President Obama signed a hate crimes bill into law on Wednesday, telling an audience at the White House that the provision would “strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth.”
The law expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation. Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.
“Prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes,” Mr. Obama said, speaking in the East Room of the White House at an evening reception, “Because no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love.”
There has been an expansion of hate crimes law to include LGBT members. What are your thoughts on that, hate crimes legislation in general, or that fancy desk? Mostly this is a split from the GOP thread and the discussion occurring within. My own views on hate crimes in general are most succinctly summed up by one Mr. Iron D. Will, Esquire.
I'm okay with it. Motive is a factor in the severity of sentencing all crimes, as it should be. Explicitly increasing the penalties for crimes spurred by a certain motivation held to be especially socially destructive doesn't strike me as abhorrent.
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Irond Will's input pretty much nails it. Motive is a factor that needs consideration. Not sure how much more blunt / straight-forward it gets than that.
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.
moniker on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?
No, I'm fine with that part.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.
I think it's important to distinguish whether or not the person intended to kill someone or just happened to kill someone through a stupid decision.
I don't think it's important to differentiate why they intended to kill someone beyond mental incapacity.
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?
No, I'm fine with that part.
So you rescind the bolded statement?
What about between killing someone because they wouldn't give you your wallet, or killing someone because they are Jewish and you believe all Jews should die?
Qingu on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?
No, I'm fine with that part.
So why does it become thought policing when the list includes "crimes of hate"?
Seriously, if you kidnap someone and hold them for $1 million ransom, it's just kidnapping and extortion. If you kidnap someone and demand that the American government get out of Iraq/release prisoners in Guantanamo, it's terrorism. Intent and motive matter, even if the crime being committed is the same between the two situations.
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.
I think it's important to distinguish whether or not the person intended to kill someone or just happened to kill someone through a stupid decision.
That is thought policing.
moniker on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?
No, I'm fine with that part.
So you rescind the bolded statement?
What about between killing someone because they wouldn't give you your wallet, or killing someone because they are Jewish and you believe all Jews should die?
I think my second use of "and" is giving an improper interpretation of the bolded part.
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...
My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.
I think it's important to distinguish whether or not the person intended to kill someone or just happened to kill someone through a stupid decision.
That is thought policing.
I don't think it is.
If I accidentally kill someone, I think making that distinction is very important when determining my punishment. If I kill someone for wearing red shoes, that's a pretty stupid reason, but it shouldn't change the fact that I meant to kill them in any way.
I'm lukewarm on the subject of hate crime being illegal, rather than intent simply being a mitigating factor in sentencing, but I get the reasoning for it. And if we're going to have hate crime legislation, it makes sense to include sexuality in the definition. So if nothing else, yay for consistency.
edit: More to the point, I don't like the idea of "protected classes" as recognized by hate crime legislation. The most convincing argument in favor of such laws is that the act itself constitutes a kind of terrorism. You're not simply beating up a black dude, you're sending a message to all blacks that they better watch out because they're not safe.
Okay, that makes sense. But then shouldn't any attack against a member of any identifiable group because of membership in that group also qualify as a hate crime? If I murder a gay guy and nail his corpse to a tree with a sign saying, "Fuck you, faggots," that's a hate crime. If I murder a liberal and nail his corpse to a tree saying, "Fuck you, liberals," isn't that pretty much the same? The only difference is that violence against gays is semi-common, while violence against liberals is less so. But that seems a somewhat lacking reason to not recognize that anti-liberal violence has the exact same sort of underlying intent as anti-gay violence.
And really, it would seem to make it even easier to craft the legislation. Instead of having to explicitly name every single group that can plausibly be the victim of hate crime, you just create some general language about "actions against a person meant to intimidate or terrorize all members of a distinguishable group," or something. Bam, done.
Yes, yes, anti-<random group> crime isn't an epidemic, so crafting such legislation isn't a huge priority. But I would like such laws better if they were designed as such.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
Hate crimes are prosecuted as a different class of crime as far as I know. You don't get prosecuted and convicted for shooting someone and then they start applying the hate crimes laws to you.
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...
Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
Motive just about always determines the extent of punishment sought already. How is that not an Equal Protection issue?
moniker on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
Hate crimes are prosecuted as a different class of crime as far as I know. You don't get prosecuted and convicted for shooting someone and then they start applying the hate crimes laws to you.
I know, but I disagree with them being a different class of crime.
Murder is murder, manslaughter is manslaughter, etc.
Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?
If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.
Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?
A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
I don't see how that's the case. The laws could also be applied to gay-on-straight hate crime (kill all the breeders!). They have been applied to black-on-white hate crimes.
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...
Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
No, you're making certain crimes more severe in the eyes of the law.
Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?
If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.
I'm assuming this is snark. If you shoot someone dead, they are dead no matter what your intent or motivation. And yet we have distinctions for severity of that crime depending on motivation and intent.
Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?
If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.
Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?
A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.
So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...
Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
That already exists. Sentencing comes in degrees depending on intent, motive, past history, &c. How are none of those facets of our Justice System, practiced long before the first Hate Crimes Bill was penned, thought policing and Equal Protection issues if Hate Crimes law is?
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
Hate crimes are prosecuted as a different class of crime as far as I know. You don't get prosecuted and convicted for shooting someone and then they start applying the hate crimes laws to you.
I know, but I disagree with them being a different class of crime.
Murder is murder, manslaughter is manslaughter, etc.
This is just silly. All of that is killing a person. The differentiation between the different types of killing someone is entirely based on motive and intent. What is so onerous about adding another distinction on top of the ones we already have?
So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.
You're not talking about hate crime legislation, you're talking about the fictional straw man version of hate crime legislation.
Qingu on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
I don't see how that's the case. The laws could also be applied to gay-on-straight hate crime (kill all the breeders!). They have been applied to black-on-white hate crimes.
I honestly did not know that (you guys teach me so much :P)
That does gray my opinion a bit... but I'm still not convinced that murder out of hate is worse than murder out of greed.
So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.
If you beat up a guy who slept with your sister who merely happens to be black that isn't a hate crime.
So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.
You're confusing a misapplication of the concept with the concept itself.
If you beat up a black guy to send a message to the black community that white women are not for them, it would be different than if you did it strictly because HOLY CRAP A DUDE IS BANGING MY SISTER RAWR.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...
Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
No you're not. The hate-crime enhancement exists for crimes where you're not just targeting a particular victim, but an entire selection of people. It's a crime whose intended victim is not just the single person you afflicted.
Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?
If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.
Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?
A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.
So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.
If you beat a black man because he banged your sister, it's assault.
If you beat a black man because he's black, it's a hate crime.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.
If you beat up a guy who slept with your sister who merely happens to be black that isn't a hate crime.
I've made this argument before and was refuted with the idea that people aren't so dumb as to not recognize that... a point to which I conceded.
Oh Obama, hate crime legislation? Do you not watch South Park?
If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.
I'm assuming this is snark. If you shoot someone dead, they are dead no matter what your intent or motivation. And yet we have distinctions for severity of that crime depending on motivation and intent.
Cold blooded murder and emotional things should matter. if youve taken time to plan and murder someone then you're more dangerous than someone who attacked in the heat of hte moment.
But if you plan out and beat up a black man it shouldnt be considered any harsher than a white or asian person being your target, you set out to plan and attack someone, thats the scenario. Your underlying motivation doesnt matter, its the forethought that does.
DarkWarrior on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
As far as I can tell, this doesn't change the jurisdiction of assaults or murders or places Federal Mandatory minimums on sentencing. All this bill does is provide additional resources to the justice department to provide investigative assistance.
Posts
And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that.
Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.
No, I'm fine with that part.
I think it's important to distinguish whether or not the person intended to kill someone or just happened to kill someone through a stupid decision.
I don't think it's important to differentiate why they intended to kill someone beyond mental incapacity.
So you rescind the bolded statement?
What about between killing someone because they wouldn't give you your wallet, or killing someone because they are Jewish and you believe all Jews should die?
I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.
So why does it become thought policing when the list includes "crimes of hate"?
That is thought policing.
I think my second use of "and" is giving an improper interpretation of the bolded part.
If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.
If you beat someone up in self defense?
If you beat someone up in the heat of passion?
If you planned for months to beat them up?
I don't think it is.
If I accidentally kill someone, I think making that distinction is very important when determining my punishment. If I kill someone for wearing red shoes, that's a pretty stupid reason, but it shouldn't change the fact that I meant to kill them in any way.
edit: More to the point, I don't like the idea of "protected classes" as recognized by hate crime legislation. The most convincing argument in favor of such laws is that the act itself constitutes a kind of terrorism. You're not simply beating up a black dude, you're sending a message to all blacks that they better watch out because they're not safe.
Okay, that makes sense. But then shouldn't any attack against a member of any identifiable group because of membership in that group also qualify as a hate crime? If I murder a gay guy and nail his corpse to a tree with a sign saying, "Fuck you, faggots," that's a hate crime. If I murder a liberal and nail his corpse to a tree saying, "Fuck you, liberals," isn't that pretty much the same? The only difference is that violence against gays is semi-common, while violence against liberals is less so. But that seems a somewhat lacking reason to not recognize that anti-liberal violence has the exact same sort of underlying intent as anti-gay violence.
And really, it would seem to make it even easier to craft the legislation. Instead of having to explicitly name every single group that can plausibly be the victim of hate crime, you just create some general language about "actions against a person meant to intimidate or terrorize all members of a distinguishable group," or something. Bam, done.
Yes, yes, anti-<random group> crime isn't an epidemic, so crafting such legislation isn't a huge priority. But I would like such laws better if they were designed as such.
Hate crimes are prosecuted as a different class of crime as far as I know. You don't get prosecuted and convicted for shooting someone and then they start applying the hate crimes laws to you.
Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.
How I yearn for the days when people parroted snarky political truisms they heard on the Simpsons...
DarkWarrior, why are you citing South Park for your position on hate crime legislation? Do you not see what's wrong with that at all?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Motive just about always determines the extent of punishment sought already. How is that not an Equal Protection issue?
I know, but I disagree with them being a different class of crime.
Murder is murder, manslaughter is manslaughter, etc.
Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?
A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.
No, you're making certain crimes more severe in the eyes of the law.
I'm assuming this is snark. If you shoot someone dead, they are dead no matter what your intent or motivation. And yet we have distinctions for severity of that crime depending on motivation and intent.
So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.
That already exists. Sentencing comes in degrees depending on intent, motive, past history, &c. How are none of those facets of our Justice System, practiced long before the first Hate Crimes Bill was penned, thought policing and Equal Protection issues if Hate Crimes law is?
This is just silly. All of that is killing a person. The differentiation between the different types of killing someone is entirely based on motive and intent. What is so onerous about adding another distinction on top of the ones we already have?
I honestly did not know that (you guys teach me so much :P)
That does gray my opinion a bit... but I'm still not convinced that murder out of hate is worse than murder out of greed.
If you beat up a guy who slept with your sister who merely happens to be black that isn't a hate crime.
You're confusing a misapplication of the concept with the concept itself.
If you beat up a black guy to send a message to the black community that white women are not for them, it would be different than if you did it strictly because HOLY CRAP A DUDE IS BANGING MY SISTER RAWR.
No you're not. The hate-crime enhancement exists for crimes where you're not just targeting a particular victim, but an entire selection of people. It's a crime whose intended victim is not just the single person you afflicted.
If you beat a black man because he banged your sister, it's assault.
If you beat a black man because he's black, it's a hate crime.
I've made this argument before and was refuted with the idea that people aren't so dumb as to not recognize that... a point to which I conceded.
Cold blooded murder and emotional things should matter. if youve taken time to plan and murder someone then you're more dangerous than someone who attacked in the heat of hte moment.
But if you plan out and beat up a black man it shouldnt be considered any harsher than a white or asian person being your target, you set out to plan and attack someone, thats the scenario. Your underlying motivation doesnt matter, its the forethought that does.
Please correct me if Im wrong.