A hate crime....

[Cheetah]

I think it perfectly reasonable to single out a social issue like Hate Crimes and increase the punishment for it. We cannot exactly regulate hate. It's not criminal to hate someone or some group. But it is detrimental to society to harbor this hatred and pass it on to our children. Adding additional penalties for committing criminal acts based on hatred is justified as it sends a signal to society that hate is not acceptable, is discouraged and punished when a crime is committed. I can stand on a street corner and preach my hatred of a specific group. But If I take that hatred to the next step and actually injure others, then I should pay a stiffer penalty. This is a reasonable method to reduce social injustice. One that I believe is working.

 

[Reba]

Surely there is a GOP candidate who would fulfill everyone's desires?

Of course not, since the GOP members are not a monolith of desires.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Then you tell me, if laws insuring equal justice for all populations in this country are not in place, how do we achieve equal justice under the law. Even with hate crime laws, we don't have equal justice under the law for all people in this country. So tell me, how do we achieve that? How do we insure that a GLTD youth who was beated with a ball bat for no other reason that the fact that he was gay receive justice in proportion to the pure hatred that motivated the crime?

Yesterday, I looked up the definition of hate crime laws - it's essentially crimes motivated by hate directed towards: race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

and it's because of societal biases that hate crime laws had to categorized so those groups don't get overlooked in the justice system.

Now those arguing against hate crime laws using an argument like: "well, white men beating a black women would receive more severe punishment then black men beating a white woman" - that's laughable! Historically, black men had been lynched just for speaking to a white woman - never heard of that happening to white men. The hate crime laws ensure that white men, motivated by hatred of black people, beating a white woman is given equal punishment that would have been automatically meted out to black men beating a white woman.

Now, if law and order as well as the justice system is as equally made up of the same numbers or proportions of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, there would be no need to legally enforce them to drop personal biases when serving, protecting and applying justice. If a cop is too scared to admit they're gay to another cop, what makes you think the police force would give equal consideration to a gay man as they would to a straight man? They wouldn't. Hate crime laws force them to.

 

[rolling7]

davem said he supported equal punishment. No more, no less.


So how exactly does enacting a hate crime resolve that inequity?

Suppose:

1. White man beats black woman.

2. White man beats white woman.

3. Black man beats black woman.

4. Black man beats white woman.

(to keep it simple, i won't list all possible combinations with asians, hispanics, native americans, etc.)

which one(s) is(are) hate crimes?


So-called hate crimes aren't going to resolve that. Suppose it's a white pimp beating a white hooker. The victim belongs to a marginalized group. Can we call that a hate crime? No? So, the hooker still won't get equal treatment, according to your description.


Then we should be working on enforcing the equitable use of current laws and adjudication rather than making up new laws that themselves will not be equally applied.

amen!

 

[Reba]

Then you tell me, if laws insuring equal justice for all populations in this country are not in place, how do we achieve equal justice under the law.

Those laws insuring equal justice for are called The Constitution of the United States.

We achieve equal justice under the law by ensuring that the current laws are followed, by ensuring the judges and juries are carefully selected to minimize the effect of personal bias, and by ensuring that the defendant has adequate representation. Those laws and procedures are currently in place.

Even with hate crime laws, we don't have equal justice under the law for all people in this country.

Ah, then hate crime laws are not the solution.

So tell me, how do we achieve that? How do we insure that a GLTD youth who was beated with a ball bat for no other reason that the fact that he was gay receive justice in proportion to the pure hatred that motivated the crime?

Excuse me; how do you measure hate in order to determine a proportion?

You can't.

You can observe actions and results.

You can't get rid of hateful hearts by legislation.

You can punish actions by swift and sure sentencing.

 

[jillio]

Yesterday, I looked up the definition of hate crime laws - it's essentially crimes motivated by hate directed towards: race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

and it's because of societal biases that hate crime laws had to categorized so those groups don't get overlooked in the justice system.

Now those arguing against hate crime laws using an argument like: "well, white men beating a black women would receive more severe punishment then black men beating a white woman" - that's laughable! Historically, black men had been lynched just for speaking to a white woman - never heard of that happening to white men. The hate crime laws ensure that white men, motivated by hatred of black people, beating a white woman is given equal punishment that would have been automatically meted out to black men beating a white woman.

Now, if law and order as well as the justice system is as equally made up of the same numbers or proportions of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, there would be no need to legally enforce them to drop personal biases when serving, protecting and applying justice. If a cop is too scared to admit they're gay to another cop, what makes you think the police force would give equal consideration to a gay man as they would to a straight man? They wouldn't. Hate crime laws force them to.

Well said. It is because this country has historically had, and continues to have that protected class that opponents of hate crimes fear the laws will create that hate crimes continue to be committed and the necessity for laws determining punishment are needed. Destroy your own soul from your hatred if you will. That is your right. But you do not have the right to attack and injure others just because your soul is diseased with hatred for anyone unlike you. A society that accepts that is a society that is diseased.

 

[rolling7]

those laws insuring equal justice for are called the constitution of the united states.

We achieve equal justice under the law by ensuring that the current laws are followed, by ensuring the judges and juries are carefully selected to minimize the effect of personal bias, and by ensuring that the defendant has adequate representation. Those laws and procedures are currently in place.


Ah, then hate crime laws are not the solution.


Excuse me; how do you measure hate in order to determine a proportion?

You can't.

You can observe actions and results.

You can't get rid of hateful hearts by legislation.

You can punish actions by swift and sure sentencing.

amen 2!

 

[DeafCaroline]

You can't get rid of hateful hearts by legislation.

You can punish actions by swift and sure sentencing.

hate crime laws make sure that despite hateful hearts within the law and order system, true justice is being served. If a judge is anti-gay or bigoted against muslims, that WILL affect how he chooses to mete out punishment.

Say for example, purely hypothetical, you're a muslim woman who wears the veil because of religious beliefs. You get consistently harassed verbally and receive threats of violence. You complain to the police - they barely pay you any mind because they don't like muslims. then you go to court and find out that the judge is very Christian and he lost family members in the World Trade Center and thus, has a deep personal grudge against all Moslems and thinks they're all terrorists. You're screwed unless protected by hate crime laws that forbids such biases to play a role in how the police handle your case to how the judge deems appropriate punishment towards those who are threatening your very life.

 

[Reba]

Yesterday, I looked up the definition of hate crime laws - it's essentially crimes motivated by hate directed towards: race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

and it's because of societal biases that hate crime laws had to categorized so those groups don't get overlooked in the justice system.

Now those arguing against hate crime laws using an argument like: "well, white men beating a black women would receive more severe punishment then black men beating a white woman" - that's laughable! Historically, black men had been lynched just for speaking to a white woman - never heard of that happening to white men. The hate crime laws ensure that white men, motivated by hatred of black people, beating a white woman is given equal punishment that would have been automatically meted out to black men beating a white woman.

Which came first? Establishment of hate crime laws or the disestablishment of lynching black men for speaking to white women?

Answer: Disestablishment of lynching happened way before hate crimes were on the books.

... If a cop is too scared to admit they're gay to another cop, what makes you think the police force would give equal consideration to a gay man as they would to a straight man? They wouldn't. Hate crime laws force them to.

1. Do you have facts to back up that statement?

2. If they are professionals, they will carry out their duties properly; if they aren't, then why would even more laws change their behaviors?

3. When the police are making their arrests after a beating, do they know all the motives and status of everyone involved? Isn't that for the lawyers to sort out?

4. What if it's a gay-on-gay beating? Who do they side with then?

 

[TWA]

*yawn*

koko is back for two days and it's the same old shit all over again. DaveM, here's two cents to buy yourself a clue.

 

[Beowulf]

It is hateful to turn our veterans loose to become homeless.

 

[jillio]

Those laws insuring equal justice for are called The Constitution of the United States.

You are kidding, right?:laugh2: If that were so, Black men would never have been lynched for not looking down when walking past a white woman.

We achieve equal justice under the law by ensuring that the current laws are followed, by ensuring the judges and juries are carefully selected to minimize the effect of personal bias, and by ensuring that the defendant has adequate representation. Those laws and procedures are currently in place.

So, a guy that gets into a fight with his friend in a bar and is charged with assault and someone who goes out "gay bashing" just for the pure fun of it should receive the same charges and the same penalties? Please. Intent has always been a facet of our criminal codes.



Ah, then hate crime laws are not the solution.

They are a step in the right direction. Doing nothing about the abominable situation is not.

Excuse me; how do you measure hate in order to determine a proportion?

That is directly measurable through intent.

You can't.

You can observe actions and results.

You can't get rid of hateful hearts by legislation.

No, you can't. But you can certainly punish those that use their disgusting hatred to do harm to others.
You can punish actions by swift and sure sentencing.

That is what hate crimes laws are doing.

To ingore the injustice perpetrated disproportionately on marginalized populations, and to say, "Hey, you get the same protection everyone else does" is a joke. The populations would not be marginalized in the first place if justice, opportunity, and rights were equal in this country.

 

[jillio]

amen 2!

Funny that you would use that word when the Christian population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group.

 

[Reba]

hate crime laws make sure that despite hateful hearts within the law and order system, true justice is being served.

What if no hate is involved against a marginalized victim? Do they deserve less justice?

 

[Reba]

Funny that you would use that word when the Christian population in this country perpetrates more hatred toward others than any other group.

I suppose you have hard facts to back up that inflammatory accusation?

 

[jillio]

hate crime laws make sure that despite hateful hearts within the law and order system, true justice is being served. If a judge is anti-gay or bigoted against muslims, that WILL affect how he chooses to mete out punishment.

Say for example, purely hypothetical, you're a muslim woman who wears the veil because of religious beliefs. You get consistently harassed verbally and receive threats of violence. You complain to the police - they barely pay you any mind because they don't like muslims. then you go to court and find out that the judge is very Christian and he lost family members in the World Trade Center and thus, has a deep personal grudge against all Moslems and thinks they're all terrorists. You're screwed unless protected by hate crime laws that forbids such biases to play a role in how the police handle your case to how the judge deems appropriate punishment towards those who are threatening your very life.

My son was in high school during the period immediately following 9/11. He and an Iranian student went across the street from the school to have lunch at a Burger King. Four white youths jumped the Iranian youth and beat him senseless. Why? He "looked" like a Muslim. They were acting out of pure hatred. Were assault charges appropriate in this case? No. They were charged with a hate crime and they very well should have been.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Which came first? Establishment of hate crime laws or the disestablishment of lynching black men for speaking to white women?

Answer: Disestablishment of lynching happened way before hate crimes were on the books.


1. Do you have facts to back up that statement?

2. If they are professionals, they will carry out their duties properly; if they aren't, then why would even more laws change their behaviors?

3. When the police are making their arrests after a beating, do they know all the motives and status of everyone involved? Isn't that for the lawyers to sort out?

4. What if it's a gay-on-gay beating? Who do they side with then?

My best friend is gay and she's been in a 17 year relationship with a cop who is now the sergeant lieutenant. She loves being a cop and is damn proud of it but she admits homophobia is alive and well in the police force and has gotten very angry when some cops would make fun of gay men who got beaten then called them for help. And she admitted that when calls came from poor ghetto-ized areas, the police are far more slow to react than if the crime took place in a better more upscale area.

it would be nice if law was truly impartial and would look only at the facts but they don't and act upon those facts only.

It's all about interpretation of the law. That's how it really plays out.

 

[deafskeptic]

My son was in high school during the period immediately following 9/11. He and an Iranian student went across the street from the school to have lunch at a Burger King. Four white youths jumped the Iranian youth and beat him senseless. Why? He "looked" like a Muslim. They were acting out of pure hatred. Were assault charges appropriate in this case? No. They were charged with a hate crime and they very well should have been.

I don't think your son will ever forget that.

 

[Beowulf]

I suppose you have hard facts to back up that inflammatory accusation?

Ummm, Reba, that is a true statement. It is not against you personally. My Iraq veteran friends tell me stories.

 

[jillio]

I suppose you have hard facts to back up that inflammatory accusation?

History. More violence has been committed against others in the name of the Bible than for any other reason. The Bible has been used to sanction slavery and the inhumane treatment of slaves, to sanction and justify the oppression of women, to justify pediophilia, to sanction and justify the inhumane treatment of the GLTB population, to promote hatred of other religions, and on and on and on.

Just one of the reason that hate crimes and separation of Church and state are so necessary.