Hate-crime = Thought crime?

I was unaware that the the Obama Administration recently passed in to law a new hate-crime bill. While of course the essence of the bill is to right a wrong, something seems very awry with it.Hating people solely on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc, is morally wrong in my opinion, unequivocally.The problem I have with it is that it is an additional crime on top of an original crime. For instance, hypothesize that an Asian was surrounded by a a gang of Neo-nazi thugs who beat the man within an inch of his life.The perpetrators receive an additional charge of hate crime on top of their violent crime. Does the motive trump the action? The "act" is what is criminal, not the motive. Motive only establishes causative reasons when trying to establish guilt.The fact that they violently assaulted a man without legal justification should be the only thing relevant to a charge.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?Now you might be wondering why I have a problem with it. Let these bastards rot, right? Indeed! The problem is that this goes against the freedom of speech and thought.We're seeking to give additional charges to sweeten the pot, as if beating a person nearly to death isn't enough? Why not just make assault and battery penalties more strict if you want to get these kinds of monsters off of the streets? Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?Benjamin Franklin comes to my mind: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."Your thoughts?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

The action of assault is what is criminal. Shouldn't people be charged on the basis of what they're doing?Is a racially charged motive for assault worse than a motive with greed in mind? Is it somehow worse to beat a man nearly to death because he doesn't like Asians versus beating a man nearly to death to steal his money? What difference does it make if someone was beaten nearly to death? Is that going to matter for the victim? I think the fact that they were beaten for any reason is equally tragic. Getting beat nearly to death should be enough justification.Moreover it would not surprise me that one day this bill will be used to muzzle and censor. I also see the implication of someone being falsely accused on the basis of race.Let's say two people get in to a bar fight over a spilled drink. One of the men happens to be white and the other happens to be black. What could have been a simple misunderstanding now becomes a felony because one of them lied and stated that they were yelling racial epithets to maximize revenge. Which is all based around "actions." I see a lot of people on the horizon falsely charged with hate crimes. I don't think so. You have liquor store robberies where these monsters come in without any remorse or conscience, just so they can have even a few dollars. I don't know why one should be worse than the other from a legal perspective. Their actions would seem to dictate the severity in my eyes as a juror, as in, what did they do to their victims.The question of why they did it is an important one. I am not trying to minimize that. The callous nature of a heinous crime is important, but I am thinking of the unintended consequences attached to such a bill. I think the principle of the bill is a good thing, but at the risk of manipulating the bill makes it dangerous. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yes, precisely. And like you said, motives are already examined further in court. So the risk of false accusations and censorship seem to outweigh that such a bill would ever "prevent" racially motivated crimes.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I just have tons of media websites. I was looking for the actual bill so I could examine the details. I looked on government websites, but only found old H.R. bills dating back to 2007. Indeed but now we're getting in to the realm of action during the commissioning of a crime. As you stated, obviously it is no longer protected. But you are being charged with the action, not the motive. So why should an additional charge ever matter?Is an additional motive of robbery come in to play when someone is robbed? No, all that matters is whether or not they committed it in actuality. I'm obviously not defending bigots who beat the hell out of their victims for ridiculous reasons. My concern is what might come of this bill through manipulation. That's the real danger, seems to me. Yes, I agree. In some sense we are charged on a level of thought crimes, so I suppose action alone cannot dictate the severity. Primarily, yes, but the secondary motive is sometimes important.People have been charged with "plotting" a murder. That obviously has the air of "thought" crime. That's conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime. But even that is based on a level of actions. If a court can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the individual made enough attempts to lead towards the big picture, that is enough justification to legally charge them. So if a gang of hispanic men assaulted a caucasian man while screaming racial epithets, would they be subject to such a bill or is the bill only for minorites? And how does it work if one minority attacks another minority (straight black male attacking lesbian hispanic)?Does it really matter when you could just charge them with the assault and examine the motive in the courtroom?

quote:

---

Benjamin Franklin comes to my mind: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

---

I see manipulation of the bill on the horizon judging by human nature. That's really where I see the danger, similar to the Patriot Act. Yes the premise is all fine and good, but what if abused? What if mishandled? What of the unintended consequences? You would make a good point except that motives are examined in court and the jury decides, based upon the evidence and preponderance of guilt, the severity of the charge. No bill is necessary.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

It was murder, not assault. No. So when a liquor store or convenient store is robbed, all liquor stores and convenient stores are attacked by proxy? Which all can be determined in the courtroom like it has always been. No special provision need apply. I'm not saying that motive should have no play, I am saying that a specific bill makes little sense.Let's say I attacked two people on separate occasions. One is a member of my own race and I beat them for looking at me cross. Let's say I beat this man nearly to death and he needed reconstructive surgery to set his bones back in to place.On the other occasion I walk by a member of a different race and say a nasty epithet and jabbed him in the face. He's got a bloody nose, but certainly nowhere near the level of victim #1.Days later I'm arrested for both crimes. I'm charged with two counts for victim #2, regardless if the severity was worse for victim #1.Wouldn't it make more sense to simply allow the courts to examine the motives and severity of the cases as it has always been done? I never said that or even alluded to it. I said "actions" should take precedence. All of those things are determined based upon "actions" not core beliefs.Is it worse to murder a man for money or murder him for hatred? It's still murder, and people still were unjustly killed either way. Nobody is protected by these laws and it's insane to think it is somehow a deterrent, as if racist groups are somehow going to dissolve away or quake at the thought of this bill. Okay, then stop being dumb by making unsubstantiated, veiled assertions.

quote:

---

Why threaten the freedom of speech and free thought?

---

Where does acts of terrorism fall under the protection of free speech? Here's the litmus test: Clear and Present Danger

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Yes, I agree with you on all counts.I think for statistical purposes, in order to establish criminal trends and rates, it is acceptable for police agencies to track hate crimes as long as it is categorized as a motive. The FBI, and more than likely Scotland Yard, tracks crimes that are racially motivated.I don't object to the profiling of hate crimes, rather I object to it being a criminal charge in and of itself. There's no law on the books stating that you can't be a bigot. Therefore how can it be an additional crime to an act of violence?In my mind it simply is categorizing or establishing motives which is often important in solving a case.This is what various police agencies do to try and solve the crime:They find a dead body in a park. They examine possible motives. They look at the motive of robbery, rape/thrill-kill, the motive of revenge, or something like a hate crime (based on ethnic/racial/gender/sexual orientation hatred). I think that is perfectly fine in order to establish motive, but making it its own crime is a huge step in the wrong direction with the freedom of thought and speech. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

It's all discrimination based on superficial differences, is my point. I'm sure that's of little to no consolation for the family member. And it still does not get to the root of the problem. Being charged for murder and based upon the heinous nature of that murder is the only relevance to the statute itself.If it is not illegal to be a bigot, then why are people being doubly punished for the motive of the killing? Shouldn't the act of murder alone be sufficient? We aren't imprisoning these people for their beliefs but because of their actions. But isn't this an infringement of the Constitution?
Follow the train of logic in stepwise fashion and you will see that it does not add up. We are brushing it aside because nobody likes bigotry and so it seems justifiable.A. It is not a crime to have a racial bias.
B. It is not a crime to yell racial epithets.1. It is a crime to threaten people's lives with violence.
2. It is a crime to murder people.This bill takes A&B and marries it to 1&2 unjustly."He called my friend a nigger (not a crime) and told him he would kill him (a crime) because he's black (not a crime). Then he killed him (crime) because he's black (not a crime)."That is punishing people for their beliefs rather than punishing them for their actions. That the 9/11 hijackers killed in the name of their religion certainly pisses everyone off just like killing over race pisses us off. The motive itself is not the criminal act, even if it is a catalyst towards the action itself.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I hope it's not a tool of appeasement.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This is a non-partisan issue, as it is a question of Constitutionality not party lines. That's what it is! It is sacrificing people on the alter of political correctness and is punishing people for how they think. How could you deny that? For purposes of tracking hate groups, for collecting statistics, and for reasons of establishing motives of a crime should be the only reasons the words "hate crime" ever factor in to anything. Criminals who commit murder should be tried on the basis of their murder and as with all cases, should be on a case by case basis to be examined in court.These kinds of laws don't protect anyone, as if Neo-Nazi's are going to stop believing in their fascism. What they will do is set the stage for false allegations and sacrificing lambs on the alter of political correctness to feign as if they're doing something about it in a weak attempt to show solidarity. This is a step in the wrong direction.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Based on the preponderance of evidence, like any other fucking case! No I'm not arguing that. Terrorism exists, referring to Neo-nazi's as terrorists doesn't bother me. Taking a giant shit on the Constitution bothers me. The people getting murdered or assaulted in them are. Is it worse to kill a guy because he's hispanic or worse to kill a guy for money? Honestly, what's the damn difference? It's all bad, right? So why is Washington wanting to make a really, really bad thing by passing this bill?And this isn't with just this Administration. This administration is just expanding an already existent bill supported by the last three presidents. Right, and if it is justified then a person is either found guilty or not guilty based upon the verdict. Then sentencing comes and that's when they can attach thought crime to the sentence. You just can't help yourself to manipulate everything I say when you have nothing substantive to defend a worthless bill, aye? All of those have their place in the courtroom. They have nothing to do with establishing the precedence that the government can decide that people's First Amendment rights are as vaccuous as your arguments. No fucking shit, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? you're just stringing together a series of strawmen.

quote:

---

The "act" is what is criminal, not the motive. The fact that they violently assaulted a man without legal justification should be the only thing relevant to a charge.

---

Bullshit. Pure manipulation on your part. The "act" is what you are being charged with. Manslaughter, murder 1, 2, or 3 only evaluates the severity in which the ACT was committed. That has to do with the manner in which you kill someone, not what your core beliefs are. This evaluates questions like: did you intend to kill them? Did you not intend to kill them, but to harm them, but they died as a result of your actions? Did you plan to kill them well in advance?That literally has not one thing to do with the motive for killing them, which answers questions like: "Did you kill him because he had money? Did you kill them to silence them, so as to not leave a living witness to testify against you? Did you kill them as a favor? Were you contracted to kill them? Did you kill them because they were black, and you hate black people? Did you kill them because he attacked your family?If you can't understand the fundamental difference then it is laughable that you have the audacity to say that I don't understand law. Yep, and that's all based upon what??? Actions, maybe?!?!? How about tougher laws against, maybe, say, murder??? Oh, so it's not designed to be preventative? If it doesn't prevent anything, yet risks the freedom of thought, then there is no reason for it. Like I said, motives are evaluated by investigators to narrow down suspects to establish guilt. Then motive helps determine the reason why they did it and what their intentions for the act was. The act, however, is what we are being punished for. I've always had a problem with hate-crime laws. I only recently stumbled on to an article the other day that made me think about it currently to debate it. I didn't all of a sudden dislike it, I only just now thought to debate it. Then stop being dumb and inventing lies as you go along. If I had a problem with homosexuals, I would flat out tell you. That I totally, utterly, and completely support homosexual couples, and have been explicit on that point, just makes you look paranoid and/or militant. Racists and homophobes are wrong in my opinion. I think they're backwards thinking, hateful people. I am not protecting THEM, I am protecting the Constitution which make us all free. If their rights are infringed, then yours and mine are in jeopardy too. It is that simple.The ACLU sometimes defend people we all don't personally like. They do so not because they like the beliefs of others, but because the First Amendment are of vital importance to us all. If one groups right are unprotected, we're all unprotected.I'm not defending Neo-Nazi's, I am defending the Constitution.Not that any of this will do a bit of difference for you, I'm guessing. I made a critical error in feeding the troll and it's going to stop. I don't even think you believe in what you're saying, I think you're addicted to controversy and invent it where you can to gratify some sick penchant you have.You just can't be reasoned with.The novelty of your ways has worn off and I don't see how dignifying your bizarre assertions is worth my while any longer.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Precisely... Well articulated.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

If using "typical partisan talking points" protects then Constitution, then so be it. Just know that I don't take cues from party lines. I either agree or don't agree. I am curious though as to how it could be considered partisan when Reps and Dems both were in favor and opposed to the bill. Yes, I am aware that a crime must be committed in conjunction with the belief. Belief being the keyword. I think the principle has more to do with it. I don't believe in charging people with "terrorism" either. People involved in 9/11 were either murders, were in conspiracy to commit murder, or aided and abetted murders. Based upon those crimes, you punish accordingly. There are acts of terrorism and acts of hate-crimes. No one disputes their existence, but the act of assaulting or murdering is the only real criminal question here.If it's not illegal to be a Neo-Nazi, but is illegal to kill, then why is it extra bad if a Neo-Nazi kills? It doesn't make any sense, unless of course they are being punished doubly for their beliefs. We already have an Equal Protection clause in place. So the only logical conclusion is that people are being punished for having ill-favorable beliefs. In fact, another issue is that not everyone in the bill falls in to a protected status. Why not just expand it to include everyone, equally, or do away with the bill because it gives priorities to some people and not to others? "A crime is a crime, regardless of the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. A murdered white heterosexual male is no less dead than an Hispanic, gay Christian. Suppose three murders occur: one for money, another out of jealousy, and a third because the victim is a black, gay Wiccan. If the first two murderers are sentenced to 20 years in prison and the third is sentenced to 30 years, would the families of the victims in the first two cases feel they had received equal justice under the law?" - Herb Silverman, founder of Secular Coalition for America No, I'm saying the end doesn't justify the means. If you want stricter penalties for people who kill minorities, then per the Equal Protection Clause you have to give harsher sentences to every murderer. If you don't trust the judicial system you don't gut the Constitution to fix the problem. What sense does that make? Not only would it not solve the problem, but it makes it worse. 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?A murder is a murder.Why must the 1st Amendment be jeopardized when you could just punish people according to their actions, not according to their actions and beliefs. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

You are not understanding. First of all, preventing anyone from doing any of those things are already crimes. There is no need to inject emotive arguments.Secondly, it is already a crime to murder anyone, regardless of any disposition. 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. Posting how you are going to murder someone is not protected under the 1st Amendment. Speech is very broad. Burning flags is considered free speech. Why would I have to do that? It would be you who would have to do that. That's ridiculous. So I can be clocked in the dome for no reason other than to satisfy some sick urge of the assailant, but because I'm not part of the "protected class" my assailant gets less of a charge? How is that Equal Protection under the law? Why? Why are women more or less protected? What does it even mean? What does it even matter? That means as long as he shoots people at random, their lives mean less in the eyes of the court. All that should matter is that a killer was killing. His callous nature can come in to play in the court. His motives can come in to play in the court. But why invent a super-duper crime in place of a crime that is equally tragic? I specifically said that it is a step in the wrong direction and that bills such as these carry unintended consequences. It is taking a former injustice and creating an opposite injustice to try and balance it out. Why not just then make it equal?This doesn't even include the abuse that could go along with it with all sorts of false accusations.You can speak racial epithets to whomever you want. It's not advisable, but you can do it. You can't punch people in the face without clearly defending yourself or in the defense of others. If you punch a person in the face and say a nasty little epithet while you're doing it, suddenly it's an additional no-no.And what if you got in to a fight with someone of a "protected class" (yeah, that doesn't sound wrong) but for completely unrelated reasons from their race, or gender, or sexual identity, or whatever other bigoted reason. But they say you did, who decides?We're sacrificing people on the alter of political correctness. Soon enough, if left unchecked, we won't be able to say whatever we want that is protected under free speech.And again, I'm not saying this to protect bigots, I'm saying it to protect the freedom of speech. Personally I think you should get your ass kicked for yelling epithets, but we cannot operate outside of the law, my opinion be damned. But if we don't protect it jealously, we all lose. No, it is but one of my arguments.If it is legal to be bigoted but not legal to assault people, then why is it especially bad to be bigoted when assaulting someone? That just doesn't even come close to making rational sense. And it certainly does nothing to remove the wall of bigotry, as it simply inverts the social injustice of bigotry rather than removing it altogether.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I did some investigating and as if turns out the United States Commission on Civil Rights actually opposed the bill we are now debating, citing very similar arguments as my own.I also found an unbiased source which covers both the pro's and con's, and damn near all of the concerns have been covered by all of the participants of this thread.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I got it off the Wikipedia article pertaining to the Hate-Crime Prevention Bill Act. It looks legitimate to me, but if you could argue that it was fabricated I would certainly look at it. I posted it because the Civil Rights Commission of the United States did not support it, which I think is significant in my defense. I think that is significant being that these people support civil rights. I've raised all of their objections, not to mention more, and have given a rebuttal to all the claims presented to me thus far. We're on the portion of debate where it is a broken record.What specifically would you like me to address that you believe I have not yet done? I don't understand the ACLU sometimes. Sometimes different districts argue with one another.Are they in favor of limiting campaign funds or against the limitation of campaign funds? I'm a little divided on that issue myself. There are good arguments for both sides. That might be a good debate. I'd take part in a debate on that subject.If you'd like to start a thread, I'd join.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams