Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 376 (537621)
11-29-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-27-2009 8:42 PM


Typical Libertarian FUD
This is nothing more than the canned conservative/libertarian talking points to this issue. Calling it "thought crime", wrapping the flag of the founders around themselves.
We have been punishing criminals based on motive for a long time. It works. Hate-crimes simply suffer from very poor naming. They should be called what they are, terrorism laws, plain and simple.
We just have degrees of terrorism. If it is against a sub-class we call it a hate-crime, if it is against a nation it is "terrorism". Same reasoning, sound reasoning.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

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 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 8:45 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 32 of 376 (537704)
11-30-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
This is a non-partisan issue, as it is a question of Constitutionality not party lines.
Then why are you using the typical partisan talking points?
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?
More fear mongering. The laws do not say that you can punish people for what they think. You have to first commit a "crime" for it to even begin to be considered a "hate-crime". I still think that the name itself is part of the problem. It is the same thing as terrorism and we have been convicting people of terrorism for quite some time. Stop calling it hate-crime and start calling it terrorism-lite and see if your arguments still sound as convincing.
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.
Which this does not change at all. The only thing hate crimes allow for is a "case" in between murder/assault and full on terrorism. Otherwise the legal system is not empowered to do anything more for a case when a sub-group is targetted.
These kinds of laws don't protect anyone, as if Neo-Nazi's are going to stop believing in their fascism.
That is not the laws intent so I don't get your point at all. Still more FUD.
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.
SO your shifting from a criticism of the law to a criticism of our justice system? I mean sure, I'll join you in that. Too many laws about too many things and too hard to defend yourself. There is a little (l)ibertarian in ever liberal. But what does that have to do with the law? Should we not pass laws that we think make sense just because we don't trust our justice system to uphold them properly? I think that is MORE dangerous and THAT is the wrong direction.
You should take some perspective too. The recent law that was passed did not establish hate crimes. All it did was expand the definition to protect gender and sexual orientation.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 8:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-30-2009 1:07 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 37 of 376 (537719)
11-30-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
11-30-2009 1:07 PM


Re: Typical Libertarian FUD
I don't believe in charging people with "terrorism" either.
So do you feel terroism laws are contrary to the Consitution?
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.
Which I think, frankly, diminishes them drastically. The 911 attackers, Tim McVeigh, are rationally more than just murderers.
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?
You will have to explain how it give priorities to some people and not others. How is Equal Protection violated? A person being killed because their are white in order to scare white people will be treated exactly the same as a person being killed because they are black in order to scare black people.
"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
This quote is attacking a straw man of a very narrow interpretation of hate-crimes law. It is leaving out an entire victim class that is not represented without terror legislation which is the sub-group that the crime was intended to influence. If the motive for killing the black, gay, Wiccan was to terrorize all black, gay, Wiccans then the community of black, gay, Wiccans has not recieved equal justice without explicit terrorism/hate legislation.
Are you seriously contending that the victim class of 911 only includes the people and families of the dead and injured, corporation in the WTC, and the city of New York? And you want to lecture about equal justice?
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.
That statement right there evidences exactly why you have a problem with this. You plainly are narrowing the purpose of the legislation in order to criticize it on those grounds.
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.
You must be replying to an entirely different statement than I made. Either we are having some mutual miscommunication here or you are going off on a tangent. You are still operating under your opinion that the Constitution is being violated which is precicely the point under dispute. It seemed to me that the original statement that I replied to was a criticism of the justice system itself. Please be more clear or ask me where I might be being obtuse so we are not talking about different thigns.
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?
Everyone does have equal protection. You have failed to demonstrate how this is an equal protection issue. The law is against messaging associated with a felony, it is a seperate offense which its OWN set of criteria for which it is the burden of the state to prove. You continue to conflate the issue to being just about the crime itself. You again are narrowing your scope in order to justify your criticism.
A murder is a murder.
Our laws that we have had for a very long time disagree with such a watering down of the legitimate distinctions. And yet again you want to be the one to lecture about equal justice?
Why must the 1st Amendment be jeopardized when you could just punish people according to their actions, not according to their actions and beliefs.
Explain to me what things you COULD do before that were protected by the 1st ammendment that you now CANNOT do now that we have terror/hate laws. Please. Pretty please.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

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

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 376 (537748)
11-30-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rahvin
11-30-2009 5:58 PM


Re: How many of the participants of this thread...
This isn't South Park, where any and every crime involving a minority as a victim is a hate crime and crimes against whites don't count. The laws as written, out here in the real world, cover any physical force used for harassment, injury, annoyance or blockage that is targeted against members of a specific race, (perceived) gender, (perceived) sexual orientation, religion, color, or national origin.
Amen! Although that was a damn funny episode.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 5:58 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2009 6:50 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 63 of 376 (537885)
12-01-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
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 don't in principle doubt this, but after looking around myself I could not find this document published by the USCCR itself. Your link is coming from a conservative website which by itself does not mean anything but it would be better to substantiate this document as coming from its source.
In general though, this is plainly an argument from authority. Do you intend at any point to address the actually content of the rebuttals from people or just post links to organizations that most of us would have a good reputation of?
Similarly, I support the ACLU very strongly but I am absolutly aghast as their support for repealing campaign finance laws. I will defy them to the grave on that while supporting their mission in general.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 2:38 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 65 of 376 (537887)
12-01-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
More than just being an argument from authority, of perhaps questionable attribution, it is very narrow.
A very casual search turns up that other human rights organization in fact are quite happy with the legislation.
Page not found - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
If you look at the USCCR website you will find that their thrust seems to be much more about the catalogue of hate crimes and proper enforcement by the DoJ. This lends some support to the authenticity of the pdf you linked in that most of the concerns were relating to proper enforment and not the laundry list of Constitutional clams you have erroneously made in this thread.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 3:14 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 67 of 376 (537892)
12-01-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 2:38 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
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.
It is probably not fabricated, its just not sourced from the USCCR which raises a very small red flag but raises it none the less. The more important thing to note is that the concern in the letter does not in fact mention some of your primary concerns which was constitutionality. They are more concerned with proper enforcement, federalization, double jeopardy, which is more in line with what the USCCR website portrays as part of its mission. It is quite likely that they actually support the spirit of the law but just not that particular manifestation. Like I mentioned before, other human rights group adamantly support the law.
What specifically would you like me to address that you believe I have not yet done?
I have a post waiting for a reply with some direct questions for you. You may have answered them already but I haven't seen it. If I missed it please just point me at the proper post.
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.
They want to remove limits b/c they argue it limits corporate free-speech. It is very depressing to me b/c I feel that after the SCOTUS trashes McCain/Feingold that we are going to have so much corporate influence in elections that we truly are going down the road of fascism. My $25 a month to my favorite canidate is going to be totally and utterly dwarfed by the billions corporations will be able to put into campaigns. This is above and beyond what they can do now by skirting some of the laws by there various PACs. Is that really free speech? Does money = speech? I don't think that is what our founders intended or what is rational to consider.
I don't know, its interesting but I don't think I'll start it. I may jump in if you do but it makes me too sad to get up in arms about. So little news about it and we are basically staring down the barrel of a gun right now with very little recourse.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 71 of 376 (537922)
12-01-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
12-01-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Strange bedfellows
Lets assume it is legit...
Secondly, it dealt with most of the concepts I questioned: Double-Jeopardy, Equal Protection, it mentioned the law already covers murder, it mentioned that by the nature of some crimes victims not protected (like the elderly) are targeted specifically yet not protected, etc.
You are goign to have to point out where in this letter it talks about equal protection in the way even you have used it in this thread. This is primarily a concern about federalism, double jeopardy, and concerns based on a mischaracterization of the law.
For example:
Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of the victim. They are virtually always chosen "because of" their gender.
Which is a broad misrepresentation of what a hate-crime is. Perhaps they are concerned that the technical distinction is ambiguous which would be a legitimate gripe, but as it stands I don't see how they are providing a valid criticism of hate-crime laws in general.
I don't think this letter helps you in the way you think it does. I'll really look forward to you replying to my previous questions.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-01-2009 3:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 101 of 376 (538075)
12-03-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rrhain
12-03-2009 3:08 AM


I thought it was suspicious that it wasn't published on the USCCR website. Thanks for doing the detective work.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rrhain, posted 12-03-2009 3:08 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 177 of 376 (539243)
12-14-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rrhain
12-14-2009 5:03 AM


Bravo
I just want to say this, this world needs more people like you.
One criticism, claiming advocacy for terrorism is a little too far, but the rest of your arguments are quite good and a clear case against the watering down of a society based on laws.
Its hard because the natural tendency in this situation is to fight against a percieved authoritarianism which is what I feel the anti-hate-crime folks are operating with. In the vast majority of cases I feel it is quite right to resist the authoritarian position but in this case it just seems to boil down to fear mongering over facts. No fact seems to be capable of getting in the way of the feeling of being slighted by these laws. Hence the hyperbole of "thought crime" or appealing to "free speech" which is simply ludicrous.
If any law can all of a sudden be a slippery slope to authoritarianism then certainly any percieved injustice to "free speech" can be seen as a slippery slope to anarchy.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 12-14-2009 5:03 AM Rrhain 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