Active Users:847 Time:15/11/2024 10:12:10 AM
One factor in this I don't like though Isaac Send a noteboard - 24/10/2009 01:54:53 PM
It is saying that if a person attacks someone, anyone, just because they hate a generic classification of people that the victim belongs to, that is a hate crime. It is saying that attacking someone because you hate their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, is different than attacking someone, for example, because you want their money.

Do you not think it's different? Do you not think that distinction is important? Do you not think we should care why people hurt each other?


Criminal science certainly benefits from understanding motives, but I'm not sure we benefit by legislating accordingly. The fact of the matter is that virtually all murders are inspired by hatred, the ones that aren't are arguably more despicable, like killing someone deliberatly with premeditation for money, pleasure, etc. Where irrational hatred is concerned, I'm not sure it really matters what the classification is, it almost seems like deciding to make different punishment criteria for the weapon used, 50 years for a gun but 52 for a lead pipe and 48 for a knife.

Now, insofar as it makes the crime automatically a federal offense, that let's the FBI get involved, and back in the day that made sure corrupt or biased local law enforcement couldn't half-arse an investigation on a dead black man, there certainly was a lot of logic behind it at the time. I'm not sure it fits in too well anymore. I also want to remind everyone that hating people, for whatever reason, is totally legal. Getting together in little groups to talk about how much you hate those f'ing [insert random perjorative here] is legal. If me and some friends hate blondes and beat one to death, that is surely a hate crime as much as the others, if someone punches a smoker bellowing "I hate you f#$%ing smokers!" just committed a hate crime, and we can't say "Well, that's different, they chose to be a smoker" because religion already sets the precedent that it doesn't have to be something your born to like race.

It always comes back to the assumption that there is a difference in the type of 'hate' involved, "I hate him" vs. "I hate them". So realistically it's a hate crime if any plural form of hatred was involved? Can the categories then go on to not just include "I hate jews, blacks, queers..." to "I hate child molesters." Is that different because they broke the law? What then about "I hate pot smokers". I know some of these examples are absurd, but that's the point, and yet there certainly are hate-leaning attitudes out there that get overlooked, "I hate people who eat meat, wear leather, etc" is prevalent enough. Certianly throwing red paint on someone wearing fur seems a hate crime to me, by the standards already in place.


The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Matthew Shepard act passed - 23/10/2009 07:54:07 PM 780 Views
Meh - 23/10/2009 08:06:22 PM 371 Views
Federal punishment is usually harsher then state law - 23/10/2009 09:27:49 PM 356 Views
I honestly don't care that federal law is more harsh - 24/10/2009 01:04:16 AM 344 Views
68-29, eh? Party line division? *NM* - 23/10/2009 08:25:07 PM 137 Views
More or less - 23/10/2009 08:35:10 PM 354 Views
All hate crime legislation is stupid..... - 23/10/2009 10:15:02 PM 372 Views
I'm sure Orwell would be intrigued by his own prognosticative abilities. - 24/10/2009 12:52:24 AM 380 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 358 Views
Not sure I agree there - 24/10/2009 02:29:13 PM 328 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 314 Views
Doesn't there have to be an indication ... - 24/10/2009 04:33:49 AM 336 Views
Doesn't matter, Same crime, same punishment, with no extra preference given to anyone. - 24/10/2009 04:48:22 AM 324 Views
It does matter to what you were saying, though. - 24/10/2009 06:32:32 AM 389 Views
One factor in this I don't like though - 24/10/2009 01:54:53 PM 326 Views
Correct - 24/10/2009 04:55:43 AM 330 Views
All orientations are protected. - 24/10/2009 05:17:55 AM 333 Views
Isn't killing or assaulting someone already illegal? - 24/10/2009 05:50:15 AM 331 Views
As per my reply to you above: - 24/10/2009 06:42:24 AM 347 Views
I said nothing as to what I think about hate crimes laws. - 24/10/2009 06:47:51 AM 336 Views
yes and how many black men are sentenced for attacking white men? - 24/10/2009 02:00:26 PM 307 Views
Couldn't say, Ray. - 25/10/2009 04:43:12 AM 469 Views
I don't support that anymore then I support hate crime laws. - 25/10/2009 02:33:27 PM 347 Views
they need to throw out all of the thought crime laws *NM* - 24/10/2009 02:04:30 PM 122 Views
Minor point. - 24/10/2009 04:46:25 PM 354 Views
Yeah I saw that and kind of scoffed as well - 24/10/2009 07:57:23 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 340 Views
That's my main objection, yes. - 25/10/2009 10:50:49 PM 339 Views

Reply to Message