• 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?

you defined terrorism. why do we need another definition?

Tell Redress!

I gave you the US hate crime law. Learn it before the spewing continues.
 
Last edited:
Everything. I've quoted the DOJ in regards to hate crimes. Both hate crimes and terrorism have larger implications than the murder that took place.

Ok one more time.

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. That is foolishness.
 
I've never understood the legal distinction between murder and attempted murder. To me, this says you get a partial free-pass for being incompetent. To me, if you planned and meant and tried to kill them, success or failure should be irrelevant.

The resulting harm is substantially different (attempted murder means the victim is still alive...murder means they are dead).

If you don't understand the difference between alive and dead, then you need more help than I could reasonably provide in the context of an online forum.

If you, instead, DO understand that difference, then you actually DO understand the basis of the legal distinction between murder vs. attempted murder, and instead of not understanding...you simply disagree with the principle involved (which is to provide for more severe penalties for some crimes vs. others based upon the damange caused).
 
Tell Redress!

I gave you the US hate crime law. Learn it before the spewing continues.

What are you babling about. I actually quoted the definitionj in US law of domestic terrorism.
 
Ok one more time.

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. That is foolishness.

I ask again: do you approve of this case being tried as domestic terrorism, since using your argument domsetic terrorism laws are wrong, since they are based on motivation.
 
yes, but what does that have to do with hate crimes?

The distinction in penalties is (as with HCE's) based upon difference in harm/consequence. A successful bus bombing means dozens of people killed or injured. An arson may result in massive property damage, but little or no loss of life. You can put away a pyromaniac in a mental hospital, or imprison someone who committed arson for rational (but criminal) reasons...but no courtroom can bring back people killed in a bombing.
 
I agree with Bobcat. A crime is a crime. I think it's a slippery slope when the law tries to get into someone's head and determine what they are thinking in the course of a crime. People who kill children aren't charged with hate crimes against children. People who rape and kill women aren't charged with hate crimes against women. Regardless of what the person is thinking when they were committing the crime, it doesn't make the crime any worse or better IMO.
 
I've never understood the legal distinction between murder and attempted murder. To me, this says you get a partial free-pass for being incompetent. To me, if you planned and meant and tried to kill them, success or failure should be irrelevant.

It's because of the fact there is a distinction between living and deceased victim. That is why murder and attempted murder are punished differently. Punishments are mostly about type and amount of harm that has happened to the victim.
 
Remember kids, you cannot be convicted of a hate crime merely because you target a specific race/gender that you hate, even if the crime is exclusively for the purpose of creating terror.

And that's it. I'm out. Feel free to gloat over how I've fled the field, while you haven't a clue what hate crime legislation in the US actually entails.
 
Ok one more time.

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. That is foolishness.

First of all hate crime laws were passed because all white juries were letting defendants of racially motivated murders off after the passage of the civil rights act. This made it a Federal offense rather than a local one which means they could prosecute in Federal courts.

Second of all the fallout of racially motivated murders have a sociatal impact.

Both of those together are why we have hate crime legislation.
 
How can you determine if there is hate in someone's heart? Unless there is CLEAR evidence of hate (such as racial slurs, things like that), I don't see how anyone can assume to know how someone else feels.

Concrete evidence of sustained, focused animus against members of a protected class is an explicit requirement of obtaining an HCE.

That is just one reason why I don't feel comfortable with hate crime legislation.

Hate crime enhancements don't penalize feelings per se. You can have a heart filled with the most venomous bigotry you can think of...and so long as you never commit a crime which is demonstrated to have been motivated by that animus, you would never face even the attempt to have your sentence heightened through an HCE.
 
I think the hate crime designation is pretty useless. "It was a hate crime." "No! It wasn't!" "Yes! It was!" Ad infinitum. The guy shot somebody; attempted murder. Let the judge decide if it was a hate crime after they convict him. Then he can use whatever sentence so applies.

Trying to also convince the jury it was a hate crime could very possibly confuse the jury. He should be tried for attempted murder. That's the crime that was committed.

As far as I am concerned, the very concept of “hate crime” is Orwellian, not very much unlike the concept of “thoughtcrime”.

A crime is what someone does, not what he thinks or feels.

It doesn't matter if Mr. Corkins hated the Family Research Council. It doesn't matter if he hated the guard. What matters is that he committed an assault, using a deadly weapon, with the apparent intent to commit murder. That is the crime, and nothing else.
 
As far as I am concerned, the very concept of “hate crime” is Orwellian, not very much unlike the concept of “thoughtcrime”.

A crime is what someone does, not what he thinks or feels.

It doesn't matter if Mr. Corkins hated the Family Research Council. It doesn't matter if he hated the guard. What matters is that he committed an assault, using a deadly weapon, with the apparent intent to commit murder. That is the crime, and nothing else.

So let me ask you, maybe you will actually answer: Do you disaprove of domestic terrorism laws for the same reason.
 
Concrete evidence of sustained, focused animus against members of a protected class is an explicit requirement of obtaining an HCE.



Hate crime enhancements don't penalize feelings per se. You can have a heart filled with the most venomous bigotry you can think of...and so long as you never commit a crime which is demonstrated to have been motivated by that animus, you would never face even the attempt to have your sentence heightened through an HCE.

I think hate crime legislation is a horrible idea. Prosecute people for the crime they committed, not what was going on in their head when they committed the crime. It IS like legislating thought. Madness.
 
I ask again: do you approve of this case being tried as domestic terrorism, since using your argument domsetic terrorism laws are wrong, since they are based on motivation.

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.
 
Ok one more time.

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

No basis for an HCE.

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

POSSIBLE basis for an HCE, but only if a prosecutor can marshal strong evidence of BOTH:

1) the claim that the offender bore a specific animus against "black" people

AND

2) that he committed the murder with that animus as the motivation. For example, if he lost a cash game of pool in a bar and then murdered the man shortly afterwards, his defense counsel could (and likely would) defeat an attempt at obtaining an HCE by arguing that the murder was motivated by frustration at the loss. It would still be murder, but it would be very difficult to carry the HCE.

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

WRONG. The basis of HCE's is recognition of additional harm to larger communities beyond the direct victim. Every time you repeat this assertion about punishing thinking, you are participating in deliberate distortion. You have been exposed to the actual reasoning behind HCE's multiple times in this thread alone already.

That is foolishness.

It WOULD be foolishness...if that were actually the basis (in theory or in practice) of HCE's. It isn't.

Now...do you have any interest in addressing the ACTUAL basis of HCE's, or do you intend to go on pretending it to be something it's not?
 
Concrete evidence of sustained, focused animus against members of a protected class is an explicit requirement of obtaining an HCE.



Hate crime enhancements don't penalize feelings per se. You can have a heart filled with the most venomous bigotry you can think of...and so long as you never commit a crime which is demonstrated to have been motivated by that animus, you would never face even the attempt to have your sentence heightened through an HCE.

In the words of John McInroe, "you cannnot be serious". do you have any idea how foolish you sound?
 
Terrorist acts are associated with political gain or some kind of gain for a nation.
 
It's because of the fact there is a distinction between living and deceased victim. That is why murder and attempted murder are punished differently. Punishments are mostly about type and amount of harm that has happened to the victim.
In effect, whether it's intended or not, you reward failure.
 
No basis for an HCE.



POSSIBLE basis for an HCE, but only if a prosecutor can marshal strong evidence of BOTH:

1) the claim that the offender bore a specific animus against "black" people

AND

2) that he committed the murder with that animus as the motivation. For example, if he lost a cash game of pool in a bar and then murdered the man shortly afterwards, his defense counsel could (and likely would) defeat an attempt at obtaining an HCE by arguing that the murder was motivated by frustration at the loss. It would still be murder, but it would be very difficult to carry the HCE.



WRONG. The basis of HCE's is recognition of additional harm to larger communities beyond the direct victim. Every time you repeat this assertion about punishing thinking, you are participating in deliberate distortion. You have been exposed to the actual reasoning behind HCE's multiple times in this thread alone already.



It WOULD be foolishness...if that were actually the basis (in theory or in practice) of HCE's. It isn't.

Now...do you have any interest in addressing the ACTUAL basis of HCE's, or do you intend to go on pretending it to be something it's not?

So now its not just hating the person you killed, its hating the entire community. this gets more laughable with each new post from you.
 
That's not true. Hate crimes have broader potential societal consequences than regular crimes which is why they are distinguished.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Do you believe that vehicular homicide should be punishable by life without parole?
 
I agree with Bobcat. A crime is a crime. I think it's a slippery slope when the law tries to get into someone's head and determine what they are thinking in the course of a crime.

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.

People who kill children aren't charged with hate crimes against children.

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.

People who rape and kill women aren't charged with hate crimes against women.

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).

Regardless of what the person is thinking when they were committing the crime, it doesn't make the crime any worse or better IMO.

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).
 
Last edited:
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.

That might be the legal definition, but it is the justice system overstepping boundaries IMO. People should be punished accordingly for the crime committed, not assumptions on why.

Explain why women are not allowed to claim "hate crime" when they are raped please.
 
Back
Top Bottom