Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

  1. #21
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    I really don't see why anyone reasonable would feel the existence of hate crime legislation is a great wrong. So they decided that assault/murder with an intent to terrorize an entire group of people constituted a more severe crime than assault/murder with an intent to harm a single person. Okay. Where did they go astray?
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-23-09 at 12:44 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  2. #22
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    I really don't see why anyone reasonable feels one way or another about hate crime legislation. So they decided that assault/murder with an intent to terrorize an entire group of people constituted a more severe crime than assault/murder with an intent to harm a single person. Okay.
    I care because I'm concerned about the increased power that this gives prosecutors, the fact that I think it's unconstitutionally vague, and because it adds to the mandatory minimum laws on the books while we should be dismantling them. These are not unimportant things in my book.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #23
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    I really don't see why anyone reasonable would feel the existence of hate crime legislation is a great wrong. So they decided that assault/murder with an intent to terrorize an entire group of people constituted a more severe crime than assault/murder with an intent to harm a single person. Okay. Where did they go astray?
    Because I believe in equality and different sentencing guidelines elevates one group above another.
    From the ashes.

  4. #24
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I care because I'm concerned about the increased power that this gives prosecutors, the fact that I think it's unconstitutionally vague, and because it adds to the mandatory minimum laws on the books while we should be dismantling them. These are not unimportant things in my book.
    No reason to object to prosecutor's having increased power if it is justifiable. Deciding there can be an additional element to killing aside from the act itself is not something hates crimes have a monopoly on. Manslaughter and all the degrees of murder derive from the understanding that more than just the isolated outcome is important, that the intent and strategy of the killer matters as well. Such is the case with genocide and terrorism and other acts against humanity.

    Capital punishment is constitutionally vague and it is a more serious matter, since it giving the state the power to decide who shall live and who shall die. There is no need to take exception to hate crimes unless we are taking exception to a variety of other practices. If you are opposed to capital punishment as well, then that requires a different argument.

    You'll have to elaborate on the last reason.

    Because I believe in equality and different sentencing guidelines elevates one group above another.
    Provided the person genuinely intended to terrify an entire community into submission through his aggression against a single person, and especially if this is obvious from his demeanor and cues left the crime scene and elsewhere, there is no reason why he shouldn't be judged for the harm he did or attempted to do to that community as well as to the single individual. It was his plan, not anybody else's.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-23-09 at 01:11 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  5. #25
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Provided the person genuinely intended to terrify an entire community into submission through his aggression against a single person, and especially if this is obvious from his demeanor and cues left the crime scene and elsewhere, there is no reason why he shouldn't be judged for the harm he did or attempted to do to that community as well as to the single individual. It was his plan, not anybody else's.
    Any violent crime will "terrify" some community. If it happens in a neighborhood, those people will be terrified that is could happen in their community. Maybe the perp chose that neighborhood specifically.
    If I happen to be the victim of a crime, I don't want the perpetrator to receive a lesser sentence than other perps than commit the same crime on a person of a minority group. That is not providing equal justice to all victims.
    From the ashes.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The existence of the law does not force the prosecutor to bring the charge, nor does it force the jury to convict. The only way it could possibly have the effect you're seeking is if the judge is a terrible bigot and the hate crime law imposes a mandatory minimum higher than the judge would otherwise have imposed. Due to the vast authority sentencing judges have and the fact that this would only apply in federal courts, this is an absolute non-issue. These are federal judges - not some backwoods town justice in Alabama.
    Not every state has minimum sentencing for certain crimes. You're correct, it doesn't ensure that someone is charged or convicted, but it does ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing, usually. This prevents systemic bias based on homophobia, and I think it's proper, at least for now. I adamantly believe that victims who are minorities still require protection in the justice system.

    Even though it doesn't guarantee a charge, a hate crime garners more attention from the police by virtue of the law alone. It compels authority to not ignore cases where the victim is a minority, which does still happen no matter what people choose to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The police officers have absolutely no involvement in deciding whether or not to bring the charges, so whether they're bigoted or not has no impact on the eventual outcome of the case.
    No but it spreads awareness and compels them to act in most cases. Also, I subscribe to the idea that crimes motivated by hate of a group disempowers the whole group that the victim is part of. It is more damaging to a group that is still trying to fight for equality. I'm not even American, and the tale of Matthew Shepard affected me. It sets a standard for criminals to think twice before they attack someone based on their sexual orientation, race, etc... and yes, I include white people in this, because there is racial crime against them too.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Except the fact that this comes with heaver penalties may induce otherwise innocent people (innocent of the hate crime, at least) to plea to a lesser charge.
    I agree, but for all its flaws, I think it is a positive step for a society which is in transition. Justice is rarely perfect, hate crime or not. It helps minority groups to feel more secure in who they are and their struggle for equality.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And again, this is absolutely not an issue with federal judges to the degree that we need a wholesale revision of the laws and a significant increase in prosecutorial power.
    If Federal judges are more astute then they'll be able to determine more readily what is and isn't a hate crime.
    Last edited by Orion; 10-23-09 at 03:00 AM.

  7. #27
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Any violent crime will "terrify" some community. If it happens in a neighborhood, those people will be terrified that is could happen in their community. Maybe the perp chose that neighborhood specifically.
    If I happen to be the victim of a crime, I don't want the perpetrator to receive a lesser sentence than other perps than commit the same crime on a person of a minority group. That is not providing equal justice to all victims.
    Yes, but the murderer did not intend on frightening that community. It's not his strategy or plan. Furthermore, hate crimes are not measured by how scared populations get (though that is a warning sign), but rather on cues given by the murderer himself -- cues that show his intent is to terrorize a group of people into some behavior contrary to their interests.

    The cues are the essential thing. If people get scared when there are no cues, then they are being irrational and the murderer can't be held responsible for their terror. Whatever his crime, nothing he did indicates they ought to have been especially afraid. If the cues are present, however, then their fright is justified (since they are all potentially targets to the exclusion of all other types) and it makes sense for the murderer to incur additional penalties.

    Secondly, it is providing equal justice. Equality is about proportionality, not being identical. People are punished according what they deserve, and if a person is performing murder with the intended effect of terrorizing a particular group of people, then he should be brought to terms for that. No different than terrorism, except not directed toward a state, necessarily.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-23-09 at 03:22 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  8. #28
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    I'm not against hate crime legislation...nor am I for it. I see the pro in it and the con in it. So honestly I don't care about this part of the discussion.

    What I'm more concerned about is the fact that they rammed this bit of legislation through in a bill that basically HAD to pass. A bill that had pretty much absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes. But had more to do with the Afghanistan war.

    What will they pass next in the same manner? Sorry but when they do this kind of thing it just makes me distrust them more than I already do. And makes me think about joining some militia in Idaho or Montana.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Congress extends hate crime protections to gays - Yahoo! News



    I was surprised to not see a post on this yet. It is an easy target, and for good reason. First, hate crime laws should go away, not be expanded...and as any one who knows my posts knows I am well in favor of gay rights, but this is just wrong.

    Further, to add this to a defense spending bill is the kind of things we as democrats should oppose. It is and was wrong when republicans did it, it is wrong when we do it. If you can't pass a bill, you can't pass it. Using workarounds to get something through is just wrong.
    They should repeal all hate-crime legislation in toto.

  10. #30
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    No reason to object to prosecutor's having increased power if it is justifiable. Deciding there can be an additional element to killing aside from the act itself is not something hates crimes have a monopoly on. Manslaughter and all the degrees of murder derive from the understanding that more than just the isolated outcome is important, that the intent and strategy of the killer matters as well.
    I'm not arguing that it's not possible to consider other factors, I'm arguing that this is bad policy. Furthermore, the analogy between the other types of crime and this one doesn't work that well. In the context of murder v. manslaughter, the question of whether it qualifies as one or the other is a relatively straightforward question that can generally be determined from context. There isn't really a risk of prosecutorial abuse or charging disparity - you're not going to get convicted of murder if you accidentally drop a gun and it goes off, just like you'll probably be charged with murder if you plan a crime out and shoot someone in the face.

    In contrast, the question of whether a crime qualifies as a hate crime is far less concrete. Look at the examples cited above.

    Which of these do you think are hate crimes?:

    1) Guy uses a gay chatroom to find someone to rob because he thinks gay people will be easy to lure to the place of robbery and to overpower

    2) Guy robs a woman because women are less likely to fight back than men

    3) Guy robs an old person because old people are less likely to fight back

    4) Guy rapes a woman because he wants to rape a woman, not a man

    Every one of these people falls within the meaning of the hate crime statute. As a result, it gives prosecutors almost unlimited leeway to use that additional leverage to force people to plea to more serious charges, whether or not they actually committed what you or I would consider a "hate crime."

    Capital punishment is constitutionally vague and it is a more serious matter, since it giving the state the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.
    How is capital punishment constitutionally vague? Death penalty statutes are generally some of the most explicitly defined statutes on the books.

    You'll have to elaborate on the last reason.
    (Point of clarification: This federal legislation does not provide for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences [except for one small exception which isn't relevant here]. When I raised my objections to the use of mandatory minimums in hate crime laws, I meant to refer to the many state hate crime laws which include minimums.)

    Mandatory minimum sentences have been an abject failure and we're moving toward eliminating them. We should continue down this path. This is a step in the wrong direction.

    Provided the person genuinely intended to terrify an entire community into submission through his aggression against a single person, and especially if this is obvious from his demeanor and cues left the crime scene and elsewhere, there is no reason why he shouldn't be judged for the harm he did or attempted to do to that community as well as to the single individual. It was his plan, not anybody else's.
    The point is that the statute doesn't limit the charges to situations like this. It's far too sweeping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Not every state has minimum sentencing for certain crimes. You're correct, it doesn't ensure that someone is charged or convicted, but it does ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing, usually. This prevents systemic bias based on homophobia, and I think it's proper, at least for now. I adamantly believe that victims who are minorities still require protection in the justice system.
    Again, to clarify, this law will only apply in cases that are brought by federal prosecutors in federal court. If you think that hate crimes are being pursued less vigorously than crime committed against white people, you need to back this up.

    Furthermore, as noted above, the federal hate crime law does not include a mandatory minimum, so I don't see how it will "ensure a minimum guideline for sentencing." The sentencing guidelines provide for a 3 level increase, which is minimal.

    Even though it doesn't guarantee a charge, a hate crime garners more attention from the police by virtue of the law alone. It compels authority to not ignore cases where the victim is a minority, which does still happen no matter what people choose to believe.

    No but it spreads awareness and compels them to act in most cases.
    Again, this law does not compel anyone to do anything, especially the police. All this law does is offer prosecutors the option to add a more serious charge in cases of "hate crimes." If you're worried about police officers ignoring these crimes, you should know that this law will absolutely not address that in any way, shape or form.

    Also, I subscribe to the idea that crimes motivated by hate of a group disempowers the whole group that the victim is part of. It is more damaging to a group that is still trying to fight for equality. I'm not even American, and the tale of Matthew Shepard affected me.
    The fact that something is bad doesn't mean that the solution is to pass overbroad and ill-defined laws criminalizing a wide range of behavior.

    It sets a standard for criminals to think twice before they attack someone based on their sexual orientation, race, etc... and yes, I include white people in this, because there is racial crime against them too.
    Do you actually think that this is how it will work?

    "Hey, Tony, you want to go out and beat some black guys with a pipe?"

    "Nah man, I would have done it last week because we would have probably only been charged with assault/attempted murder/etc. in state court and spend 7-11 years in prison, but they passed this new hate crime law. Now we might get charged in federal court and spend 8-12 years in prison."

    "Damn bro, I didn't know that. Good point. Let's just stay home and watch the Jets."

    I agree, but for all its flaws, I think it is a positive step for a society which is in transition. Justice is rarely perfect, hate crime or not. It helps minority groups to feel more secure in who they are and their struggle for equality.
    So would a law providing for the death penalty for racism, but that wouldn't be a good law either.

    If Federal judges are more astute then they'll be able to determine more readily what is and isn't a hate crime.
    It's not up to the judges. It's the AUSA who decides what charges to bring and the jury who decides whether to convict. Furthermore, in the 90% of federal criminal prosecutions that plea before trial, the judge will have very limited input.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 10-23-09 at 04:29 AM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •