase he didn't like the color shirt he was wearing, why not add 5 years for being fashion conscience.

What if he did becuase he didn't like his political affiliation, why not tag 5 years on for not being politically correct?

well something are so bad that they can't get any more punishment but I am inclined to think your example would be worse than just pure murder. Could the punishment be worse? Not really, but that doesn't mean the crime's not worse.

other things aren't so bad, and so different contexts may require greater punishment

[81artmonk]

You're right.

The difference is intent.

You approve of punishing someone more harshly because of their intent?

I pose a question on this subject. You have a cop who gets shot by a gangbanger(for arguement sake let's make him black). The prosecutor chooses to try him based on a hate crime. What kind of reaction do you think the added sentence will create within the black community?? What kind of reaction will the leaders like Sharpton and Jackson stir up having a black man get hammered by the system for hate crimes against a white man??

I only pose this question as, alot won't consider it wrong to prosecute a white man for a hate crime against a black man, but you can see where this could go if turned around.