GOP: Hate Crime Legislation

[Asha'man]

Edited for continuity --<B>--
Anyway.
Why don't we talk about hate crime legislation, and whether it's good or bad for people?

Asha'man

[daisy]

Gee Ash,
What is your opinion on hate crime legislation?

[Grond]

Daisy, I can't speak for Ash but here are my own opinions concerning hate crime legislation.

I don't think it is necessary. If someone murders a person because of their religious affiliation or because of their sexual orientation o because they wear red tennis shoes.... it's murder. Why do we need a different classification of crime for that? The real reason is to give the governments another shot at the criminal in case they can't prove the more difficult murder charge. It is simply a bogus attempt to get around double jeapordy statutes and an attempt to make non-death penalty statutes into death penalty statutes. All of you death penalty nay sayers better be against this legislation the way it is being crafted in the U. S. It will lead to more people on death row and it will lead to people being punished twice for the same crime.

[daisy]

I can think of about six million reasons, give or take a few corpses.
I also don't see how hate crime legislation makes people pay twice for the same crime.
Finally, I LIVE IN CANADA. We do not have the death penalty and our hate crime legislation should be considered a seperate issue from American law seeing as we are a seperate country.

And our hate crime legislation primarily deals with vandalism, assault and distribution of hate materials like pamphlets talking about how the Holocaust was a hoax. As far as I know, no-one in my province has been handed a stiffer sentence for murder due to hate-crime designation.

I think any law that can ban hateful materials, cross burnings ( yes, they have occasionally occurred) skinhead Aryan Nation marches etc is a good law.If we are going to make it into the 22nd century successfully, we need to stop hating each other due to race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender etcor being allowed to spread that hate. Geez, you guys should know that better than anyone right now!! Ever thought that some of that hate crime legislation may be helping round up terrorists still living in hiding somewhere?
Again, another issue that immediately becomes an American debate.
A few posts ago, I gave a few possibilites for a new topic. This is the second time I have done so. Both times my topics were pretty much dismissed. Why is that?
I understand if Dengen -Goroth wants to set the topic because he is the leader of this guild.
I actually can't get over how you answered my post with a mention of the death penalty. Sheesh - you know where I live!!!:(

[ReadWryt]

I think the stupidest failing of our government at all the different layers is the constant and repeated attempt to legeslate Morality. By that I mean that it's all well and good to punish criminals and make laws that make it a crime to do damage (Vandalism, theft, murder, slander, mayhem and the like), but the minute you presume to write a law that will change a person's mind or heart you are fighting a loosing battle.

What does it matter what a person was THINKING when they committed a crime? Isn't it enough that they acted in a criminal manner??

You cannot make thoughts or feelings illegal, it's not only impossible but to punish the expression of those feelings in a way that does not commit direct damage is unconstitutional in the U.S.A. in most cases. The very term "Hate Crime" is redundant at the least and illogical at best. If I murder homeless people because I feel it is more mercifull then letting them live like ****roaches in the streets does this make it a "Love Crime"? And should I be punished any less then any other murderer, or should someone committing a "Hate Crime" be punished more??

[Snaga]

In the UK we have a law against Inciting Racial Hatred. Murder is still murder, assault is still assault etc. But trying to cause racial hatred is also (rightly) outlawed. In reality it rarely gets used though. You could debate why at some length.

Potential reasons might be:
- The offenses carry a stiffer sentence if charged under a different law (e.g. trying to cause a breach of the peace)
- The offense is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt
- The police aren't very interested

However I'd contend it is still good to have banned this if for no other reason than it sends a message that this behaviour is unacceptable.

[daisy]

When you take action due to your thoughts or feelings then you are punished for the behaviour - many people have thought s and feelings that are toxic and hateful - and that is their right. They have no right to act upon those thoughts or feelings.

And the homeless love crime thing is an example that is not a good show of your normally stellar intellect, Readwryt - that is like saying murderers who kill because their dog told them they should should be convicted of a woof crime - and by definition that would probably not make it as a hate crime - killing homeless people - because hate crimes, in my country anyway, are relegated to racism, homophobia etc.

I am sick to death of hearing people who actually think hatred and violence and the drive toward genocide is a 'moral' decision - it is not. If you value a person's right to act upon their hatred and need to wipe out a group they despise, then good luck to you and those who share your views. And this just happened recently in NYC, didn't it? You government didn't say, " Oh well, we can't legislate morality or how they feel about us - they just blew up the WTC because it was a salutation to ALLAH" - Your government, as well as mine, are now in Afghanistan trying to round those buggers up to stop them from continuing to act on their morality.September 11th was the MOTHER OF ALL HATE CRIMES!
Jeez, can't you people see the parallel???

I am anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist etc. I will FIGHT against these things and make it clear that they are NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE - I will not necessarily think I can change people's minds - that is not really possible - I will just try to stop them from doing damage and causing others to suffer.

[Grond]

Originally posted by daisy
I am anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist etc. I will FIGHT against these things and make it clear that they are NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE - I will not necessarily think I can change people's minds - that is not really possible - I will just try to stop them from doing damage and causing others to suffer. Daisy, I too am neither a racist, homophobe, sexist or etc. but I will die to defend the right of any citizen of my country to be one of that category. It is what our inherent freedom is all about. We have the inalienable right to alienate. We may be racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted, etc. as long as we take no actions against others, I will defend any citizen of my country's right to be that way. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, and I will do everything in my power to change their behavior and opinions to the best of my ability.... but, that is their right. Instead of offering up more governmental powers to enforce a charge that requires a law enforcement official to read someone's mind and heart, I would prefer taking action via neighborhoods and schools to educate people as to the innate "wrongness" of the behavior and feelings. I will say that I am against any law that prohibits someone from espousing their political views as long as those views are within the confines of the law and they aren't advocating any illegal action.

[daisy]

You are not reading my posts so I cannot respond to yours.

[Grond]

I read your post from start to finish and was so surprised by your last post that I had to reread the original post again to make sure I read it the first time. My post is a direct response to yours and pretty much expresses how I feel. As long as any group operates within the law and does not break it then that group has a right to exist (at least in my country). I won't advocate their beliefs, I will try to address the underlying cause of their anger and/or hatred. I will advocate punitive action of the worst kind if they break the law, but I will defend their right to express their beliefs.

Sorry if I disappoint you Daisy but those beliefs are at the very core of my belief of what a democracy is all about.

[daisy]

But that is what I said, albeit in different language - that thought and feeling are everyone's right but then when it becomes violent, murderous behaviour it is not alright - I do not have a mindreader where I can walk around and find racists and then beat them up! My post is only addressing ACTIONS not necessarily thoughts and feelings!!
But what about allowing known terrorist groups to organise and discuss their version of Holy War? Would that go under the law of inciting violence or is that okay becuase they are just talking? That is when things get murky...:confused:

[Grond]

Gosh Daisy, I don't know. To state that the American Government is corrupt and a demon would be okay. Saying that it needs to be destroyed and then plotting to do it is definately illegal under conspiracy statutes. My argument is that this doesn't need its own set of rules. There are conspiracy statutes on the books in most countries and they have nothing to do with hate... just what is legal and illegal. I agree with ReadWryt on this... you can't legislate what is or is not hate, anymore than you can legislate morality of birth control, abortion or any of countless other moral issues that do not belong in our governments hands. What belongs in our government's hands is to put laws on the books that prescribe punishment for illegal behavior. How can you legislate hate? I just don't get the concept.

BTW Daisy, you said it was illegal to distribute leaflets promoting a certain political agenda. I think that as long as the leaflets are not referencing illegal behavior, they should be allowed. That is why I posted what I did before.

[TheJospeh]

Then the similar taste in books. Grond you're depriving me of my favourite foe. With Harad to afraid to ever respond to one of my posts--I think I'm on his ignore list--you are my last foe. Now, you're a purist right? So let's team up and head back to the movie board next week or so--I'm leaving on holidays--I say we bring up every issue that EVER had any relevance to us that we don't feel is concluded. We agree with each other to always post with dignity and respect. I'd really like to make those FADS self-destruct. Markrob for example seems only to be able to meet arguments with a variation on, "Good drugs you got there, man. I mean seriously. Good drugs." A few decent arguments would fell Harad pretty easily and then we would be pretty much unopposed right? ;)

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Gloer]

Hate is good !

I must have misunderstood what this "hate crime" is, because it seems complitely fasistic.

Hating must be legal!

If one commits a crime, I don't give a damn if he did it for the love of God or just plain hatred. It's not an issue.

Legislation can be effective only when it is aimed at certain behaviour or rational decision making.
Emotions and their expression is not possible to be controlled through legislation. It would be rediculous to even try to measure something like "hatred" when trying to figure out if the description of the crime is fullfilled or not.

I like wearing white robes and hoods while burning crosses during the night. It makes me feel like a Ku Klux Klan member, which I of course am not. I am racially impartial - I just think those guys have created a fun pass time - if you take it out of the original contex, of course.

[Grond]

Gloer, once again you totally confuse me. If you're sarcastically stating that the KKK should be banned by law because they believe in the supremecy of the white race then we will need to shut down lots and lots of religious places of worship. Both the Muslims and the Jews and Christians for that matter, believe they (we) are the chosen of God and everyone else is second class. You cannot legislate crime on a system of beliefs, unless the beliefs themselves lead to an illegal act. To plot disruption or insurrection is a crime already. If a member of any organization, uses that orgaization to illegal ends, there are laws to stop the actions.

Finally, I will say that if hate crimes should be illegal, then most countries around the globe need to start putting people in jail for "hating" us Americans so soundly. Everywhere I turn the news today, I see people burning American Flags and my President in effigy. The biggest problem I have is not understanding what America has done to deserve the reputation.

signed.... "confused in the USA"

[greypilgrim]

a guy drives his car through a muslim mosque right after the terrorist attacks. plows right through the front wall. (this is true, it happened in cleveland) now, when the police came, they found him, drunk, slurring profanities about all the "towel-headed terrorists", and that they should arrest THEM, not HIM.
was this a "hate crime"? or was this man "under the influence"?

[Grond]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
a guy drives his car through a muslim mosque right after the terrorist attacks. plows right through the front wall. (this is true, it happened in cleveland) now, when the police came, they found him, drunk, slurring profanities about all the "towel-headed terrorists", and that they should arrest THEM, not HIM.
was this a "hate crime"? or was this man "under the influence"? He was DUI while committing the crime of "Wilful destruction of private property, assault and possibly attempted murder." Hate just doesn't need to be part of the equation. It is the actions which should be punished, not the reasons behind the actions.:)

[Asha'man]

To clarify: In America, many places have laws concerning so-called "hate crimes". If someone was killed or had a crime committed against them and they happened to be gay, or black, or disabled, or a woman, or whatever reason, the criminal can face stiffer-than-normal charges.

The main reason that I disagree with hate crime legislation is because it puts differing values on people. What if I was murdered in my bed tomorrow? I am a straight, white, Christian American male. Let's say my assailant got 10 years for murder. He gets out ten years from now, and goes after my next-door neighbor, and kills him. For the sake of discussion, my neighbor is a gay black man. This time, the criminal received 25 years in prison because it was a "hate crime" against a gay black man. Now what made my neighbor's life so much more valuable than mine, that it entailed 2.5 times the punishment?

That is why hate crime laws are wrong. They put more value on some people than on others. Why does the criminal get more jail time for killing a Muslim (for sake of discussion only!) than he does for killing me? Was that Muslim person's life worth more than mine? Of course not. The murderer hated us both, enough to murder us, and should be prosecuted equally for both killings.

How's this: he even used a perfectly legal, non-harmful (ha!) kitchen knife to kill us. Oh, no, let's outlaw kitchen knives! If we only save one life, it'll be worth it! *please note: this paragraph consisted of HEAVY sarcasm* Thank you.

Daisy: You seem pugnacious in this thread, always taking exception to what anybody says. Don't get mad about this, but what's your problem?

Asha'man

[Snaga]

Originally posted by Asha'man
To clarify: In America, many places have laws concerning so-called "hate crimes". If someone was killed or had a crime committed against them and they happened to be gay, or black, or disabled, or a woman, or whatever reason, the criminal can face stiffer-than-normal charges.

The main reason that I disagree with hate crime legislation is because it puts differing values on people. What if I was murdered in my bed tomorrow? I am a straight, white, Christian American male. Let's say my assailant got 10 years for murder. He gets out ten years from now, and goes after my next-door neighbor, and kills him. For the sake of discussion, my neighbor is a gay black man. This time, the criminal received 25 years in prison because it was a "hate crime" against a gay black man. Now what made my neighbor's life so much more valuable than mine, that it entailed 2.5 times the punishment?

That is why hate crime laws are wrong. They put more value on some people than on others. Why does the criminal get more jail time for killing a Muslim (for sake of discussion only!) than he does for killing me? Was that Muslim person's life worth more than mine? Of course not. The murderer hated us both, enough to murder us, and should be prosecuted equally for both killings.

How's this: he even used a perfectly legal, non-harmful (ha!) kitchen knife to kill us. Oh, no, let's outlaw kitchen knives! If we only save one life, it'll be worth it! *please note: this paragraph consisted of HEAVY sarcasm* Thank you.

Daisy: You seem pugnacious in this thread, always taking exception to what anybody says. Don't get mad about this, but what's your problem?

Asha'man

Asha'man, I'll take issue if I may. I think you have this round the wrong way. The heavier sentencing doesn't reflect the value of the victim, it reflects the intent and motivation of the criminal. This is a perfectly valid principle, that is applied elsewhere.

Two examples: a man and his wife argue intensely, and the argument goes too far. They start to fight, and one of them goes way too far and stabs the other with the kitchen knife. Murder? Absolutely. But contrast with this. A women is out jogging. A man she has never met before, has watched her go jogging every morning over the last week. He plans meticulously. In a quiet spot along the route, he lies in wait and then brutally kills her with a knife. Two crimes of murder with a knife. Do you give them both the same sentence? I damn well hope not. The second crime is considerably more sinister, and the punishment has to reflect that.

By the same token, you can make a judgement that a crime committed because the person hated a whole group of people is more serious. Firstly, the likelihood of a repeat offense is high. The second is that often these sorts of offenses are aimed at creating a climate of fear amongst the target group, and tension within society as a whole. It is an act of propaganda as well as of violence. It is in the interests of society as a whole to counter that. In a crime of this nature, the whole group is in a sense a victim (although obviously not to the same degree).

I have some sympathy with the view that says that other laws ought to cover these crimes. Depending on the level of discretion that lies with the judiciary in sentencing, in an ideal world they would weigh these motivational factors up in determining sentence. But you only have to look at the preponderance of evidence of failure of courts to adequately deal with crime of this nature, and in some extreme cases to even condone them, to understand why there is such a desire to legislate more specifically.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
...I have some sympathy with the view that says that other laws ought to cover these crimes. Depending on the level of discretion that lies with the judiciary in sentencing, in an ideal world they would weigh these motivational factors up in determining sentence. But you only have to look at the preponderance of evidence of failure of courts to adequately deal with crime of this nature, and in some extreme cases to even condone them, to understand why there is such a desire to legislate more specifically. I return to my initial response to this topic. How do you legislate morality or hate? An example. 1) Joe waits on a path after having plotted to kill Mike who Joe feels has slighted him in the past. As Mike approaches, Joe jumps out and shoots Mike five times killing him instantly. This is an example of plain and simple pre-meditated murder. Same example, slightly different circumstances. 2) Joe waits on a path after having plotted to kill the next minority that comes down the path. A man of minority race approaches and Joe jumps out and shoots him five times killing him instantly.

What is the difference in the two crimes? I see none. In both cases the person committing the crime is guilty of pre-meditated murder. Why does hate need to be associated? You could substitute the case above with rape or assault or any other criminal act. The criminal action is what should be punished, not the thought process that led to it. I agree with you VoK, the state of mind of the individual is a subject for the judge to hear about at sentencing, not to be a basis for additional charges.

[greypilgrim]

We are free to hate.
Not free to kill. Anyone.
Hate is not a crime.
Acting on your hate is NOT a crime.
Murdering or breaking other laws.....
because of how you feel..........
means that you broke the law.
Our government does not have the right to stop you from hating.
Only to protect it's people.
A "hate crime" is a murder or any sort.
A "hate crime" could be vandalism,
theft, slander, blackmail, anything,
because I hated you.
Now is this fair?

[Snaga]

Grond

I wonder if you missed my last sentence: But you only have to look at the preponderance of evidence of failure of courts to adequately deal with crime of this nature, and in some extreme cases to even condone them, to understand why there is such a desire to legislate more specifically.

There is a terrible history of the specific nature of a crime not being taken into account by judges/courts, in various countries. I'm not going to say legislation is ALWAYS the answer, but its very much an option to my mind. Perhaps a more sensible approach would be one that set mandatory sentences for certain crimes if the 'hate' element was proven. I'm not a lawyer (thankfully!) so I'm not really sure!

[daisy]

I've heard pig-headed, prickly, difficult, opinionated, and worse, but
I have never been called pugnacious before so I thank you for your kind words.
Hey, I take exception to some of the other views here - I get passionate about them and put my views out there with a lot of force sometimes, as do many others on this thread. I am not sure why you view me as pugnacious - maybe because I am supposed to be calm and serene, as my gender and my nickname suggest? Sorry, that won't happen anytime soon.

And you are missing the point of hate crime legislation - I believe that it was enacted because certain groups were constantly being victims of hate - racism, mysogeny, anti-ethnicity, whatever. So, in order to curtail the rash of trait-specified crimes, legislation was enacted.

Unfortunately, in my town, most Afro-Canadians are victimised by white males. Most gay males are vicitimised by assumingly straight, white males. I am not sure of the statistics on violence against women, but I do not think this is covered by hate crime legislation.

It is not because straight, white males are less valued by law enforcement officials around here. It is because they seem to be perpetrating most of the hate crimes. If there was suddenly a huge rash of straight, white males killed and assaulted due to their race, sexual preference, or gender, then this would presumably fall under hate crimes legislation.
I guess I was a little flippant in questioning your stand on this. This is because I knew what it would be, and you did not disappoint me. You and I are on opposite political ships, but this does not mean I do not value your opinions. Hopefully you can view my responses as something other than pugnacious, even if you don't agree with them.:)

[7doubles]

in defence of hate crimes literly, make bizar stories. witch i find curious. i am a drama junki; isn't everyone?

[7doubles]

and besides hating somone always makes me feel better abought myself. someone has to be held accountable for my pain and it wont be me, thats for sure!

[Asha'man]

ack, my first ever double post. :eek:

Asha'man

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by VoK:
Two crimes of murder with a knife. Do you give them both the same sentence? I damn well hope not. The second crime is considerably more sinister, and the punishment has to reflect that.

As you say, two crimes of murder with a knife. However, even though the circumstances surrounding the killings were much different, the end results were the same - the victim was dead. However you look at it, murder was done and the killer should be punished for murder. Not for what he thought or felt about the victim - only the actual killing that he did.

Let's say that I was a criminal. I decide that I need some money to pay the rent, so I think I'll mug and maybe kill someone to get it. I wait in a [stereotypical] dark alley. :) Two or three people walk by, but they don't look prosperous enough to rob. Then a man comes down the street. He looks rich, so I grab him, drag him into the alley and cut his throat. I take his money and leave the scene.

When he is found, it is discovered that he was gay. I didn't know he was gay, I only killed him for his money. Maybe I'm even gay, who knows. (I'm not of course, this is again for the discussion! :D) I'm caught and hit with charges of murder and "hate". I get 50 years in prison for the "hate", but would have only gotten 25 for murder.

The purpose of that long-winded piece was to point out that much crime is totally random, and hate doesn't play a factor; at least, not more than is needed to commit a vicious crime like that in the first place. Why, then, was I punished more severely because the man I attacked happened to be gay? It just goes against logic.

Grond said:
The criminal action is what should be punished, not the thought process that led to it.

Very well stated, Grond!

daisy said:
I've heard pig-headed, prickly, difficult, opinionated, and worse, but I have never been called pugnacious before so I thank you for your kind words.


LOL, sure. I'm sorry I can't cite specific instances, but you have just come off (to me, anyway) as kinda angry and pugnacious in this whole politics thread. Maybe it's just me, though.

And you are missing the point of hate crime legislation - I believe that it was enacted because certain groups were constantly being victims of hate - racism, mysogeny, anti-ethnicity, whatever. So, in order to curtail the rash of trait-specified crimes, legislation was enacted.

Here's a thought: In the worst parts of my city, the populations are primarily black and hispanic. Naturally, since most of the people are of those ethnicities and there is a high crime rate, most of the victims of crime are black or hispanic. Now what if a hispanic guy killed a black guy (or vice-versa......call it gang-related or whatever). Would there be "hate" charges brought against him? Probably not. This is because one of the driving reasons behind hate-crime laws is political correctness. It's not politically correct to prosecute a hispanic or black person for killing someone of the other race. It is, however, politically correct to prosecute a white man for killing a black man, or a straight man for killing a gay man. See where I'm going with this? Like many laws thought up by liberals, it is driven by emotion more than common sense.

I guess I was a little flippant in questioning your stand on this. This is because I knew what it would be, and you did not disappoint me. You and I are on opposite political ships, but this does not mean I do not value your opinions. Hopefully you can view my responses as something other than pugnacious, even if you don't agree with them.

Alrighty. I know that we will probably never agree on a political subject, so as long as we know that, debating is pointless. Did I just say that? I meant to say, debating will be fun but we will not change each other's minds. Anyway, game on. :D

Asha'man

[Snaga]

Asha'man your view won't make more sense because you post it twice!;)

Are you deliberately missing the point, or did I express myself that badly?

Let's say that I was a criminal. I decide that I need some money to pay the rent, so I think I'll mug and maybe kill someone to get it. A hate crime is not defined as any and all crimes committed because you are a member of a minority. It is to do with motivation. Therefore your example is irrelevant. It isn't a hate crime. Its murder for money.

Here's a thought: In the worst parts of my city, the populations are primarily black and hispanic. Naturally, since most of the people are of those ethnicities and there is a high crime rate, most of the victims of crime are black or hispanic. Now what if a hispanic guy killed a black guy (or vice-versa......call it gang-related or whatever). Would there be "hate" charges brought against him? Probably not. This is because one of the driving reasons behind hate-crime laws is political correctness. It's not politically correct to prosecute a hispanic or black person for killing someone of the other race. It is, however, politically correct to prosecute a white man for killing a black man, or a straight man for killing a gay man. See where I'm going with this? Like many laws thought up by liberals, it is driven by emotion more than common senseIn this example you again make the same mistake. If the crime is gang-related, its not a hate crime is it?

Since apparently everyone is convinced there is no room for consideration of the thought process behind crimes, how come we have distinctions between manslaughter and murder (or in US the various 'degrees' of murder)? Why is self-defense an allowable defense? Because understanding thought process and motivation is essential in any criminal justice system.

7doubles those views are beneath contempt.

[ReadWryt]

Allright, for starters to prove that something was a hate crime under most criminal legal systems one should have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the offender was thinking and/or feeling at the time they committed the criminal act. Since this is impossible without an admittion of it by the criminal this is the FIRST reason this Hate Crime Legislation is rediculously stupid.

Secondly what difference does it make what was in someone's mind or heart when they tied the gay man's leg to the bumper of the pickup truck and dragged them a mile and a half down a dirt road, we HAVE laws against that kind of activity allready. By creating Hate Crime Laws are you making a warning to other murderers not to have Hatefull Thoughts and Feelings when they kill?? What good does THAT do anybody?

Thirdly you are effectively attempting to outlaw Hatred and/or Ignorance. At that point who is going to decide the official list of Hate Groups and what it is legal to think or feel? It gets really Orwellian really fast after that, with Thought Police running about and all.

Nobody addressed my "Love Crime" question. I'm dissapointed.:(

Why don't we make it illegal to think that HIV is not caused by the Aids Virus? How about making it against the law to try to overthrough the government because we like Communism, but it's perfectly legal to do so as long as you are a lover of a Democratic Republican government?

I think that what really needs to be done is to interview the surviors of the victims of "Hate Related" murder and ask them if they feel that their loved one is any more dead then if it had been a random murder, and if it really gives them any peace to think that the convicted murderer got Two life sentences instead of One because the Hate Crime Laws gave a stiffer punishment? "Oh wait, what do you mean that you Hate the Racist that killed your husband?? I'm afraid that you can't feel that way towards a Racist maam, Racists are humans too and we outlawed the hating of them a while ago...".

If I'm a Racist and I want to print flyers explaining why Jews are evil, nobody should be able to stop me. If I'm a Racist and I print a flyer that outlines all the means to kill Jews without getting caught because they are evil, that is another thing alltogether. If you get my flyer and actually KILL a Jew using my method and botch the job, getting caught, because you BELIEVED me that they are evil, this is something altogether different, but the fact is that we have laws that cover this anyways already...

From last to first, Murder is already against the law, and so to take a life with Malice Aforethought is a crime. Note that the word MALICE is in there, and although I do not have a copy of Black's Dictionary of Legal Terms I think we can all agree that Malice can not be construed as meaning you LIKED the person you killed a great deal.

Conspiracy to commit Murder is the second, and it's got it's own punishments already. Your flyer and proof that you made it are all the evidence needed to convict you of this...

The first case though is special, because the law that covers this horrible act of printing flyers with this horrible "hate speech" is one of the first ever created by the Federal Government of the US, and it is called the First Ammendment. It states quite clearly that Congress shall make no laws that abridge the free speech of the citizens. Federal Hate Crime Laws in the US are rediculous because at some point or another they will run up against the fact that there can be NO laws made which can tell people what they can and cannot believe. This was addressed once in a classic case when a Senator from the south attempted to legeslate that Pi would equal 3.15...

With appologies to our members who are not in the US, The First Ammendment was the FIRST for a reason. The framers of the Constitution realized that it was most important that a citizen have the right to say and think what they wanted, and to act on these thought in so far as they do not infringe on the rights of the other citizens, hence the inclusion of Freedom of Religion in it as well. We now have in our Senate a "Campaign Finance Reform Bill" that states that if I want to purchase Radio Time to air a comercial I made in which I criticise a candidate I don't like 60 days before an election and pay for it out of my own pocket I would be breaking the law according to this act. They cleverly wrote this into the act by stating that "hard" but not "Soft" money could be used to pay for such advertisements, but then...I'm not a political party so all I have in my bank account is "Soft Money".

It looks to me as if Congress has indeed written a law which abridges my right to free speech! These are the people we will be voting for or against in the next 8 years and I urge every American to pay attention to who is telling you that you can or cannot say what you wish...

Since apparently everyone is convinced there is no room for consideration of the thought process behind crimes, how come we have distinctions between manslaughter and murder (or in US the various 'degrees' of murder)? Why is self-defense an allowable defense? Because understanding thought process and motivation is essential in any criminal justice system.

Thought Process is not what makes the differences between Muder and Manslaghter. INTENT is the difference. If you Kill someone because you TRIED to kill them, this is Murder, if you Kill them when all you were doing was driving Drunk or trying to rough them up a bit, this is Manslaughter. Malice Aforethought... Ergo the only "Thought" that separates these two is "I'm going to kill this person", not "I hate this person because they are a (Insert pajorative term here)".

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

MURDER, SECOND DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of second degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated. Note that the elements are identical with those for 1st degree murder. The practical difference is the sentences are different. Which crime to charge is usually entirely up to the prosecutor’s discretion.

And finally, if it were actually a fact that we doled out Murder Charges according to what people thought, then WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE NEED NEW LAWS TO DO THE SAME THING? What is the deal with people who think that a new law to do something that old laws already to will make any difference when the OLD LAWS have no effect on the "problem" that they address?? This shows what the problem with Hate Crime laws are because if the existing laws arent stopping these people from breaking them then it becomes apparent that, looking at the difference between the Old Law and the proposed New Law being WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT, then it is obviously in actuality merely an attempt to legeslate WHAT PEOPLE CAN THINK!!

[daisy]

Readwryt - I actually did respond to your love crime idea but then erased it from my post because I didn't express myself all that well.

I think that where I went with it was sort-of what you touched on in the last post, that hate crime legislation is very specific -there has to be proof that the person was assaulted or killed due to a specific trait covered under hate crime legislation - such as a swastika carved on a wall or 'Gay people must Die' in blood on a wall etc. So with a love crime same thing - but also, perhaps there would be more of a push towards an insanity defense or something. There have been people who have killed for reasons such as this - but I am not sure how the courts handled this. I mean, Reagan was shot as a love letter to Jodie Foster!! He is in the loony bin forever, isn't he? I mean Hinckley, not Reagan.

I guess I don't understand the uproar against these laws. Unfortunately in my world, there are certain groups of people who have been oppressed and treated with violence and discrimination in almost every environment in which they enter. I guess at some point lawmakers decided that they needed extra protection and there needed to be extra deterrents from harming certain people due to racism etc.
The reasons for the law is NOT and has never been to change a person's hatred or feelings of spite or bigotry - everyone in both of our countries, and many others, are allowed to hate anyone we want and talk about it and call people names on the street and march around and stuff - including starting web sites. But certain things cannot be acted upon. So I don't know what the issue of freedom of thought has anything to do with this debate! Like V of K said , intention comes into play with different murder charges. If I kill someone in a drunken rage, I'll probably get second degree because I didn't plan it. If I spent three weeks going through my plan and jotting down notes in a notebook, and then killed someone, I would get first degree if caught. Because someone is making a judgment call about my intentions - they are saying it is worse to kill someone if I planned it but not so bad if I did it spur of the moment .

Are people more worried about supposed inequity in the legislation or the hate crimes themselves????

[ReadWryt]

Daisy,

I guess it's a cultural thing because in the country I live in we have the 14th Ammendment that guarantees Equal Protection under the law on the presumption that ALL men are created equal. If we pass laws based on the premise that some people are more or less then "equal" or "The Norm" then we have things like Slavery and Castes.

As for judging the Intent, all this means is to ask if you MEANT to kill someone and has nothing to do with WHY you did it. Why you killed someone should not be a consideration when deciding to make you rot in solitary confinement for the rest of your days...Why you stole something should not be a consideration when deciding if you should do time for Theft. Why you defaced public property should not be a consideration when dertimining that you should pay fines and do time for vandalism and Why you told vicious and damaging lies about someone should not be a consideration when charging you with criminal Liable or Slander. Crime is crime, intent is if you MEANT to commit it and what thoughts or feelings you had that made you commit it is inconsiquentual because if you make a law that imposes longer sentences for the "Why" you are punishing people for their THOUGHTS.

[TheJospeh]

"I guess it's a cultural thing because in the country I live in we have the 14th Ammendment that guarantees Equal Protection under the law on the presumption that ALL men are created equal. If we pass laws based on the premise that some people are more or less then "equal" or "The Norm" then we have things like Slavery and Castes."

Well, if it's written down that people have to treated equally I guess that is the end of that! Obviously discrimination doesn't exist! My mind is now at ease. Also, ReadWryt the most unequal thing you can do is to treat everyone the same. To you catch my dig here?! People are different and that difference needs to be reflected in the law, among other things.

Concerning the rest of your post: obviously you are unfamiliar with the concept of the spirit of the law. You know the other side of the law that is given equal prominence with the letter of the law. The side of the law that does concern itself with whether a man steals some bread to feed his starving family or whether he steals it for kicks.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[daisy]

Well, we may be created equal, but we also have laws in Canad about not being discriminated against on the basis of race, coulour, creed, gender, ability, sexual preference 9 I think that one just made it in recently) religion etc.

The problem is that maybe there is a law stating we are equal but we are not treated equally - some people are murdered and terrorized because they are gay or muslim or Afircan- American - so there are laws that attempt to equalize things by imposing stiffer sentences.
Also, people are given stiffer sentences based on the heinous nature of their crimes, such as murders of children or mutilation or crimes against old people or whatever - a woman just got a life sentence in Texas for locking her eight year old daughter in a closet off and on for two years or something - she got that sentece because people were horrifies and sickened by the evidence and the photos of the closet and the fact that the little girl weighed twenty-five pounds and could not identify a picture of the sun!!The woman did not physically kill anyone but she got a life sentence because people's emotions were heightened to the ultimate degree!!!
So, yo see, many verdicts are products of emotion or a condemnation of the perpetrators intent!

[TheJospeh]

Well gentleman you have made a mockery of the anti-hate crimes side of this issue. You have not responded to any of Daisy's points nor to Variag of Khand's. So let me lay your ignorance bare and then let me get to the real problems with hate crime legislation.

Asha'man: You fail to understand this conversation. You are foisting your rage against the reality of our PC world onto Daisy and the issue of hate crime legislation. I can empathize with you. The Politically Correct are mindless robots, bereft of substantive beliefs and therefore seek to discourage all coversation about such things, since they are fearful their own shallowness will be revealed. The idea of hate crime legislation had its pros and its cons, it is not shallow, and though it has perhaps been usurped by the PC, the initial idea is neither shallow nor a tool for getting politicians elected.

This is the issue at hand: should crimes proven to be committed--proven beyond a reasonable doubt--on the basis of hate for a specfic group of people--in short should a crime be based on prejudice or racism--additional penalties should be enacted agains the criminal? So whether a black man kills a hispanic man or whether a white man kills a black man hardly enters into it. Hate crime legislation deals with the motivation behind the crime. Daisy has tried to point this out to you several times. So don't let your rage at the PC revolution get in the way of your better judgement. Pugnacious? Daisy? You must REALLY hate the PC if your judgement is that clouded.

ReadWryt: Homer once asked Marge if she ever got tired of always being wrong. Her response was yes, so I must imagine you feel the same way she does. So listen up because I'm going to try and help you break the cycle.

Your idea that Freedom of Speech exists in the United States is just plain silly--don't really silly as a weaker form of ludicrous but as the wrong-headed ideas of a child who should know better but doesn't. Yes, a reasonable facisimile of Freedom of Speech does exist. Case in point, there are slander laws in the America. If I claim John Q. Public is a child molester he can sue me. Furthermore, the onus of proof is not on him but on me. So I can't express whatever ideas I want in America. There are many limits to Freedom of Speech, however, all of these limits fit in to the ideology America happens to call the utter truth. Hate crime legislation is just a reasonable extension of what is already there. I'm not allowed to make plans with my friends to assassinate George W. Bush, we'd be arrested for conspiracy to committ murder. No, thought is very much a governed commodity in America--same goes for Canada. So the basis of your objection to hate crime legislation is totally spurious.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

P.S. I myself don't agree with hate crime legislation, however, there is NO reason it shouldn't be adopted by America and Canada unless you are talking about changing fundamental values in both countries. Remember, Canada and America were founded with a Christian ethic. This is only significant in pointing out that their are other alternatives. North America made its decision however and has to abide by it. So if the American ideology is against persecution of minorities it can make these laws. After all it prevents murder doesn't it? Murder is not a universal crime, in many cultures it was accepted. So it's all about making choices. This universal ideal you fellows keep talking about is ridiculous...well I guess silly would be the proper word there as well.

[Gloer]

I agree with ReadWryt on the issue that motivation can not be criminalized.

The act and intent can be criminalized but it is impossible to criminalize the reason for the actual criminal behaviour.

Why?

Criminalizing motivation will not reduce it in any way. In fact it has - if any - only contrary effects.

a. Imagine that a black man killed a white man. The black man hates all white people, whom he sees as a race that opresses black people. This particular killing act was a direct result of his hatred. In fact he decided to kill this white man because he represents a typical white he hates.

b. Then we have another man who is also someone this black man hates and who is also murdered by him. And this victim is black. And the hatred is based on envy because this black man is successful in society. Our killer hates all successful black men, because they make him feel like a failure and undermine his blame for the whites.

Now imagine we also had special legislation for a crimes motivated by racial hatred doubling the punishments.
Would you double the punishments for the both homicides?

[daisy]

I am still not clear on whether penalties are actually doubled - and I also stated many many times that motivation or emotion is not the issue - it is acting on those feelings that is the main problem.

Uh...can you give me any actual references where this has occurred - black people killing white people or other black people due to conceived racial hatred? I seem to remember someone shooting people in the subway in New York and it being based on his hatred for white people due to his concieved opression but I may have this wrong.

I also think free speech - at least the idealistic notion of it -as Joe points out it ain't as free as you may believe - is really really overly emphasized here - above and beyond people's rights to live free from racial-religious-ethnic persecution and violence. I guess some things are trade-offs.

And what about the young offenders act? In Canada, we have a whole different set of penalties and such for youths sixteen and under - sometimes they can be transferred to adult court but this is rare -

Do young people deserve the same penalties as adults because their emotional maturity and motivation should not be taken into account - just the crime itself?

And what about women who kill their abusive husbands?

Or kids who kill adults who abuse them?

So everyone should get the same sentence and jail term regardless of the reasons behind the crime, or the emotional personality or traits of the accused?
I know this is not what is meant by most posters but i am having trouble understanding why the motivation etc. is not understood as being already built into law?
And what about people who kill police officers? They usually get stiffer sentences? So we are not all created equal in the eyes of the law.
And don't assume that I have a problem with police officers.:rolleyes:

[Snaga]

Gloer

In example a he kills because he hates all white people. In b he doesn't kill the victim because he hates all black people, he hates the other mans success. In reality your example shows that whatever laws are in place you need to judge each case based on all the facts. Your outline doesn't really do this, because I think you'd need a psychological profile of the accused in such a case before deciding.

ReadWryt

Thank you for your first post which was informative and well constructed at times although I still find myself at odds with it.

Your points: (1) its impossible to prove what someone was thinking. The courts look at motive in EVERY crime.
(2) Your point loses coherence, so I might misunderstand you. No the point is not to prevent murderers from having hateful thoughts when they kill. It says if you have those thoughts, don't act on them because we will come down on you like a ton (and a half) of bricks.
(3) Outlawing hate thoughts and groups. Yes care is required, and yes you can't ban thoughts. But banning certain activities and groups is possible. Does your government ban terrorist organisations - e.g. is Al-Quaeda allowed freedom of expression? I sincerely doubt it, but you can tell me if I'm wrong. Groups are banned by governments all the time if their activities are deemed unacceptable. In the UK, distributing leaflets saying all Jews are evil would be illegal, and damn right too. Impinging your freedom of speech? Maybe, but its accepted here because there is also freedom from persecution in play. In this country we have chosen not to ignore the link between propogation of racist literature, and the violence that inevitably follows. I know in the US you do things differently. To you, your right to bear arms, is more important than my freedom from the fear of getting shot. I bet I will get howled at for this analogy, but our murder rate is just way lower than yours.

Thank you for the helpful explanation of the murder laws in the US. I am enlightened. Doesn't matter how many episodes of Ironside/Murder One/Quincy you've seen, it doesn't quite sink in!:)

I'll ignore most of your other so-called points because it is your usual quota of specious rhetoric, and just tackle your final paragraph. You ask if it were actually a fact that we doled out Murder Charges according to what people thought, then WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE NEED NEW LAWS TO DO THE SAME THING? The murder laws allow different motivations to be accounted for in determining sentence. But if you find in practice that sentences are not fitting the crime, do you sit back and do nothing? Hopefully not. If you need to legislate specifically on hate crimes, it is without doubt because the existing laws are not getting the results required by society as a whole. In a democracy, it is the duty of politicians to examine the working of the legal system as a whole (not individual cases) and ensure it is fit for purpose. A legal system that does not by its action lead to the deterrance of hate crimes is failing.

As for your second post, and this follows on, maybe you're unfamiliar with the history of the South of your country? Tell me how the 14th Amendment worked there? Not trying to run down your country. Britain has similar principles of equality, which get overlooked because of prejudice in the legal system. But writing these things down as principles guarantees nothing. Hence the need to legislate more specifically.

all this means is to ask if you MEANT to kill someone and has nothing to do with WHY you did it Hey your just gonna have to run that past me again. The link is just obvious.

You still also persist in the incredible suggestion that motive should have no bearing on sentence. Motive tells you everything about the likelihood of re-offense. Protection of the public is a key consideration in sentencing so motive HAS to be considered.

Sorry if this is a rant, but I do think you've got a wierd attitude about this. What's your problem??? You guys don't go in for hate crime (I hope!!!!:D) so why are you so desperately opposed? :confused:

[daisy]

Maybe it is because our grannies made us drink Red Rose tea almost every day, V of K, because I am with you.
I am not a member of a visible minority, nor does my sexual prefernce veer towards my own team. I am not disabled, nor do I practise a maligned religion. I could start in with the whole sexism thing but I know better by now!
Yet I value people's freedom from persecution and fear much higher than my own freedom of speech! If I want to write a crappy racist or otherwise offensive article or hand out a leaflet saying the holocaust was a hoax I should expect retribution.

Right now in Toronto there is some sick jerk challenging our child pornography laws and he is actually winning because he says that child pornography in the form of stories and drawings that he creates for his own personal 'enjoyment' should be allowed and this is actually happening. Sorry, but I would have ALL FORMS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY outlawed and to hell with freedom of expression.
I just don't get the priorities here, same as you VofK.:confused:

[Asha'man]

Well, I don't think some of you (yes, you know who you are :)) are quite getting what we of the clear minds are saying.

Hate crimes seek to differentiate punishment by attempting to determine the thoughts and personal motives of the criminal.

When the punishment is varied depending on the victim, this places different, arbitrarily decided values on different people.

The crime is the same, only the motivation of the criminal is different.

The crime is what should be punished, not the perceived motivation behind it.

At least in America, where the government doesn't seek to control everything the people say and do, it doesn't matter what the criminal was thinking at the time of the crime.

What if a black man was killed by a white man, and it was somehow proven that the killer was thinking about how much he hates Jews? What then?

Anyway, is it time for a new discussion? I don't have any potential topics in mind right now, so maybe someone else should choose one.

Asha'man

[daisy]

Ash - why is there first, second, and third degree murder then?That has everything to do with the motivation or mind of the killer. Did you read the other posts?

Uh, in saying that America has a government that doen's try to control what people say and do, are you intimating that other people's countries do? I am obviousle getting sensitive in my old age...


What about debating the leagalization of drugs? There is a serious drug crisis going on in the U.S.and, to a lesser degree, in Canada. I say legalize it all and regulate it - what a moneymaker, no more gangs no more prostitution no more crappy junk that makes people wig out!! No more smuggling !
And don't even try, " But it's drugs and they're bad" because alcohol is pretty destructive when used in excess, and cigarettes are pretty horrific.
So?

[Snaga]

Compare

Originally posted by Asha'man
Hate crimes seek to differentiate punishment by attempting to determine the thoughts and personal motives of the criminal.with

Originally posted by Asha'man
When the punishment is varied depending on the victim, this places different, arbitrarily decided values on different people.

Clear minds? You wish! Let me know when you manage to grasp what we're talking about and I'll bother to reply.

[Grond]

originally posted by Variag of Khand
Clear minds? You wish! Let me know when you manage to grasp what we're talking about and I'll bother to reply.I thought that was quite a nasty attitude VoK and I haven't seen that on the forum from you before. The point is that to establish First Degree Murder in the US, motive only need be established. Not the underlying cause of the murder. It is a different crime if you kill a man in a fight or your wife in anger than if you plot it out over a period of time. It doesn't matter if the motive if hate or money or greed or jealosy, if there is a motive and the crime is premeditated, it is a capital murder (premeditated 1st degree).

I'm also confused by your disagreement with the gang murder example earlier. These gangs have only one motivation for fighting and killing one another. It is called hate. Hate of the other gang. There is no more blaring example for a hate crime than that.

Daisy, for an example of a hate crime in practice. About 45 miles from my hometown, a black man was dragged behind a pickup truck with a chain until he was completely torn apart. The three white men who were convicted of the 1st degree murder were tried and convicted of the crime and two were sentenced to die via lethal injection and the third was given life without parole. Where would a federal hate crime statute have had any effect on this case? The other is the young gay man who was tied up to the fence in Utah?, I think. There again, you have two men guilty of a crime. Why is it necessary to make a determination if the two hated gays? There crime is no more hienous because it is against a gay man. I think one of our problems in society today (the whole world) is that we actually try to value some crimes as being worse than others. For me, issues are pretty black and white. It a person kills someone without cause, it's murder. If someone robs someone, it's theft. And for all of you who say there is so much more to it than that, I apologize but I don't get it.

[Bill the Pony]

I'm still enjoying this discussion. Neither side has completely convinced me yet, so please continue. But once this subject dies, can we do Daisy's suggestion and talk about drugs legalization?

[Dengen-Goroth]

*Excellent Discussion my frends. Just, If I may say as the Guild Master, If you have any suggestion on possible topics pm them to me first. I am responsible for this Guild, and therefor if a topic is raised which is not apropriate in some way I shall have to take the brunt of the problem (Not am I in any way undermining your own aptitude within discerning what can/can't be put here :) ) Thank you*

[TheJospeh]

Define "cause" Grond? Is self-defense a just cause? Is hating some a just cause? Oh...damn! We do have to analyze the cause behind the crime. So hate crime legislation would just be a logical extension... :)

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Grond]

Originally posted by TheJospeh
Define "cause" Grond? Is self-defense a just cause? Is hating some a just cause? Oh...damn! We do have to analyze the cause behind the crime. So hate crime legislation would just be a logical extension... :)

Sincerely,
The Joseph Joe, I don't profess to know the laws of Canada but in the U. S., self-defense has nothing to do with cause, it is a defense. So far as I know, hate is not a legally valid defense, hence it may not be used in one's defense of one's actions. Cause, aka hate, has no bearing in the equation unless it is legislated in, as was self-defense. These are tenants that have been in juris-prudence for hundreds of years and find their roots in Olde English Common Law (although my State of Louisiana is slightly different than the forty-nine other states due to it's French Civil Law roots). I'm sure hate was prevalent 200 years ago but I would imagine it was.

On an aside, I hope no one on the forum thinks I am a hate advocate. I simply fail to see the necessity of adding a statute to law that brings even more subjectivity to the equation than we have already. It also begins to punish someone for thinking a certain way. By the way, going back to our criminal rehabilition argument, is putting someone away for an additional 20 years going to make them hate less? We should punish the actions of an illegal act and seek to address the reasons that cause this hate through a different vehicle.

[daisy]

Grond,
Matthew Sheppard was killed in Colorado I think.
I just don't see the difference between motive and intent...
motive =hate of certain group - can't this be the same thing?

Also, I think we got side-tracked by the murder thing. In my country, I am not even sure if hate crimes can be attributed to murder chargers - it is usually used in vandalism, assault and mischief stuff.

Anyway, I say this topic is about done. Sorry Dengen, about not pm'ing you, but ash'aman suggested both this one, gun legislation etc. and never seemed to need to get clearance from you!
So, what about drug legalization? Is this an acceptable topic?

[Asha'man]

No! You're all wrong! Matthew Sheppard was killed in Wyoming! Close, though, both of you. :)

VoK: Jeez. If you read what you snipped of my posts, you can see that they are merely slightly different statements of the same thing. But of course, Let me know when you manage to grasp what we're talking about and I'll bother to reply. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When did you suggest talking about drug legalization, Daisy? I must have missed that entirely. I was actually thinking that I'd suggest that as the next subject, but you beat me to it. Sorry for not seeing that earlier. I concur, this would be a good subject.

Dengen: Since when do we have to PM you for new topics? I've never known about that.

Asha'man

[Snaga]

Sorry Asha'man. A case of posting in haste... that was out of order.

However, it is quite frustrating that however many times it explained, it is not not not about the punishment [being] varied depending on the victim, and everything to do with seekingto differentiate punishment by attempting to determine the thoughts and personal motives of the criminal.You get it in one sentence, and seem to lose the plot in the next. If you don't see the difference I really can't help you further; even if I put that much too rudely before.

I think Daisy is probably right, and normally these laws don't seek to cover murder cases so we are being side-tracked. Naturally, if someone gets convicted of murder, they would face a heavy sentence in all but the most unusual cases. Maybe it is more instructive to compare two cases of graffiti where one individual gets caught daubing the name of their favourite football team on a wall, and another gets caught daubing 'Kill the jews' and swastikas etc.

Anyway, I think a new topic may well be in order. If only because I think we may have exhausted the debate about general principles. In reality you would need to look at any given piece of legislation on its merits, in the context of the state/country it was proposed for. Drug legalisation would be good - big in the UK at the moment. Also perhaps climate change/global warming would be one we would have a chance of all being able to participate in.

[Gloer]

Now I understand why some people talk about freedom of speech.

VofK:

I would see a good point in punishing those football graffiti makers and let the Jew hater go. Football hooligans are a real threat here in Europe. It is dangerous to let for example a Liverpool FC fan to make a graffiti "You never walk alone" (their slogan) in Manshester. He might get badly beaten and he also is very offensive and further more this type of irritating behaviour causes fights when the Mansherter United fans go to Liverpool...

I fail to see any difference between those too graffiti makers.
They motivation or what they write is of the point and irrelevant:
They make a mess and someone needs to clean it up and that costs a lot.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Gloer
I fail to see any difference between those too graffiti makers.
They motivation or what they write is of the point and irrelevant:
They make a mess and someone needs to clean it up and that costs a lot. But Gloer, we're talking about making it against the law to hate. A hefty prison term and fine are definately going to make people quit hating. Everyone ought to have seen that by now. Hate can be changed by punishing those who participate in hate. I'm sure that if I got sent to prison for hating something or somebody, when I got out I would love that same person.

People, do you get my point? Hate needs to be addressed in a different venue than the criminal justice system. Hate cannot be changed by punishment. It must be changed through attitudes. It is neither an easy nor a quick process. :)

[ReadWryt]

Well, if it's written down that people have to treated equally I guess that is the end of that! Obviously discrimination doesn't exist! My mind is now at ease. Also, ReadWryt the most unequal thing you can do is to treat everyone the same. To you catch my dig here?! People are different and that difference needs to be reflected in the law, among other things.

You are talking about two different things and treating them as if they were the same here. I mentioned Equal Protection Under the Law, you are talking about writing specific laws to cover specific needs. The former guarantees that people will not be convicted or aquitted because of special considerations due to their individual attributes. In other words, a handicapped person cannot be aquitted of manslaughter simply because they are handicapped. A handicapped person does have special access to buildings and such though because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and there are stiff laws for not complying. One is Equal Protection, the other is special consideration. If you attept to convict one person for what thoughts or feelings motivated them to commit a crime you have to do the same with ALL people under the 14th ammendment.


ReadWryt: Homer once asked Marge if she ever got tired of always being wrong. Her response was yes, so I must imagine you feel the same way she does. So listen up because I'm going to try and help you break the cycle.

Your idea that Freedom of Speech exists in the United States is just plain silly--don't really silly as a weaker form of ludicrous but as the wrong-headed ideas of a child who should know better but doesn't. Yes, a reasonable facisimile of Freedom of Speech does exist. Case in point, there are slander laws in the America. If I claim John Q. Public is a child molester he can sue me. Furthermore, the onus of proof is not on him but on me. So I can't express whatever ideas I want in America. There are many limits to Freedom of Speech, however, all of these limits fit in to the ideology America happens to call the utter truth. Hate crime legislation is just a reasonable extension of what is already there. I'm not allowed to make plans with my friends to assassinate George W. Bush, we'd be arrested for conspiracy to committ murder. No, thought is very much a governed commodity in America--same goes for Canada. So the basis of your objection to hate crime legislation is totally spurious.

For starters, you were the one who mangled the definitions of First and Second degree murder and Manslaughter, not I. I personally fail to see where your juvinile claim that I am "allways wrong" has any relevence or where there is any evidence to prove it and I suggest that you refrain from these schoolboy tactics in the future if you wish to have people take seriously anything you have to say to back up your opinions on other things.

As for Consiracy, I already covered that in an earlier post. Planning the methods and means for a criminal act is indeed a crime, the MOTIVATIONS are not. Slander I mentioned already as well, and amazingly it is a set of laws which have held up so well over the years, dealing out punishments on a daily basis without any restraint caused by their inability to take MOTIVE into consideration.

In a court of law Motive is not evidence. Motive supports evidence, as a complete lack of it fails to support evidence. If it cannot be proven that I had Motive to commit a crime even though I am placed at the scene at the time the crime was committed it does not prove I had not done it, it only makes it slightly harder to prove I did it. Similarly if I have all the motive in the world to commit the crime but I was in another country for the half of the year that the crime was committed the Motive fails to convict me. Motive is considered only as circumstancial evidence, Hate Crime Laws make Motive Evidence, and that is a very dangerous precident to set.

My arguments are not spurious, as you claim, but sound and reasonable. The fact is that there is not a single "Hate Crime" that is not already punishable under the current laws, and unlike you I have the ability to see that making laws that cover the same ground that is already handled by laws on the books NEVER improves things, but simply whittles away a bit more at the rights granted to all people, and chips away at the restrictions that the Constitution places on Government to intrude into the lives of Citizens as defined by the Framers.

If you have problems with crimes, it's rediculous to presume that addressing the motives with stiffer penalties because of what thoughts and feelings motivated the person to commit them. It implies that they would be less likely to commit crimes they could be convicted of under the current law simply because they would do MORE time due to their motivation. Since when did Criminals care about the penalties? Isn't the lack of respect for Laws and Consequences the reason in most cases that these people ARE criminals?? Can you name me a recorded case of the KKK refraining from lynching anyone because they might get caught and do Jail Time over it? Don't be rediculous, Criminals are Criminals...yet Criminals have rights, and they are due Equal Protection under the Law...and the idea that some jury of twelve can determine if the personal opinions of one criminal makes them deserve a stiffer sentence then the opinions of another is as scary as it is insane.

It's bad enough that Federal Agencies can sieze and hold individuals for "possession of materials with which they might commit a felony" without ever proving that there actually was intent to commit said crime. This type of thing is just WAITING for the bleeding heart kneejerk liberal machine to give them the ability to take people's thoughts and feelings into consideration in a conviction. This pitifull concept that all one needs to do is throw either more laws or more money at problems that have not been solved with either in the past is really getting old. It insults the populace and gives the Law Enforcement Agencies a pass on not having dutifully persued enforcement of the laws already on the books that cover these crimes.

Bear in mind that you are talking about "hate" crimes, which implies and defines them as being Crimes to BEGIN with. Punishment for Crimes is handed out according to the severity of the DAMAGE(S) done by the Guilty Party(ies) and not according to their Motivation unless it can be proven that such motivation was absent of intent. Intent being absent then the courts treat it in a similar way one would an accident. Therefor if a person planned to kill, it's murder...if it was spur of the moment without Malace Aforethought and Intent, it's Manslaughter. Otherwise there is no place in the law for what Opinions were the Motivation for Committing a Crime that there are already punishments for...It's really quite simple.

[greypilgrim]

with hate crime legislation all one needs to do is be part of a group of "hated" people (usually minorities or gays) and they instantly become "protected" by laws carrying stiffer penalties. where am I represented? what if somebody hates me for what I am? (white american straight male). where are MY special protections? see where I am headed with this?
hate crimes are an illusion. a bogus idea. i will prove it:

gay guy is beaten to death with a hammer. his attackers call him "gay" names as they beat him. they get charged with a hate crime.

straight guy is killed with a hammer. his attackers call him "straight" names. they are charged with a crime, but not a hate crime. unless the straight guy had a very expensive laywer, that is.

hate crimes are total B.S. Why not just say..."OK, the white guy with the hood on, you killed the black man. you did it because he is black. you, therefore, are charged with pre-meditated, cold blooded murder in the 1st degree."? instead it's....."you, white man with the hood on, killed this black man. you did it because he is black. you, therefore, have commited a hate crime, and are charged with pre-meditated, cold blooded murder in the first degree. and a hate crime."
if found guilty in the first instance, he serves 25 to life.
guilty in the second instance, he gets life without parole.
same crimes, same reasons, different punishment. because of the term, "hate crime". now didn't the first guy "hate" just as much as the guy in the second instance? yes.
but now we have a government that imposes it's will on us, and tries to control our thoughts, morality, and beliefs. so the same crime gets treated differently in this "new era" of "understanding".
I am against it. we need public hangings again.
Toughen people up a bit.

[Snaga]

Well I see Daisy Joe and I have no chance of convincing you guys (and vice versa).

In order to have any sympathy for the notion of hate crime laws, you've got to want to do something about hatred and prejudice in the first place. I see no sign of this. If you think that rivalry between football teams comes close (even at its worst) to the invidious poison in our society of racism etc, then this is appalling ignorance. Or perhaps you just don't give a f£$%.

You all get very angst-ridden when someone says your freedom of speech and action should not be used to fuel prejudice, fan the flames of hatred etc. How dare someone interfere with your right to oppress! Your minds are so closed you can't see the difference between legislation that seeks to prevent people acting on their hatred, and some mythological laws against hating. You insist on your right to offend, oppress and thereby create fear and inequality. I deny you it, with no apologies. There: we are just on opposing sides. Politics is after all like that.

I will just observe this: that societies that are more racist, more homophobic, where women are not treated equally are precisely where the abuse of power flourishes, whether by governments, police etc. All the things that concern you ReadWryt. Why is that? Because where these forms of prejudice occur people cannot make common cause for their wider freedoms. And the injustices that people suffer they lay at each others door rather than at the door of their government. Divide and rule its called, a key tool of every dictatorial government there ever was. It works wonders, because people like you don't even see it!

Greypilgrim: I see you did not listen to Gandalf speech on the death sentence, before adopting his name. Perhaps one day you will be accused and convicted of a terrible crime you did not commit. And then maybe you will have plenty of time on death row to repent of your view, before being publicly hanged as a warning to all against such stupidity. That would toughen you up!

[Gloer]

" In order to have any sympathy for the notion of hate crime laws, you've got to want to do something about hatred and prejudice in the first place. I see no sign of this."

If you wait for signs you miss seeing the facts.

I just know your thinking is well meaning but leads to worse. People can not be changed or their actions directed with legislation. Legislation you suggest will turn from a well meaning instruction into a weapon in the very hands of prejudice people: Hate crime legislation will eventually amplify the prejudice and hatred in the society. It will polarise fractions, races, minorities... It is "evil".

You wonder weather I want to do something about prejudice and hatred?
Hatred can be well justified (and usually is, too), it can base on facts. Prejudice on the otherhand means "hatred" that is not based on facts. I am against hatred that does not have any factual basis.

(From this point we can advance to an equilibrium where opposing intrests can find a basis for co-existence that is better for the both instead of mutual destrucion, "Nash-equilibrium" - go see the movie, it's ok.)

"If you think that rivalry between football teams comes close (even at its worst) to the invidious poison in our society of racism etc, then this is appalling ignorance. Or perhaps you just don't give a f£$%."

No. Actually I don't give a damn what those "evil thinkers" write on the walls. They make a mess and that is it. Do you actually READ graffitis? Get something better to do...


"Acting on ... hatred" should not be illegalsince hatred is a natural emotion. Instead we could encourage more natural outlets for hatred. What do you think V of K ?

I am sure you think "laws against hating" are as ridiculous as I think they are.

"Right to offend, oppress "

"I will just observe this: that societies that are more racist, more homophobic, where women are not treated equally are precisely where the abuse of power flourishes, whether by governments, police etc. "

And no examples? Since it is your observation, I was expecting you to mention which societies you were observing. Well, I suppose you are american so I think you ment USA, right?... Or maybe you ment Afghanistan and the like.

The oppression of women is by the way an exellent topic. I have a special theory on this:
Assumptions
1. Men are lazy.
2. Men want to be relatively better prooviders than women in order to get married nad regular sex.
3. Women always try to choose a man that is socially higher than she is.

Solutions:
1. Men have to work hard and compete against each other to get the most/best females that can also be good providers for themselves thus increasing the work needed to convice them.
2. Men can oppress women so that it is relatively easy to become a better provider. For example being able to read when women are not allowed to learn is sufficient to give authority over the females.

The former is making a modern mans life tough here in Helsinki. The latter (paradise?) is to be found in Africa. Unfortunately it is I think the prime reason for developing countries problems and poverty. There is no mechanism to get those lazy men to learn more, faster and to work more efficiently. Free the women - and all the men are suddenly working like ants in China to stay ahead (and to keep having regular sex of course).

That was of the topic, sorry, but I return to it by saying that freeing women is not achieved with hate crime legislation. I can't name a coutry where it was done that way.

[Grond]

Posted by VoK
...In order to have any sympathy for the notion of hate crime laws, you've got to want to do something about hatred and prejudice in the first place. I see no sign of this. If you think that rivalry between football teams comes close (even at its worst) to the invidious poison in our society of racism etc, then this is appalling ignorance. Or perhaps you just don't give a f£$%.

VoK, apparently you haven't been reading my posts. I have stated something definately needs to be done about hatred and prejudice. I just totally disagree with you on the method with which we would accomplish this. If you see no sign of my desire, you're not looking.

Posted by VoK
You all get very angst-ridden when someone says your freedom of speech and action should not be used to fuel prejudice, fan the flames of hatred etc. How dare someone interfere with your right to oppress! Your minds are so closed you can't see the difference between legislation that seeks to prevent people acting on their hatred, and some mythological laws against hating. You insist on your right to offend, oppress and thereby create fear and inequality. I deny you it, with no apologies. There: we are just on opposing sides. Politics is after all like that.

This is such an ignorant and prejudiced post VoK that I will not respond. It would appear that you should practice what you preach when confronting people with different views than your own. I have never attacked your views in that manner and am surprised that your name is associated with that paragraph.

Posted by VoK
I will just observe this: that societies that are more racist, more homophobic, where women are not treated equally are precisely where the abuse of power flourishes, whether by governments, police etc. All the things that concern you ReadWryt. Why is that? Because where these forms of prejudice occur people cannot make common cause for their wider freedoms. And the injustices that people suffer they lay at each others door rather than at the door of their government. Divide and rule its called, a key tool of every dictatorial government there ever was. It works wonders, because people like you don't even see it!

What has my government and my people ever done to deserve such criticism from you? America is a bastion of freedom. I challenge you to come to my country and find a hungry child. Try and find a child who doesn't have the opportunity to be anything they want.

Posted by VoK
Greypilgrim: I see you did not listen to Gandalf speech on the death sentence, before adopting his name. Perhaps one day you will be accused and convicted of a terrible crime you did not commit. And then maybe you will have plenty of time on death row to repent of your view, before being publicly hanged as a warning to all against such stupidity. That would toughen you up!

I'm sure that the parents of the 6 year old girl who was raped and murdered less than 30 miles from my house last year would share your sentiment when the jury decides that he deserves to get life in prison instead of paying for what he did in like kind. And no system of justice is perfect. Freedom has a price. A fair and just judicial system also has a price. It still beats anything else I've seen to date.

By the way, I am going to declare a holiday so all of you non-Americans can get it out of your systems. I am declaring tomorrow World-wide Hate America Day. That way you can get all the hate you feel for us out of your system. After all, you better, it might be a crime to hate us next week.

[Snaga]

Gloer

I'm from the UK. It was a long post anyway so I held off the case studies. I can't tell if you disagree or not so I'm not sure at what length to go into this.

An example close to home for me is Northern Ireland: highly divided, relatively poor human rights record vs the rest of the UK. But there are as many as you need, if you are disputing my theory.

Grond

(1) Fair enough. Looking back you have said that. So I apologise to you.
(2) You saidBut Gloer, we're talking about making it against the law to hate. Noone was talking about this. Do you see the difference between this invention of yours and laws against particular actions taken because of (and to fuel) hatred? If so, why try and mislead? Everyone opposing these sorts of laws has done so on the basis that their own unrestricted freedom of speech is more important than the freedom from oppression of minorities. So, sorry, I stand by that. I'm not prejudiced: just responding to what is posted.
(3) Where did I say I was attacking the US?:confused: Seriously, Grond, I meant that statement to a greater or lesser degree to almost all countries. The US is more open and democratic than most countries. Contrast the relative openness AND degree of rights for minorities in US, with say, the treatment of women in Saudi, and the general despotic nature of that regime - hence my argument that they go hand in hand. (BTW, I'm confident that in ANY country I might find a child that doesn't have the opportunity to be EVERYTHING they want. Hey my lad wants to be a hobbit, its just tough:D)
(4) Death penalty. In Britain we have a whole long list of people who have been found not guilty on appeal after serving years of a life sentence. If we had the death penalty they'd be dead by now. The last person executed in the UK was innocent. Price of freedom? BS mate. Who says you've got more freedom than us? The death penalty is part of what makes a society violent IMHO - if the state can kill, what sort of an example is that? I'm sure parents of a victim would have very strong ideas, but we have judges to determine sentence on more than just that. I happen to believe in the possibility of rehabilitation, and the sanctity of human life. And I thought you were the Christian?? Thou shalt not kill it says! I daresay you will throw 'an eye for an eye' back at me, and the whole world can go blind that way.

BTW Grond I don't hate America, or Americans at all. I've been to your country, and met many Americans and found you a most friendly and welcoming people as a rule. I don't get why you've raised this at all.

[daisy]

greypilgrim wrote:

"where am I represented? what if somebody hates me for what I am? (white american straight male). "
Are you joking? Please tell me you are joking....you are represented in every government, fotrune fivehundred boardroom, hospital, military,newsanchor job, professorship blah blahblah - if you start waxing nostalgic about your struggles due to your white, male heterosexuality I'll throw up.

And public hangings? Nice touch.
I think what has begun to happen is that people are reading the post in front of theirs but no other ones and so they are not really responding to a lot of the debate points.

Grond,I am going to assume you have already realised that your hungry child comment is dangerously misleading. Child poverty is a huge problem in your country as it is in mine, and many children live with no health care or dental services, so please amend this comment. It is insensitive to the children who go to bed hungry every night...

Also, please stop with the " You hate America." It is a way to deflect the discussion off the points you disagree with and onto an issue that does not exist. I have military personnel fighting alongside your 'people' right now, and we share a border and a close ally relationship. Don't insult me by accusing me of being an America-hater - I also live in America myself, remember?

Please please please can we just move on to another topic? I think we need to know when to let sleeping hate crimes lie....

Drug legalization? Ash'aman and I and Bill and I think V of K like the idea so what about it?


:)

[Grond]

VoK,

I am against a law that would be described as a "hate" law. I am in support of a law that finds a particular action to be illegal. I feel that maybe our misunderstandings are semantics and not really a difference of opinion. I agree that if a person is targeted because they are a minority, and an illegal action is taken, the perpetrator should be arrested and tried for the crime. I'm not really sure what exactly you are insinuating would be a hate crime. Would you and Daisy please give me some definate examples of crimes that would fall under such a statute. Then I could better understand where you're coming from.

Posted by VoK
Greypilgrim: I see you did not listen to Gandalf speech on the death sentence, before adopting his name. Perhaps one day you will be accused and convicted of a terrible crime you did not commit. And then maybe you will have plenty of time on death row to repent of your view, before being publicly hanged as a warning to all against such stupidity. That would toughen you up!

My harsh response was because of the quote above. It is directed at the death penalty and America. Please don't deny it. BTW, your biblical translation is incorrect. The correct translation of the commandment is
V13 Thou shalt not kill.
Kill 7523 ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder.
That would make it fit with the "eye for an eye" verse. And I would sincerely regret an innocent being put to death. I am willing to accept that potentiality due to the need to keep some offenders from ever committing the same act again. That's me and those are my beliefs. You are more than welcome to disagree but it doesn't make me an evil person. :)

[daisy]

This is my last post on the topic of hate crimes ( not that anyone cares) for the solw purpose of saying to you, Grond that definite examples of hate crimes in my city would be:

assault of person from oppressed group covered under hate crime with proof that assault took place due to person being member of oppressed group i.e. gay bashing where large groups of men go to Church Street and find a gay man and beat him to a pulp.

vandalism on mosques, synagogues, churches that use derogatory epithets or symbols i.e.swastika.

cross burning on the lawn of visible minority - hasn't happened in Toronto but has happened in this country.

As I mentioned somewhere, I think we got sidetracked into discussions about murder when in fact it is unclear to me actually whether murder charges or sentences are affected by hate crime legislation.

Marijuana at the midtown druggists? Crack at the corner store? Smack at the supermarket?What about it people?

[ReadWryt]

In order to have any sympathy for the notion of hate crime laws, you've got to want to do something about hatred and prejudice in the first place.

This statement is as ironic as it is confused. Doing something about Hatred and writing laws are two fundimentally different things. Next I suppose we will start writing laws to stamp out ignorance and stupidity. You have as much chance of changing how smart people are through laws as you do changing how they feel and think about other people. I guess it would just take a swirl of the legal pen to make people feel patriotic as well, since theoretically all people should feel pride and solidarity in their nation...We need Pro-Patriotism laws to make people actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers so that they can see finally not only what the cost of TRUE liberty is, but that the founding fathers realized that the law is hamstrung when it comes to changing the hearts and minds of men.

The whole reason we developed a Death Penalty in this country was austensably to change people's minds about killing...to discourage the act altogether. Now we have many of the same people who for years have been arguing that the Death Penalty is wrong for many reasons, among them the fact that it does not discourage killing nor change the mind of the killer saying that Hate Crime laws can succeed where the Death Penalty failed. It's a sad day...

[Snaga]

Rather than tackle your disingenuous argument, it may help to elaborate on my point, as you appear to have misunderstood.

In order to be a supporter of the notion of Hate Crimes legislation there are two conditions:
(1) You must recognise there is hatred / prejudice etc and wish to tackle problem
(2) You must also believe that such legislation will work.

It is possible to want to do something, but disagree with this sort of legislation I suppose. And Grond has put himself into this category; although maybe as Daisy has provided a number of examples of what might be covered by such legislation he may feel more inclined to support the notion. (I'll quote that list at the end of this post).

But it is my sincere belief that many people who oppose this sort of legislation either deny that there is a problem at all, or just don't really care.

I'd rather avoid putting too many people in this category, but I do find this view confirmed when as an example Gloer sees no relevance in what graffiti says. Anti-semitic graffiti on the wall of a synagogue is a far more sinister act than declaring your love of a football team on a bus shelter. I am shocked and staggered to see this disputed. I should hardly need to say that one is an act of persecution and the other merely vandalism. The paint may be the same, but nothing else is.

I don't believe you can legislate hate away. But you can through the laws that are passed set down standards of acceptable behaviour and seek to enforce them. Stating as a matter of public policy that there is no difference between the two forms of graffiti, suggests that intentional persecution of a minority is just the same as teenage high-jinks. In reality, the police would not even investigate the crime of graffiti'ing. This makes those responsible feel they can get away with it, and those who are threatened by this activity feel unprotected.

The criminal justice system, and the various sentences meted out can play a number of roles. I think this always needs to be considered. These roles are (in no particular order):
(1) Retribution
(2) Punishment
(3) Deterrence
(4) Protection of the public
(5) Rehabilitation

Protection of the public from people who perpetrate such crimes is a valid goal in itself. I don't think that the deterrent effect of sentences is by any means even the primary way of challenging prejudice and hatred. I believe education has a major role to play. I also believe the act of publicly challenging prejudice is important. For example there has been a major campaign in Britain to identify those shouting racist abuse at football (i.e. Soccer!) matches, and ban them from the ground. This has been very public and open, and has sought the support of other fans and has been immensely successful. What can't be acceptable is turning a blind eye.

My objection to the death penalty is that it is fundamentally inhumane, and a bad standard to set. But apart from that, this provides an excessive emphasis on retribution, and denies the possibility of rehabilitation. Clearly, noone who objects to the death penalty thinks that murder is not a serious offense, and we shouldn't be trying to 'change people's mind' about it. But you knew that, I'm sure. Why you thought that was a helpful tack to take is beyond me.

Daisy's list of examples:assault of person from oppressed group covered under hate crime with proof that assault took place due to person being member of oppressed group i.e. gay bashing where large groups of men go to Church Street and find a gay man and beat him to a pulp.

vandalism on mosques, synagogues, churches that use derogatory epithets or symbols i.e.swastika.

cross burning on the lawn of visible minority - hasn't happened in Toronto but has happened in this country.