Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 15 of 376 (537553)
11-29-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-27-2009 8:42 PM


Humans R Us
Would a gang that assaulted another gang receive a higher charge on the pretense that they were discriminating against that other gang? What difference does it make from a legal point of view?
The difference, Hyro, is the difference in a crime against an individual vs a crime against humanity.
Members volunteer their services to the gang as individuals. Gang violence is considered individual violence albeit on a larger scale.
Gays, blacks, left-handers and democrats achieve there status from their human condition and have no say in that status.
Society has determined that dragging a man down miles of gravel road dangling on a rope attached to the bumper of your pick-up just because he owed you money and wouldn't pay is less harmful (slightly) to the fabric of society than the same actors in the same crime but done just because he is a nigger. One is an individual crime, the other is a crime against humanity, meaning a crime against us all, and society has determined such deserving of a greater punishment.
Your concern about using such laws as precedence to warrant expansion beyond the intended scope into limiting legal speech (that damn camel's nose) is not without justification. That is why we must remain ever vigilant that society, the tyranny of the majority, does not overstep the bounds. And we do that in discussions like this and in the USA (to a greater or lesser extent) by acknowledging the supremacy of a Constitution over the wants and desires of the society. It certainly isn't perfect and often it is not pretty but, all-in-all it does seem to work most of the time.
Good topic. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-27-2009 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2009 8:46 PM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 3:24 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 30 of 376 (537700)
11-30-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
11-30-2009 3:24 AM


First things First
Because as we all know, there isn't a single white supremacist group to be found in the US because the hate crimes laws regarding race that have been on the books for decades have actually been expanded to arrest people for speech, right?
(snip)
Has there been a problem of this legal distinction unfairly criminalizing thought?
Then what makes you worried that there is anything different? You can't be charged with a hate crime unless you commit a crime in the first place. And as long as the KKK is around, then you can rest assured that hate crimes laws aren't punishing anybody for their thoughts.
You don't have to arrest the hooded bastards, just use the law to enjoin legal speech.
First Amendment rights are always under assault as unintended consequences of legislation. Think DMCA, NY Times vs United States. National Socialists v Skokie.
The justification is abundant throughout our history from the Alien and Sedition Acts thru the Patriot Act.
If we do not protect First Amendment principles even from the most well-intentioned legislation, and especially in instances most of us would find most abhorrent, we stand to lose it all.
That doesn't mean hate-crime legislation is not proper or necessary, just that we already know such things are open to abuse.
Come on, Rrhain, you are intellectually better than this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 3:24 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 11:11 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 3:51 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 39 of 376 (537727)
11-30-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 11:11 AM


Re: First things First
If we do not protect First Amendment principles even from the most well-intentioned legislation, and especially in instances most of us would find most abhorrent, we stand to lose it all.
Precisely... Well articulated.
Thank you. But please note this in no way keeps hate-crime legislation from being proper and necessary.
I understand your point and your analysis of the issue. I will not say you are wrong. We disagree on the point and society's analysis yields a different result.
Hate crimes are crimes against humanity, against the society as a whole, and society has rightfully determined these crimes deserving of greater punishment than assessed for just the base crime itself.
The First Amendment side-issue is just that - a side issue. One to be aware of and vigilant against, but is not sufficient, in these cases, to warrant a bar to legislation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 40 of 376 (537733)
11-30-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 1:07 PM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
I know it did not establish hate-crimes. The last 3 presidents all have a hand in that. My question is why can't everyone have equal protection from the law the way the 14th Amendment declares? Why do we have to be part of a special class of people to have our murderers justly tried?
You have the effect of the legislation wrong. Though it may look for those who want like it sets up a special class of people it in fact sets up a special class of crime. Hate-crime laws separate out crimes against humanity from crimes against individuals, both of which society has the right to address. The stiffer penalties for crimes against humanity speaks to society's view that such crimes are more heinous. There are specific classes of people mentioned in the acts because these groups have been special targets of hate-induced crime based upon their humanity regardless of individual character.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 1:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 5:39 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 50 of 376 (537784)
11-30-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
11-30-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Who says a crime is a "hate" crime?
And who determines if a single act was motivated by "hate" or not?
The jury.
Isn't a person on trail for a hate crime before the jury has even had a chance to hear the details of the case? Is it not left to the arresting officer or prosecutors to say if in fact it was a "hate" crime?
The police may arrest the individual for murder. The DA may amend the charge to murder with bias (hate crime) depending upon the particulars of the evidence.
No it is not the officer nor the DA who say in fact it was a hate crime. The officer does not make an arrest for murder with bias, just murder. The DA assesses the evidence and may amend the charge. Only the jury can say what the "fact" was. Only the jury can label it a hate crime.
Now the media grabs a hold of the story and promotes it as a hate crime. Note that my group has yet to set foot in a court room, however, we are now defending ourselves against a "hate" crime, and thus have received hate mail, or perhaps threats, or whatever else can come from that label, from groups who defend gay rights.
If the DA so amends the indictment from his view of the evidence then your reputation is shot. That's life in a media-hyped world. What you need to worry about is those big guys in jail who want you to be their play thing.
This is bullshit. If it had just been deemed a crime then it would not have had the repercussions that labelling it a "hate" crime had.
Under the scenario you gave you are in no danger of having a "with bias" charge tacked on. That's an emotional boogyman. Even a half-comatose attorney could quash that one if the DA were really that stupid. Don't get all bent out of shape over your strawman. The reality is quite different. In reality you and your opponents would both be charged with disturbing the peace, pay a fine and may have to attend anger management sessions. Then you would have to divy up your share of the bar damage.
But what happened to James Byrd in Jasper, Texas, is exactly what these things are aimed at, not some bar fight by a bunch of drunks in Surprise, Arizona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 11-30-2009 5:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 12-01-2009 10:00 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 52 of 376 (537791)
11-30-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 9:19 PM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
So by examining the motives of the killers, you punish them twice, once for the murder, and the second for their motive. But if it is not a crime to be a bigot, then why are they being punished twice? They are obviously being punished for their beliefs (which falls under freedom of speech/expression), none of which, remember, are criminal acts.
You keep asking the same question. We've covered this. You don't have to agree with the reasoning but you could at least acknowledge it. Society says such crimes are separate from individual crimes because the motive is biased against humanity regardless of the character of the individual. Society sees these crimes as more heinous.
You disagree. We understand that. But you keep asking, "why?" and that has been covered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 9:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 116 of 376 (538337)
12-05-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rrhain
12-01-2009 3:51 AM


quote:
Think DMCA
  —AZPaul3
That wasn't "unintended." That was the entire purpose.
This is the point isn't it.
Was Dmitry Sklyarov's arrest and detention under DMCA an unintended violation of his legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.
With regard to the first, do you mean the trial regarding the Pentagon Papers? If so, then the law cited (Section 793 of the Espionage Act) was specifically designed to restrict speech:
And another one.
Was the government's issue of a prior restraint order pursuant to the Espionage Act an unintended violation of the NYTimes legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.
With regards to the Skokie trial, that didn't have anything to do with a law but rather a procedure: The city insisted that the Nazis had to post an extremely large insurance bond in the hopes that they couldn't post it and thus wouldn't be able to march (when they didn't ask other groups to post such bond at all, let alone the size required by the Nazi group.)
Village procedures can ONLY follow from Ordinance (Law). Read the case. Was the law of the village of Skokie abused in such a manner as to deny the group's legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.
Can you give a single example of anybody anywhere who has had his First Amendment rights violated because of hate crimes laws? They've been on the books for decades so you have plenty of cases to go through.
Not necessary to go through them all. Just one will suffice.
Have you never heard of the Philly 11? Michael Marcavage?
His is a real piece of religious work. Makes me want to puke.
That's the real stickler with the First Amendment. If you allow it to be abused against the most abhorrent then you will lose the right yourself.
Was the arrest and detention of the 11 under Pennsylvania's Ethnic Intimidation law an unintended violation of the group's legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights? The court said yes.
So if we have never had these laws used to violate free speech, why would extending them to cover sexual orientation suddenly cause such violations? There are plenty of people who are as vehemently anti-black as there are those who are anti-gay. So if such laws protecting race never resulted in this bugaboo of "unintended consequences," why would protecting sexual orientation do it?
Where is your evidence?
See above.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not opposed to hate crime legislation. I find it to be both proper and necessary in this society. My issue here is that we be cognizant of the fact (as detailed above) that such legislation, indeed any legislation, law, ordinance, or court opinion can be twisted to abuse. We must be vigilant of such unintended uses of legitimate social legislation to unlawfully enjoin our First Amendment rights.
It has, it does and it will happen.
Edited by AZPaul3, : I wanted to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 12-01-2009 3:51 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2009 6:04 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024