Reply With Quote
One can condemn a sin without condemning the sinner. It's not a hard concept to understand... really.
First, I don't know how you separate "intent" from mental state. The law treats the two as the same.
Second, even if that's your argument, it is mistaken. The law does take your version of mental state into consideration. To use your example, if the reason I kill you is because you are about kill me, it is not necessarily murder. Same act (causing death), same intent (to cause death), but one is a crime and the other is not.
Or, if I kill you because I just witnessed you killing my son, the crime may qualify as a crime of sudden passion and the offense may be reduced a level. Same act, same intent, but one is a lesser crime because of "mental state."
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 05-03-2007 at 10:14 PM.
One can condemn a sin without condemning the sinner. It's not a hard concept to understand... really.
Yep, but 99% of the population will do the latter and that is why society has taken the option of making hate crimes punishable.
Those are mitigating cir stances. Where I would object is in distinguishing a premeditated crime based upon group hate from a premeditated crime based upon other similarly indefensible frames of mind. First-degree murder and capital murder are what they are. Let the prosecuting attorney present evidence about racism or anti-gay bias during the punishment phase of the trial, and allow the jury to return a sentence at the higher end of the range.
The anecdote that comes to mind is when then-Gov. George W. Bush was criticized for not pushing for hate crimes legislation in light of the Jasper atrocity. The irony was that the perpetrators were executed anyway. What would have hate crimes legislation done to increase the severity of punishment? I think it's a political statement only.
I agree with yoni and phenemanuaual
bottom line is hate crimes threaten free speech
But those defenses are not solely dependent on the cir stances one finds himself in. The mental state of the accused is a large part of it. Do you actually have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger? Did you kill out of sudden passion arising out of direct provocation? Those are all questions regarding your mental state. It's possible that two people can be in what appears to be the exact same cir stances and yet, one will be allowed to claim self-defense and the other won't based entirely on what they were thinking at the time they acted.
I agree with you here. If someone attacks me because his girlfriend was looking at me in a club, how is that any less of a crime than if he attacks me because I am a Mexican? Either way, he's operating from hate.
Foes of Hate Crime Bill Prove It's Needed
...The proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday despite the accompanying White House veto threat, includes provisions that would make it possible for federal investigation and prosecution of any hate crime, as well as a more-publicized tenet that expands the definition of hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation, transgender iden y, gender and disability. ...
...Most media and public attention is focused on the clause that offers greater protection for sexual minorities. But it shouldn’t even be news. ...
According to FBI reports, 14 percent of 2005 hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation, which is just slightly less than the percent of attacks based on religion and greater than the percent of attacks based on ethnicity, two groups that are currently protected under the law.Everybody understand now?Those in the sexual minority deserve the same protection as other minorities because they are just as abused and just as worthy of it. But not only is this protection not afforded them, but arguments against the proposed revisions to hate crime laws are based on prejudices that should be a mere memory in the year 2007. ...
... Second, while every American citizen has a Cons utional right to protection, those in minority groups are in a unique situation. Simply being who they are inspires people to commit violence against them. Additionally, if we were all to have the equal protection Rep. Smith suggests, we would have to eliminate all hate crime laws covering race, religion and national origin. Doing away with hate crime laws altogether would be an injustice, and members of both parties would likely oppose it. So these groups are and will continue to rightfully be protected, but the still-unaccepted sexual minorities are not.
Perhaps the weakest argument against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act is the one put forth by the religious right – that this act would take away their right to free speech and hold them accountable for speaking out against sexuality. ... What’s important is the fact that the proposed act would in no way take away their right to free speech, as it covers only physical acts against these groups. Perhaps the religious right should also consider that they, under current hate crime laws, are protected against hate-related attacks, and reflect on what it might be like if that were to be taken away from them.
Simply put, the people who are currently protected are the ones enjoying "special" rights -- or, as I like to think of them: privileges.
But, hey, I'm willing to give up equal protection under the law if you are too.
Now, if you're against all hate-crime laws, then I'll give you credit for being consistent. If you're really being consistent.
I hope you realize that by railing against hate-crime laws, you're on quite a slippery slope. If you believe that there should be no protections in place for minorities against crimes committed on the sole basis of who we are, then be prepared to explain why we shouldn't eliminate all "special rights" laws, such as protection in housing and employment.
And don't give me any of that "thought crime" malarkey. If you really believe that there's no way to determine that a gay -- or black, or Muslim -- person was beaten or murdered on the basis of who they are, then how can there be any way to determine that the reason a person was fired, or evicted, for the same "thought crime"?
In which case, I expect everyone against hate-crime laws must want to see both the Fair Housing Act and le VII of the Civil Rights Act repealed immediately. There's no way to justify support for either if you oppose the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act.
Heck, you may as well overturn the Americans with Disabilities Act. After all, don't all those wheelchair ramps and court sign-language interpreters represent "special" rights?
I think we're missing something by focusing on hate crimes. When is the government going to do more to stop love crimes? How about like crimes? Or more-or-less neutral crimes? Pretty sure most crimes are, in fact, crimes. If you can prove that a crime was based solely on discrimination against something or other, fine, but what I and I'm sure other people are worried about are hate crime laws being used to try to limit people's free speech.
I agree with Dr. Dobson. It is a very scary path. You
can be prosecuted for what you think and say.
Regardless of what people would like you to believe
sexuality is a sexual practice, not a lifestyle as some
want to profess.
Once more we see politicians getting involved where
they have no business. It has always been a mystery
to me how politicians, when they get elected, think
they are smarter and experts in all things.
I think one reason for focusing on hate crimes is that they can have a larger terroristic effect on groups, such as the way the KKK terrorized blacks. Another reason is so that police and prosecutors are put on notice to pay attention to these crimes rather than ignoring or downplaying them. Just like some ministers, the police and prosecutors might not have much sympathy for gays.
You can't be prosecuted, in the main, for what you think or say. You would be prosecuted, under hate crimes legislation, for what you've done. Why you did it (what you thought) would only affect the degree of your crime and the severity of your sentence in most cases.
Of course, you already can be prosecuted for what you think and say -- at least with regard to inchoate crimes like conspiracy (which requires proof of what the defendants were thinking and what they said), attempt (which generally compels proof of what the defendant thought and what he or she said), and solicitation.
So, this notion that we don't already punish thought and speech, at least in some cir stances, is ridiculous.
An interesting non-sequitur. I'm not sure that "a sexual practice" and "a lifestyle" are internally inconsistent. I'm guessing, though, that this is still another run at conclusively proving the old cannard that its a choice. Is it your belief that those who, in your words, choose to exercise their prerogative to engage in that sexual practice are somehow subjecting themselves to the possiblity of being singled out to be victims of violent crimes?
Well, generally, we elect politicians to create legislation that reflects the general will of the people. Obviously, as this thread indicates, there is some faction of the general public that believes that hate crimes legislation is a worthwhile thing. Strikingly, only politicians can enact such a law, so, in that sense, after they are elected to office, politicians are best situated to create the law that some believe to be necessary. That you disagree with that course, of course, isn't proof that it's not the government's business.Once more we see politicians getting involved where
they have no business. It has always been a mystery
to me how politicians, when they get elected, think
they are smarter and experts in all things.
As I've said before, I don't disagree with the notion that the better course here is to subsume the concept of hate crimes within the notion of criminal intent. I'm not entirely sure why it makes any difference that the intent behind the crime was revenge, or phobia, or xenophobia, or pure bloodlust. An intentional crime is an intentional crime. The reasons for distinguishing hate crimes from other intentional crimes strike me as fairly weak, since prosecutorial discretion would still exist even after a hate crimes statute was invoked. The only real difference a hate crime law might make, again, is with regard to enhancing punishments; but that same objective can be accomplished by enhancing punishments for any intentional crime.
What I find strikingly odd about this debate is that those who are generally on the left are now arguing for stiffer punishments for certain crimes, while those who are generally on the right are essentially arguing that punishments need not be as severe. It's a dizzying sight.
You're right. This may be one of the few issues where criminal defense lawyers actually side with the GOP.
I haven't really kept up with this thread but, if you're implying my dislike of hate crimes legislation amounts to desiring leniency on those who would, under such laws, received an enhanced penalty, you couldn't be more wrong.
As a prime example, I would refer you t the James Byrd case wherein Mr. Byrd (black) was dragged to death by three men (white). Then Governor Bush's refusal to sign Hate Crimes legislation into law was excoriated by the race-baiters, using this case as support.
Two of the defendents in the Byrd case were sentenced to death and one to life in prison (I'm not sure if that means "without parole" anymore). I wouldn't have been upset if the third had been sentenced to death as well.
Tell me what Hate Crimes legislation would have done to enhance those penalties?
I'm opposed to Hate Crimes legislation because it demotes victims of crimes not perpetrated as a result of some prejudice. Justice shouldn't be meted out based on your race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc...
I'm not implying anything about you, Mr. Sensitive. It's not always about you. My point was far more general -- I think many in this forum who are supporting hate crime legislation would, in other contexts, be appalled by the notion of imposing stiffer penalties (more liberal use of the death penalty, for instance); I think many in this forum who are against hate crime legislation would, in other contexts, be applauding the notion of punishing criminals more severely. Obviously, not everyone can be neatly categorized. It was a broad observation -- and I still think that it is essentially correct.
I agree with you in principle. I think the intent to kill Mr. Byrd, regardless of his race, was enough to warrant the stiffest penalties that the law allows. I don't personally favor the death penalty, but I certainly think that the law should allow for imposition of the stiffest sentences for those who commit intentional or pre-meditated murders. Hate crime is just another way of saying intentional crime, in my mind. Again, while I can see the policy arguments made by Hate Crime legislation advocates, I think the solution to the issue can be far more easily accomplished.
What I disdain in this debate is the empty (and erroneous) rhetoric on both sides.
Again, if all intentional crimes can be prosecuted the same way, nothing. I think it would probably be uncons utional for a State to do any of the following: (1) to make a Hate Crime homicide a capital offense without proof concerning the occurrence of another, concurrent crime against the decedent; or (2) to enhance penalties for, say, assault to equalize it with a penalty for homicide based solely on the characterization of the crime as a "hate crime." The solution, I think, is to be consistent in meting out punishments for intentional crimes -- hate crimes are decidedly intentional crimes.
Again, I agree with you there.
And, yet, a third category of people see no correlation between their stance on punishment and their stance on hate crimes legislation.
Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement on the rest.
It would be interesting to hear about the gays being
against the straights once in a while. And their attacks
on the straights for just being straight.
Don't hate crime laws represent victim dicrimination as well?
Say I get beaten up by a bunch of fellow white guys because they don't like me for a non-hate crime reason, and they all get 2 years in jail.
A minority gets beaten up by a bunch of white guys who don't like him because he's a minority, and they get 5 years in jail because it's a hate crime.
I just got screwed. Why didn't my attackers get 5 years? I got beaten up just as bad. I've just been treated as a second class citizen.
Why don't we just take the hate crime penalties and apply them to all crimes of that nature? Somebody has probably already suggested that.
You could argue the same thing about this country's employment laws. Say you get fired because you have an ugly haircut. There's probably no recourse for you in the law. However, if someone in a protected class is terminated based on their protected status, they have legal recourse under the law.
The rationale is that we are trying to reduce the instances of adverse events based on these protected traits and therefore, the liability (civil or criminal) is more severe.
"I don't judge Homer and Marge...that's for a vengeful god to do."
Comparing criminal victims to employment practices? Sorry, not even close. But, for the record, I think private employers, not subject to being contracted by a government en y for supplies or services, should be able to fire, or hire, for whatever reason they like...including bad hair or race.
It's their ing business and their ing investment.
Government employment is another matter and should, as the law requires, be colorblind. And, I believe that should go for any business that ever hopes to serve as a government contractor in any capacity. Ugly hair -- if the owner refuses to remedy -- could be cause for termination if appearance is a relevant factor for employment.
Why not just try to reduce the instances of adverse events? Period.
If your laying in a ditch bleeding because somebody put a bullet through your back, does is really ing matter that they did it because they didn't like your race or lifestyle choices? Is it any more or less serious for the victim? Seriously, do robbery/murder victims bleed less or die in some mitigated manner that warrants their killers be treated differently than a prejudice/murder victim?
What part of the "equal protection clause," of the fourteenth amendment to the U. S. Cons ution, do you and all these "hate crimes" proponents not understand?
Nothing says ridiculous generalization like citing 99% of the population.
The only comparison I was making was that in both situations you have the same act, but with different consequences based on a charateristic of the "victim."
Well, the only thing you are asking for then is that private employers be allowed to make employment decisions based on race, gender, religion, etc., because in an at-will state, employers can already terminate people for any reason not related to the protected traits listed above.
Who said I was a "hate crime proponent"?I specifically posted a similar scenario to what you described and agreed that a victim is a victim regardless of race. Don't be so quick to try and refute my posts. Unlike some here, I don't force my thoughts into alignment with the alleged party line.
You do realize, of course, that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been construed to afford greater protections to "suspect classes" and to afford intermediate protections to "protected classes."
As much as some might wish it wasn't true, our society isn't that far removed -- historically or socially -- from times of explicit racism and (now unlawful) discrimination both in the private and public sectors.
I understand where you're going with your argument, but I don't think the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is particularly likely to be your best ally -- if anything, judicial constructions of the 14th Amendment tend to favor those who support hate crimes legislation.
which branch of the government is that?
Hardy har har.... you missed the point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions