• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

domestic terrorism and hate crimes are two different things. The Ft Hood shooting and FRC shooting were both domestic terrorism, but since we cannot read the minds of the shooters we don't know if they were hate crimes.

but you ignored my question:

1. a white guy murders a black guy to steal his wallet

2. a different white guy murders a black guy because he hates blacks

you want to give guy #2 a harsher punishment. Why? because you don't approve of what he was thinking.

Domestic terrorism is, by the law, a crime of motive. It has to be a crime commited to intimidate, coerce, influence or effect the civilian population or governent. So if your objection to hate crime laws is that it is a crime of motive, the same objection would apply to the domestic terrorism law.
 
In the words of John McInroe, "you cannnot be serious". do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

You'll have to forgive me for insisting that facts matter.

You will never, ever, EVER convince me that it is better to discuss issues on the basis of ignorance and misinformation than upon facts.

If you are unwilling or unable to address the issue of HCE's on the basis of how they actually operate (which is upon the basis of recognition of additional harm, NOT upon thought police or "thought crimes" or any such nonsense), just say so and be done with it.
 
HCE's are not based upon supposition of what an offender was or was not thinking. They are based upon recognition of additional harm to a community or communities.

How is the community harmed specifically any differently than when a child is raped and murdered or anyone for that matter. Communities will always be terrorized by crazy killers. That doesn't make any sense at all. Besides, just charging them with the crime they committed is good enough. There is absolutely no reason at all to make one motive for murder any worse than another.



All ethical arguments aside, there's an obvious reason for that. AGE is not a protected class under hate crime enhancement legislation. An offender could give a direct, first-person admission that he committed murder specifically because he despises children, and that he wanted to terrorize children...and there would still be no legal mechanism for carry an HCE based upon AGE.

There are killers who rape and kill only children. According to your logic, children should be a protected class too. A killer of children is terrorizing children, and they are no less important than any minority.



That's because -- unless a prosecutor can provide strong evidence to suggest that a rape was specifically motivated by animus towards women -- there is no legal basis to pursue an HCE. It would be spectacularly difficult to argue for and obtain an HCE in a rape case because you'd need to first have an offender found guilty of raping both men and women (or at least attempting to do so), and then -- on top of that -- provide evidence that a specific charge of rape was motivated by a specific animus towards men, or towards women (as opposed to the intuitive and expected explanation which would suggest that the rape was motivated by a desire to impose the offender's will upon the victim through sexual violence).

They're are plenty of rapists and women-killers who have admitted to hating women. Women are also a minority class. According to your logic, we should be protected too. Are WE any less important than other minority? When there is a rapist or a woman-killer loose in the community, women feel terrorized, frightened and victimized.



HCE's make no attempt to address what specific thoughts may have been in the offender's head at the time. Demonstration of the offender's motivation for the crime must go beyond the moment of the crime, and be shown to have been based upon specific animus.

The additional penalties for a criminal sentence (the "enhancement" part of Hate Crime Enhancement) are NOT based upon the thoughts or imagined thoughts of the offender...they are based upon the recognition of additional harm resulting from the crime.

If you are incapable of, or unwilling, to acknowledge this additional harm, that's one thing...but at least have the intellectual honesty to support or oppose HCEs based upon how they ACTUALLY operate (which is upon recognition of additional harm, NOT upon any attempts to speculated about anyone's thoughts at the time of the crime).

No. I think hate crime legislation makes no sense in the big picture, and I think it is punishing for the motive, not the result of the crime committed.
 
Why is it WORSE to kill someone because you don't like their race/gender versus killing someone for the joy of killing because you're a psychopath or killing someone because you think they might have a lot of money or a guy raping and killing a woman just because he thinks he can? All have the same outcome, and THAT is what matters, IMO. One is no worse than the other. They are ALL bad.

They do NOT all have the same outcome.

If you come home from work, find your spouse having sex with someone else, and commit murder out of rage and jealousy, that's one or two people killed...but the basis of the rage is intuitive and the social shock is at the violence...NOT at the violence and the motive.

If you murder an "interracial" couple because you have a long history of vocal opposition to "race-mixing" and you have frequently expressed the sentiment in public settings and/or in writing that you don't want to see the "dilution" of some "superior race," then your murder of the couple doesn't just result in two people killed...it sends a message which threatens all so-called "interracial" couples.

In the former case, there is a basic social value (marital fidelity) considered positive which has been violated, and so the murder in the former case -- while still horrible and still recognized as a crime -- does not pose any threat to the struggle to uphold any further values or practices based upon those values.

In the latter case, there is the additional harm of threatening the potential of working against racist oppression and positive "interracial" relationships. If/when the justice system fails to address this additional harm, it effectively sends a green light message for others who are willing to commit criminal violence in order to pursue their political agenda of promoting racism.

Once AGAIN -- if you don't see the additional harm, then that's your prerogative...but the concept of recognizing additional harm (NOT any nonsense about punishing thought) IS the basis of HCE's.
 
How about we take a look at serial killers? Serial killers will sometimes have very age-specific, gender-specific or race-specific targets. Sometimes it is because they are sexually attracted to these people. Hate crime? Is it worse than someone who just kills people indiscriminately? One will put a certain type of person at risk. The other one puts anybody at risk.
 
They do NOT all have the same outcome.

If you come home from work, find your spouse having sex with someone else, and commit murder out of rage and jealousy, that's one or two people killed...but the basis of the rage is intuitive and the social shock is at the violence...NOT at the violence and the motive.

If you murder an "interracial" couple because you have a long history of vocal opposition to "race-mixing" and you have frequently expressed the sentiment in public settings and/or in writing that you don't want to see the "dilution" of some "superior race," then your murder of the couple doesn't just result in two people killed...it sends a message which threatens all so-called "interracial" couples.

In the former case, there is a basic social value (marital fidelity) considered positive which has been violated, and so the murder in the former case -- while still horrible and still recognized as a crime -- does not pose any threat to the struggle to uphold any further values or practices based upon those values.

In the latter case, there is the additional harm of threatening the potential of working against racist oppression and positive "interracial" relationships. If/when the justice system fails to address this additional harm, it effectively sends a green light message for others who are willing to commit criminal violence in order to pursue their political agenda of promoting racism.

Once AGAIN -- if you don't see the additional harm, then that's your prerogative...but the concept of recognizing additional harm (NOT any nonsense about punishing thought) IS the basis of HCE's.

See, you're totally assuming things. You are assuming that there will be copycats. You are assuming that the specific targeted community will feel victimized. You are assuming that a specific crime will incite or promote racism. All of which you have no proof would ever occur.
 
In effect, whether it's intended or not, you reward failure.

While it might be true in that sense, but giving someone a life in prison or death sentence to someone who attempted murder someone would be like saying the victim of a murderer is less deserving of justice than the victim of an attempted murderer or that the victim of the attempted murderer should get the same justice that a victim of a murderer got.
 
Tell that to the wife and kids of a guy who was murdered for his money. I'm sure they'll understand.
How do the wife and kids of a man murdered for his money negate the reality that hate crimes have broader potential societal consequences than regular crimes?
 
only in the fantasy world inhabited by liberals. murder is murder, what the criminal was thinking at the time makes absolutely no difference.

BTW, you cannot legislate thought, you cannot control what people think. I would like to make all liberal thought illegal, but unfortunately thats not going to happen
I appreciate your response that was both arrogant and ignorant at the same time.
 
You say that as if "hate" is a one-way street.
Actually, that's not how I said it as my comment gave two different ways of the street the possibility of being motivated by hate, but I appreciate your right to not comprehend my posts.
 
Which group of people have declared that the FRC is a "hate group"?
 
This.

Crimes are crimes against individuals.
Hate crimes are crimes against groups.
Terrorism is crimes against societies.

A hate crime, by definition, is intended to target far more than just the individual: It is intended to intimidate those belonging to his or her oppressed minorities.
Exactly and there's also the fact that hate crimes have the potential to cause more social unrest as a response to the crime. The potential for riots, social tension and retaliation increase when it's a hate crime.
 
How do the wife and kids of a man murdered for his money negate the reality that hate crimes have broader potential societal consequences than regular crimes?


Yes, there is the key word here, POTENTIAL. So we are going to punish one killer more harshly than another killer based of something that could potentially happen. That is effing bogus. Also, I could say that same exact thing about crimes against women or children. Same thing. In fact, you could make assumptions about what the possible consequences could be just about any murder. Who is to say that a child murderer does not POTENTIALLY encourage other people who were thinking about killing children? WE don't know that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there is the key word here, POTENTIAL. So we are going to punish one killer more harshly than another killer based of something that could potentially happen. That is effing bogus. Also, I could say that same exact thing about crimes against women or children. Same thing. In fact, you could make assumptions about what the possible consequences could be just about any murder. Who is to say that a child murderer does not POTENTIALLY encourage other people who were thinking about killing children? WE don't know that.
All criminals are punished, in part, based on the potential of something happening.
 
Why don't you Google it?

Why don't we just Google everything instead of, I dunno, sometimes asking questions on political message boards?
 
Why don't we just Google everything instead of, I dunno, sometimes asking questions on political message boards?
I always Google easily answered questions about hard facts.
 
Exactly and there's also the fact that hate crimes have the potential to cause more social unrest as a response to the crime. The potential for riots, social tension and retaliation increase when it's a hate crime.

It's not right to make up legislation for what MIGHT or COULD happen.
 
All criminals are punished, in part, based on the potential of something happening.

LOL! Really? I thought criminals were punished for their specific crimes? :roll:
 
How is the community harmed specifically any differently than when a child is raped and murdered or anyone for that matter.

If you have to ask such a question, I highly doubt you'd understand the answers I've already given.

The additional harm from hate crimes is that failure to respond effectively to them sends the message that the law doesn't apply equally to everyone...that it's either OK -- or less bad -- to victimize some groups of people rather than others.

I'll give it another try, but I must remind you that *whether or not you understand my explanation, it is still the case that HCE's are based upon recognition of additional harm, not upon punishing thought.*

The additional harm in question, if and when a government is perceived to be too lenient upon criminals who have committed crimes specifically motivated by animus against a protected class, is that both the targeted group -- and the general population -- will come away with the impression that the protections of the law don't REALLY apply to everyone, or at the very least don't apply equally to them. Once you grasp the fact that allegiance to a government and its laws is NOT a given (people have to be trained into accepting laws), the significance of this should be obvious.

There is absolutely no reason at all to make one motive for murder any worse than another.

For the upteenth time; the basis of HCE's is not privileging one motive over another...it is recognizing the additional harm of some motives over others. This principle, by the way, is quite common. As some other posters have pointed out, the penalties for ACTUALLY killing someone are heavier than for ATTEMPTING to kill them, in part because obviously the harm is greater when you ACTUALLY kill someone.



There are killers who rape and kill only children. According to your logic, children should be a protected class too.

Actually, I WOULD support including AGE as a protected class. There are three heavy practical challenges to making that an effective policy change.

First, it would be extremely difficult to marshal the kind of evidence one would need to demonstrate age-based animus.
Second, as I already described with regards to attaching a gender-based HCE to a rape conviction, it would be similarly difficult to demonstrate that a rape was motivated by specific animus towards women (as contrasted against simply imposing sexual violence upon someone, and only being attracted to women).
Third, children have no consistent and reliable political voice. They are treated -- legally and politically -- as though they are nothing but extensions of their parents or guardians. The political organization and weight of "parents' rights" advocacy groups continues to easily outmatch the advocacy groups which organize on behalf of children.

A killer of children is terrorizing children, and they are no less important than any minority.

HCE's are not based upon whether or not the offense in question MAY terrorize someone (or many someone's). HCE's are based upon demonstrating SPECIFIC, TARGETED harm which has historically already been shown to have a chilling effect on specific communities.

They're are plenty of rapists and women-killers who have admitted to hating women. Women are also a minority class. According to your logic, we should be protected too. Are WE any less important than other minority? When there is a rapist or a woman-killer loose in the community, women feel terrorized, frightened and victimized.

EXACTLY. And YES, I would support HCE's in such cases. The challenge, once again is not in gaining MY support for such an HCE, but rather the legal challenge of demonstrating through a heavy evidentiary burden that the rapist or attacker not only bore such a specific animus, but that this animus was the basis of their criminal act (and NOT just the desire to impose sexual violence upon someone who happened to match their favored profile of victim).

No. I think hate crime legislation makes no sense in the big picture, and I think it is punishing for the motive, not the result of the crime committed.

OK, I get that you think that...AND YOU ARE INCORRECT. FACTUALLY WRONG. Not liking HCE's is one thing. Rationalizing your dislike of HCE's on the basis of reinforcing patent falsehoods about HCE's is quite another.
 
Last edited:
It's not right to make up legislation for what MIGHT or COULD happen.
Then I guess we better abolish the entire justice system since all criminals are sentenced,in part, based on what might or could happen. Oh boy.
 
I always Google easily answered questions about hard facts.

And that is you.

Now, since we're discussing this issue on a thread for all, and I bring that question to the table, would you like to answer it?

I'm sure it'd be appreciated.
 
Id say it was more an act of terrorism.
 
LOL! Really? I thought criminals were punished for their specific crimes? :roll:
LOL! Criminals are punished, in part, in order to protect the public from what they might or could do. Are you with me yet? Or do I need to take it down a couple grade levels?
 
And that is you.

Now, since we're discussing this issue on a thread for all, and I bring that question to the table, would you like to answer it?

I'm sure it'd be appreciated.
Do what high schoolers around the country do when they want information. Google it. You shouldn't make other people do your homework for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom