Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
Roland00 Send a noteboard - 24/10/2009 04:07:52 AM
Like if the legislation was targeted towards violent groups that commit those types of crimes. Like the KKK, or Neo-Nazis, etc....as a law aimed towards individuals I think it is pointless, and the money would be better served educating young people.
What they're doing makes enough sense to me, they're making the law provide equal protection, or whatever you want to call it, but I just don't think hate crime legislation on the whole is an effective method of preventing or punishing these crimes.
If I hate someone because they're gay the thought of going to federal prison instead of state prison isn't likely to keep me from committing the crime, and in either case I'm going to prison and will just have my attitudes reinforced while I'm there.
What they're doing makes enough sense to me, they're making the law provide equal protection, or whatever you want to call it, but I just don't think hate crime legislation on the whole is an effective method of preventing or punishing these crimes.
If I hate someone because they're gay the thought of going to federal prison instead of state prison isn't likely to keep me from committing the crime, and in either case I'm going to prison and will just have my attitudes reinforced while I'm there.
I ain't really big in hate crimes legislation but a couple things
1) Hate crime laws originated in response to groups such as the KKK (well technically dozens of groups that called themselves KKK or Klansmen in the 60s, the national organization of the KKK didn't really exist after the 40s). Pretty much the KKK had decades upon decades of immunity for no one was willing to prosecute and if you were willing to prosecute the jury had a very large chance of not convicting. Thus making it a federal issue very much reduce the corruption/intimidation the KKK posed at the time.
2) The idea of hate crime laws isn't just to punish the crime, but to also prevent intimidation.
3) Hate crimes laws have always been perfectly fine with equal protection. This is because they are affecting all races, religions, colors, national origins, and now disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. If someone perform a hate crime targeting a man due to his Christianity it is just as much as hate crime if the person targeted was Jewish or Muslim. Same thing if a gay man targeted a straight man for he was a stupid "breeder" or something.
4) Due to past legislative efforts the FBI tracks hate crimes, both threats of credible violence and actual
Total Hate Crime Offenses, 2007 Violent Crimes, percentage of total
Race 4,724 1,471 31%
Religion 1,477 126 9%
Sexual Orientation 1,460 695 48%
Ethnicity 1,256 497 40%
Disability 82 21 26%
TOTAL 9,006 2,810 31%
Violent crimes include: Murder and non-negligent manslaughter,forcible rape, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
So in sum in one year, 2810 actual incidents of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault and simple assault. That is a lot of violent acts.
A common man definition of aggravated assault is this
Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon.[6] A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person:
* attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another person
* causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly in circumstances where the person has exhibited indifference to human life
* attempts or causes bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon.
So taking out mere assault and other that leaves 1127 acts of murder, rape, and attempted murder/attempting to kill somebody. PER YEAR, that is reported to the authorities.
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct08/hatecrime_102708.html
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/27/5249
Matthew Shepard act passed
23/10/2009 07:54:07 PM
- 778 Views
Meh
23/10/2009 08:06:22 PM
- 369 Views
I'm sure Orwell would be intrigued by his own prognosticative abilities.
24/10/2009 12:52:24 AM
- 378 Views
Didn't we already slice crimes by degree of intention (e.g., murder vs. manslaughter) pre-Orwell?
24/10/2009 05:23:56 AM
- 357 Views
How about DADT, or employment non discrimination, or federal benefits for civil unions/marriages?
24/10/2009 01:23:06 AM
- 360 Views
See..this is much more important than Hate Crime Legislation, and it actually accomplishes something *NM*
24/10/2009 01:52:31 AM
- 128 Views
Agreed, but
24/10/2009 02:12:11 AM
- 328 Views
I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 02:22:46 AM
- 338 Views
I'm sure the law is not supposed to deter crime, but rather to ensure justice.
24/10/2009 03:49:58 AM
- 293 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:07:52 AM
- 391 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:51:43 AM
- 356 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:02:27 AM
- 335 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:27:35 AM
- 325 Views
So it's inherently worse for a gay man to get beaten up than a straight guy?
24/10/2009 03:45:43 AM
- 313 Views
Doesn't there have to be an indication ...
24/10/2009 04:33:49 AM
- 333 Views
Doesn't matter, Same crime, same punishment, with no extra preference given to anyone.
24/10/2009 04:48:22 AM
- 321 Views
All orientations are protected.
24/10/2009 05:17:55 AM
- 330 Views
yes and how many black men are sentenced for attacking white men?
24/10/2009 02:00:26 PM
- 304 Views
Minor point.
24/10/2009 04:46:25 PM
- 352 Views
well since almost everything he said turned out to be BS why not that too?
25/10/2009 02:36:25 PM
- 338 Views