• 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!

Hate Crime Legislation

Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,545
Reaction score
471
Location
Jefferson State
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Matthew Shepard Act.

What does it mean to you?

I've been arguing this issue in another forum. Some thing the 1968 Hate Crime Legislation should never have been passed, while others are OK with it, as long as GLBT individuals are not included in it.
 
Last edited:
Bad legislation. It places a group of citizens above the rest, and that violates equal protection under the law. This could have the opposite affect on the people it is meant to protect because it may create animosity toward gays for getting special treatment.

There are already enough laws that protect every citizen, another that singles out a group of people for a single trait is unnecessary.
 
Bad legislation. It places a group of citizens above the rest, and that violates equal protection under the law. This could have the opposite affect on the people it is meant to protect because it may create animosity toward gays for getting special treatment.

There are already enough laws that protect every citizen, another that singles out a group of people for a single trait is unnecessary.


Well, too bad for you then. We passed federal hate crimes legislation in 1968.
All we're doing is adding gays and lesbians to the legislation.

It provides funding--nearly double what the local courts got to defray the costs of prosecuting Matthew Shepard's killers.
 
Well, too bad for you then. We passed federal hate crimes legislation in 1968.
All we're doing is adding gays and lesbians to the legislation.

It provides funding--nearly double what the local courts got to defray the costs of prosecuting Matthew Shepard's killers.

Is that your retort?

"Too bad for you."

Your going to have to up it to make it here any length of time.

Why does it cost more to prosecute someone because its a hate crime?
 
Is that your retort?

"Too bad for you."

Your going to have to up it to make it here any length of time.

Why does it cost more to prosecute someone because its a hate crime?

I'm saying that had the county prosecuted the Matthew Shepard murder had as a hate crime they would have received twice the amount of funding to try the case.

Compare the lynching case in Texas and the amount they recieved from the feds and the amount the county recieved for the Matthew Shepard.


“Current hate crimes law leaves federal prosecutors powerless to intervene in bias-motivated crimes when they cannot also establish that the crime was committed because of the victim’s involvement in a ‘federally protected activity,’ such as serving on a jury, attending a public school, or voting.”

At the same time, while limited federal support is available to police and prosecutors at the state and local level to confront violent hate crimes, this assistance is not available in cases of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability bias crimes. Thus, there is now no federal back-stop to the efforts—or indifference—of local law enforcement and prosecutors to combat such crimes.

The Act would also specifically provide for financial as well as nonfinancial “technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance” to state and local law enforcement bodies for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Further, the Act would bring the terms of federal criminal law regarding hate crimes into line with the monitoring requirements of the Hate Crime Statistics Act."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/reports.aspx?s=usa&p=the-framework-of-law


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illumines it.”
 
I'm saying that had the county prosecuted the Matthew Shepard murder had as a hate crime they would have received twice the amount of funding to try the case.

Compare the lynching case in Texas and the amount they recieved from the feds and the amount the county recieved for the Matthew Shepard.

“Current hate crimes law leaves federal prosecutors powerless to intervene in bias-motivated crimes when they cannot also establish that the crime was committed because of the victim’s involvement in a ‘federally protected activity,’ such as serving on a jury, attending a public school, or voting.”

At the same time, while limited federal support is available to police and prosecutors at the state and local level to confront violent hate crimes, this assistance is not available in cases of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability bias crimes. Thus, there is now no federal back-stop to the efforts—or indifference—of local law enforcement and prosecutors to combat such crimes.

The Act would also specifically provide for financial as well as nonfinancial “technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance” to state and local law enforcement bodies for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Further, the Act would bring the terms of federal criminal law regarding hate crimes into line with the monitoring requirements of the Hate Crime Statistics Act."
Usa | The Framework Of Law| Fighting Discrimination | Human Rights First

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illumines it.”

It is good that prosecutors are powerless to use hate-crime laws to get funding, those laws are absolutely unnecessary. There are already laws in place that protect everyone from the same thing hate-crime laws try to protect. Those laws are more than sufficient and do not require more funding.

What exactly is the point of additional legislation that does what current legislation already does?

As far as the 1968 law, it is just as wrong as the one discussed here.
 
It is good that prosecutors are powerless to use hate-crime laws to get funding, those laws are absolutely unnecessary. There are already laws in place that protect everyone from the same thing hate-crime laws try to protect. Those laws are more than sufficient and do not require more funding.

What exactly is the point of additional legislation that does what current legislation already does?

As far as the 1968 law, it is just as wrong as the one discussed here.

Take a look at the Department of Justice study [titled "Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Hate Crime Reporting, conducted by the Justice Research and Statistics Association released and coauthored by Northeastern University's Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research] -- which reveals that revealed was a reporting system for hate crime is deeply flawed, with statistics distorted by widespread failures to report the crimes and moreover, confusion about the differences between the absence of a report and the active reporting of zero hate crimes.

The DOJ study, which surveyed 2,657 law-enforcement agencies, reported a "major information gap" in the data: It estimated that some 37 percent of the agencies that did not submit reports nevertheless had at least one hate crime.

Worse yet, roughly 31 percent of the agencies that reported zero hate crimes did, in fact, have at least one; about 6,000 law-enforcement agencies (or one-third of the total of participants) likely dealt with at least one unreported bias crime. All told, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the total number of hate crimes committed annually in America is closer to 50,000 than the 8,000 found in statistics.

... [T]he underreportage problem becomes acute with people who have reasons not to go to police, including gay men. This occurs on a massive scale in Latino and other immigrant communities, where even legal immigrants are reluctant to contact police out of fear of being deported.

Of all the factors that cause law-enforcement officers to fail to identify and investigate bias crimes, the most significant, the DOJ study's authors found, was the gap between the victims and the police. The less trust that exists between minorities and their local law enforcement, the greater the likelihood that hate crimes will go unresolved.

... Other studies have likewise observed that the most common cause of this cascade of crime is the failure of police to proactively bridge the gap between themselves and the victims. The JRSA's Joan Weiss, in earlier research, found that the reluctance of victims to report crimes was significantly higher for hate crimes than for other crimes. The DOJ study reiterates this point: "For a multitude of reasons, hate crime victims are a population that is leery of reporting crimes -- bias or otherwise -- to law enforcement agencies."

Most hate-crime victims are minorities in the communities where the crimes occur. In many cases, they have poor English skills and have difficulty asking for assistance; in others, they may simply be unaware that what has happened to them is a serious crime. This is particularly true for immigrants, who may be reluctant to even contact police because of their experience with law enforcement in their homelands, where corruption and indifference to such crimes are not uncommon. Likewise, hate-crime victims may be confused about or unaware of the bias motivation involved, interpreting a threat or assault as a random act when other evidence suggests it was not. At other times, they may be reluctant to tell police about the bias aspects of the acts against them, fearing the police won't believe them or that they simply won't do anything about it anyway. And in the case of gays and lesbians, many are reluctant to report the crimes out of fear they will be forced to reveal their own identities as homosexuals; many more fear (sometimes with good reason) that they will wind up being humiliated and victimized further by police.

Likewise, many minorities in certain communities -- blacks in the South or Hispanics in the Southwest, for example -- have long histories of built-up distrust of law enforcement in their communities, and may simply refuse to participate in an investigation without proactive efforts on the part of police to bridge that gap. Indeed, this level of involvement was almost unanimously the chief factor reported by advocacy groups when queried by the authors of the DOJ study about what most affected hate-crime victims' decision to call or cooperate with police.
Why we need a federal hate-crime law: Exhibit A in rural Pennsylvania | Crooks and Liars
 
It is good that prosecutors are powerless to use hate-crime laws to get funding, those laws are absolutely unnecessary. There are already laws in place that protect everyone from the same thing hate-crime laws try to protect. Those laws are more than sufficient and do not require more funding.

What exactly is the point of additional legislation that does what current legislation already does?

As far as the 1968 law, it is just as wrong as the one discussed here.

Motive has always been a factor in the severity of crimes. The same argument you are using against hate crime laws could just as easily be applied to anti-terrorist laws.
 
Motive has always been a factor in the severity of crimes. The same argument you are using against hate crime laws could just as easily be applied to anti-terrorist laws.
Not really. If someone breaks a law then he should be held accountable and as there are already always for harassment, assault and such he doesn't need to be held accountable to some special new law for some "oppressed" minority. And where these laws don't exist they aren't needed, such as for simply writing something racist that does not directly incite violence and hence are an attack on individual when brought in for these acts.

Now of course motives need to be taken into account. Someone who assaults someone due to racism is worse than someone who hits a guy he finds in bed with his girlfriend, but then again this can be dealt with without any special laws for minorities that single out this kind of more malicious behaviour from others of their kind.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the Department of Justice study [titled "Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Hate Crime Reporting, conducted by the Justice Research and Statistics Association released and coauthored by Northeastern University's Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research] -- which reveals that revealed was a reporting system for hate crime is deeply flawed, with statistics distorted by widespread failures to report the crimes and moreover, confusion about the differences between the absence of a report and the active reporting of zero hate crimes.

The DOJ study, which surveyed 2,657 law-enforcement agencies, reported a "major information gap" in the data: It estimated that some 37 percent of the agencies that did not submit reports nevertheless had at least one hate crime.

Worse yet, roughly 31 percent of the agencies that reported zero hate crimes did, in fact, have at least one; about 6,000 law-enforcement agencies (or one-third of the total of participants) likely dealt with at least one unreported bias crime. All told, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the total number of hate crimes committed annually in America is closer to 50,000 than the 8,000 found in statistics.

... [T]he underreportage problem becomes acute with people who have reasons not to go to police, including gay men. This occurs on a massive scale in Latino and other immigrant communities, where even legal immigrants are reluctant to contact police out of fear of being deported.

Of all the factors that cause law-enforcement officers to fail to identify and investigate bias crimes, the most significant, the DOJ study's authors found, was the gap between the victims and the police. The less trust that exists between minorities and their local law enforcement, the greater the likelihood that hate crimes will go unresolved.

... Other studies have likewise observed that the most common cause of this cascade of crime is the failure of police to proactively bridge the gap between themselves and the victims. The JRSA's Joan Weiss, in earlier research, found that the reluctance of victims to report crimes was significantly higher for hate crimes than for other crimes. The DOJ study reiterates this point: "For a multitude of reasons, hate crime victims are a population that is leery of reporting crimes -- bias or otherwise -- to law enforcement agencies."

Most hate-crime victims are minorities in the communities where the crimes occur. In many cases, they have poor English skills and have difficulty asking for assistance; in others, they may simply be unaware that what has happened to them is a serious crime. This is particularly true for immigrants, who may be reluctant to even contact police because of their experience with law enforcement in their homelands, where corruption and indifference to such crimes are not uncommon. Likewise, hate-crime victims may be confused about or unaware of the bias motivation involved, interpreting a threat or assault as a random act when other evidence suggests it was not. At other times, they may be reluctant to tell police about the bias aspects of the acts against them, fearing the police won't believe them or that they simply won't do anything about it anyway. And in the case of gays and lesbians, many are reluctant to report the crimes out of fear they will be forced to reveal their own identities as homosexuals; many more fear (sometimes with good reason) that they will wind up being humiliated and victimized further by police.

Likewise, many minorities in certain communities -- blacks in the South or Hispanics in the Southwest, for example -- have long histories of built-up distrust of law enforcement in their communities, and may simply refuse to participate in an investigation without proactive efforts on the part of police to bridge that gap. Indeed, this level of involvement was almost unanimously the chief factor reported by advocacy groups when queried by the authors of the DOJ study about what most affected hate-crime victims' decision to call or cooperate with police.
Why we need a federal hate-crime law: Exhibit A in rural Pennsylvania | Crooks and Liars

This is not an issue of the law, it is an issue of the victims not reporting it. That cannot be resolved with additional laws. It is not up to the law to convince people to report crimes against themselves, it the choice of the victim.

If a person fears something when wanting to report a crime against them, new laws will not change that. It will just bring out the reason for the crime, and possibly harm the victim more than help.

How can a law help a person not fear being labeled a homosexual when the law itself actually does exactly that?
 
Motive has always been a factor in the severity of crimes. The same argument you are using against hate crime laws could just as easily be applied to anti-terrorist laws.

Terrorism does not affect a set group of citizens, it affects everyone in the country, no matter what ethnicity, sexuality, etc. That means it is not an equal protection issue. There are no terrorism laws that target a group of people for a single trait, like hate-crime laws do.
 
Motive has always been a factor in the severity of crimes. The same argument you are using against hate crime laws could just as easily be applied to anti-terrorist laws.

Yea but is this new law going to stop people from committing "hate" crimes?

I highly doubt it, it creates a protected class of people and puts another class (mainly white males) as always a suspect class of hate crimes.

Thought police, thats all this is. You get an over zealous, pc prosecutor and you have all sorts of hate crimes happening.
 
Motive has always been a factor in the severity of crimes. The same argument you are using against hate crime laws could just as easily be applied to anti-terrorist laws.

Shooting someone because you of an arguement and shooting someone because they are black, gay, lesbian, etc is still felony murder.

Shooting someone because you didn't know they were on the other side of your paper targets is manslaughter.

Hate crimes eliminate any equality basis and just reaffirms racism. This is the reverse of the pre-Jim Crow laws where special treatment was given to cases involving African Americans wronging white people which often went very very bad for the African American. I'm hoping someday soon this Act gets taken to the supreme court so that it can be declared unconstitutional.
 
Terrorism does not affect a set group of citizens, it affects everyone in the country, no matter what ethnicity, sexuality, etc. That means it is not an equal protection issue. There are no terrorism laws that target a group of people for a single trait, like hate-crime laws do.

Hate crimes protect everyone. For example, if a gay man killed a heterosexual simply because they were not gay, that would be every big as much of a hate crime as it would be the other way around.

I am not saying whether we should or should not have hate crimes. I am just saying that there is nothing unique at all about them in law.
 
The concept of "hate crime" is idiotic and unworkable. The underlying problem is that they can be applied to almost anything. Check out this article for an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03plumb.html?_r=2&oref=sloginNo&oref=slogin

The perpetrators here used a gay chatroom to find their victim not because they had any specific animus toward gays, but because they thought he would be easier to overpower. Despite the fact that there was no evidence of “hate,” they were convicted under a hate crime law.

Under the recent "hate crime" laws passed by the House, if a hoodlum chose to rob a woman because he believed she would be easier to overpower than a man, he has committed a “hate crime.” If he chose to attack a man on crutches because he couldn’t chase after him, he has committed a “hate crime.”

Nobody is saying that these acts aren’t immoral and illegal, but they are already criminalized under our existing statutes. The addition of “hate crime” laws merely serve to give prosecutors additional leverage to hold over the head of criminal defendants and to make civil rights advocates feel as if they've won a battle.
 
The gay activists stance that a straight on gay assault should be defined in law as a more serious crime than a gay on straight assault, straight on straight assault and a gay on gay assault, makes it clear the greater hate mongering is gay hatred of straights than straights against gays. Increasing the openly sex-orientation bigots are gays. The purpose is not to protect gays whatsoever. It is to declare legal sex-orientation bigot against straights as a matter of law and government policy.

The greater violence problem for gays is not straight on gay violence, it is gay on gay violence.
 
Hate crimes protect everyone. For example, if a gay man killed a heterosexual simply because they were not gay, that would be every big as much of a hate crime as it would be the other way around.

I am not saying whether we should or should not have hate crimes. I am just saying that there is nothing unique at all about them in law.

Then they are completely unnecessary.
 
I'm saying that had the county prosecuted the Matthew Shepard murder had as a hate crime they would have received twice the amount of funding to try the case.

And why should the men who murdered Shepard be treated differently than other murderers in Wyoming?

I don't recall them doing anything special that would warrant that.

So why do you believe the government should discriminate like that?
 
I wearily support hate crime legislation for the time being. Groups like gays are not accepted by society and there are still those who would sooner see them dead. These kind of laws demonstrate to everyone that minorities are protected. When Canada first included gays in hate crime legislation, I felt a lot safer going to school, a place where I have put up with a lot of crap from other people.

I don't expect the majority to understand or even care, but it helps those of us who have to experience discrimination feel like at least the system is on our side even if no one else is.
 
Is one 1st degree murder victim's death any more or any less tragic than another 1st degree murder victim death? Why should one victim get special treatment and not the other?
 
I wearily support hate crime legislation for the time being. Groups like gays are not accepted by society and there are still those who would sooner see them dead.

Then if someone plots and murders someone because they are gay then charge that individuals with 1st degree murder and seek the maximum punishment under law just like they would all other 1st degree murder cases.


These kind of laws demonstrate to everyone that minorities are protected. When Canada first included gays in hate crime legislation,

Those laws demonstrate that one group of people are more special than another.

I felt a lot safer going to school, a place where I have put up with a lot of crap from other people.

Nerds geeks and other social outcast get picked on and bullied, should there be hate crime laws for them too?

I don't expect the majority to understand or even care, but it helps those of us who have to experience discrimination feel like at least the system is on our side even if no one else is.

Other than feeling like a protected class and helping what ever self esteem issues you seem to have it does not actually help protect you. If someone wanted to murder someone, a retarded thought control law is not going to stop them. The only thing thought control laws such as hate crime legislation does is add additional punishments,thus saying this victim is more tragic or more special than another victim of the same type of crime.
 
I wearily support hate crime legislation for the time being. Groups like gays are not accepted by society and there are still those who would sooner see them dead. These kind of laws demonstrate to everyone that minorities are protected.
But doesn't just help to maintain resentment. After all they are still protected by the regular law, adding special laws just for them seems to add to the resentment to me.
 
But doesn't just help to maintain resentment. After all they are still protected by the regular law, adding special laws just for them seems to add to the resentment to me.


I do not think they can point to a case where someone yelled the victim was gay/tranny, and the prosecutor said okay drop the charges or lets give that defendant a medal or lets just hold out the wrist of the accused and slap them.
 
Then if someone plots and murders someone because they are gay then charge that individuals with 1st degree murder and seek the maximum punishment under law just like they would all other 1st degree murder cases.

One of the other important points of hate crime laws is to ensure that cases are not dismissed based on jury prejudice. Historically, murderers of gays, prostitutes, and racial minorities get a lesser sentence because the jury is less sympathetic. I don't know the statistics for modern times, but I do personally believe that this kind of bias still takes place.

Hate crime laws ensure that the judge must enforce a sentencing standard where minorities are involved. I frankly don't trust the court system to know to do this on their own.

Those laws demonstrate that one group of people are more special than another.

See above.

I am in favor of hate crime laws because they ensure minimum sentencing so that court room prejudice can be nullified.

Other than feeling like a protected class and helping what ever self esteem issues you seem to have it does not actually help protect you.

Nice ad hom.

If someone wanted to murder someone, a retarded thought control law is not going to stop them. The only thing thought control laws such as hate crime legislation does is add additional punishments,thus saying this victim is more tragic or more special than another victim of the same type of crime.

If someone wants to murder me, then I'll probably die. The hate crime laws ensure that justice is served, and that a bigoted jury or judge don't give a reduced sentence because they feel I deserved it for being homosexual, or that the cops do a sloppy investigation because a faggot got lynched.

Hate crime laws compel the justice system to do its job in parts of the country that are not sensitive, and may even rule in favor of, violence against minorities.

Just think... in a place like Little Rock, a man killing a gay person in the name of God could even garner sympathy from a jury.

The laws exist, not so that a protected class is treated as being worth MORE than other cases, but so that they are being treated EQUALLY to every other case. In areas where this is a non-issue, like, say, New York City, it has the reverse effect and it appears as though criminals of hate crimes get even higher sentences... this is a negative effect; but in areas where they would get a lesser sentence, hate crime laws balance it out.

I think, on the whole, they are worthwhile laws, but they need some tweaking for the more liberal areas.
 
One of the other important points of hate crime laws is to ensure that cases are not dismissed based on jury prejudice. Historically, murderers of gays, prostitutes, and racial minorities get a lesser sentence because the jury is less sympathetic. I don't know the statistics for modern times, but I do personally believe that this kind of bias still takes place.

Juries don't do sentencing, judges do. If you actually believe that this still takes place, then you're arguing that judges are prejudiced.


Hate crime laws ensure that the judge must enforce a sentencing standard where minorities are involved. I frankly don't trust the court system to know to do this on their own.

See above.

I am in favor of hate crime laws because they ensure minimum sentencing so that court room prejudice can be nullified.

Except the growing trend in this country is away from mandatory minimums, as they cause far more problems than they're worth.

Nevertheless, we have things like the sentencing guidelines that result in more even sentences, all without need for hate crime laws.

If someone wants to murder me, then I'll probably die. The hate crime laws ensure that justice is served, and that a bigoted jury or judge don't give a reduced sentence because they feel I deserved it for being homosexual, or that the cops do a sloppy investigation because a faggot got lynched.

Hate crime laws compel the justice system to do its job in parts of the country that are not sensitive, and may even rule in favor of, violence against minorities.

How do hate crime laws force cops to do better investigations? How do they make a jury decide to convict?
 
Back
Top Bottom