Hate-crime = Thought crime?

And we do that in cases of caused death. We have multiple classifications from no-motive manslaughter to 1st degree murder with special circumstances.This legislation makes it so that we don't have to create 5 different levels of graffiti and 5 different levels of assault and 5 different levels of harassment and 5 different levels of arson, etc etc etc

My point is that someone who commits an arson out of pyromania serves (arbitrary number) 10 years.Someone who commits an arson for insurance fraud serves 10 years.Someone who commits arson out of anger at their neighbor, 10 years.Someone who systematically targets black people with the intention of ridding the state of them 10 years.If we want to make it so that different kinds of arson carry different penalties, then we can change the laws so that Fraud Arson is Arson A, Insane Arson is Arson B, Anger Arson is Arson C and Racist Arson is Arson C.We have to add EACH of these new statutes and define them.And we have to do that for EACH other kind of crime as well.OR, we can add an additional law saying that certain kinds of crime (be they arson or some other crime) carry an additional penalty when the person committing the crime is targeting a specific group.I'd rather have a single blanket law than 40,000 sub-laws trying to accomplish the same thing.You disagree.You live in England therefore you have a different legal system. Obviously we're going to disagree on what works best for our legal systems.

Now you are being dishonest. You are trying to change this conversation from hate crime legislation to "Why should we bother punishing anyone at all?"If you disagree with the legal system in which criminals are punished for their crimes, please just leave the forum. There's no way to carry on a rational discussion with you.We live in a society in which we have laws and punishments for breaking those laws. End of story. How is the law going to determine if a man killed his wife? Just because he murdered a woman who he happened to be married to, doesn't mean that he's specifically targeting his own wife.These arguments are getting childish. If you want to have a SERIOUS discussion, fine. But if you're going to start pulling out creationist type crap, I'll just skip over your posts.OBVIOUSLY in order to charge someone for a crime you would have to present evidence. If a KKK member burns down a black man's house with whom he has no connect, and he stands no chance of gaining financially from the act, what is his motive? You want us to conclude that he RANDOMLY picked that house and the fact that he's a member of a group which specifically takes these sort of actions against this particular group should be over looked? Who said anything about punishing people for their beliefs. NO WHERE in ANY of this legislation can ANYONE be charged IN ANY WAY for the crime of "believing" something.In EVERY SINGLE CASE the person who is being charged MUST take SOME action which is deemed to violate the law.I'm sorry that you feel that you are a member of a group which is being hurt because you dislike minorities. You are FREE to continue to dislike minorities. However, if you continue to break the law to harass, assault, murder, etc a minority group which has been the subject of systematic harassment in the past, you are going to be subject to steep penalties.I suggest you stop breaking the law.

That's because it is. If women are deemed to be a class of people which have faced ongoing systematic descrimination under the legal system then yes it is a worse crime.The current system is justice for white victims, not for black. You want to keep the current system because you don't have a problem with that balance.This law intends to level the scales.I'm sorry that seeing groups get equal justice offends your sense of status, but that's what is going to happen. Yes, if over the next 50 years "pasta cooks" suddenly become the subject of random acts of violence and frequently see the criminals walk with a pat on the back from cops, then "pasta cooks" will become a special class of people until such time as the numbers come back in line with average random violence. And those crimes AREN'T being prosecuted at the same rate or to the same extent as crimes which target the groups in power.You have YET to offer a BETTER solution than the one proposed. You are just trying to oppose the ONLY solution on the table because you happen to be a group which is in power and feel it is "unfair" to your group that some other group will get equal treatment. Why not say, "your aunts murderer is given $50 and a candy bar"? After all you are making up a silly scenario, why not just take it all the way instead of 75%.The legal system is complicated. You want to pretend it is not.You can pretend whatever you like. It's not going to change reality.The fact is that certain groups DO NOT GET JUSTICE while other groups do. Until you can propose a BETTER system which will work in the REAL world, then we're gonna go with what we've got.I'd advice you to stop committing hate crimes if you think the penalties are unfair.

I see I was right.Look, this is a discussion for adults and a serious topic which we are addressing in America.You riding in and trying to derail everything with your crap about how there's no justice for anyone is not helpful.We punish criminals for crimes. That's a fact. That's NOT up for debate.So, if you've "decided" I'm not worth your time - GOOD.I'm going to stick with the topic, you can take your crackpot concepts elsewhere.

Because "robbed" is not a condition of birth. And you have a better suggestion as to how to make that family feel better? Perhaps a law the requires the use of a time machine to go back in time to prevent the crime. Oh wait, that's fantasy.Here in reality these are the facts: Once the crime is committed we can't UNcommit it. Therefore we have a system that does TWO things:
1) Punish those deemed responsible.
2) Deter others from committing similar crimes.Which of these two things are you opposed to? So far it seems to be both. No. They aren't. THAT'S the point you are having a great deal of trouble with.If you are gay and you get jumped, you are LESS LIKELY to get justice than if you were a white woman who was assaulted.In your fantasy world everything is equal. Unfortunately for minorities, they can't visit your fantasy world. Because if it is a federal statute officers from outside of the community can be brought in to investigate and the criminal can be tried in a fair court. Again, your fantasy world doesn't mesh with reality.I understand your desire to maintain your dominance. Your pic says it all.The fact of the matter is that this law is going to be used to bring criminals to justice who would otherwise not face justice. Again with the fantasy land. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PLACES IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE ARE VICTIMS OF CRIME AND GET NO JUSTICE WHATSOEVER?Yes or no?If you can't acknowledge that fact, there's really no reason for you to be here. You're not dealing with reality. Are you serious? Do you REALLY believe that justice is equal in America right now? REALLY? That's ACTUALLY what you are claiming?OR are you simply being dishonest because you don't like where this thread is taking you?You KNOW (or you SHOULD know) that the legal system is FAR more likely to arrest and convict a black man than a white man. And FAR more likely to give stricter sentencing, including the death penalty, to a black man over a white man -- FOR THE SAME CRIMES.The problem is SO bad that one governor had to suspend ALL executions as a result of a report demonstrating the statistics. And that has never happened and continues to not happen. So, what's your solution? More fantasy land?No. Give us a REAL solution that REALLY levels the playing field so that a gay man in Wyoming gets the SAME treatment as a gay man in San Francisco. And a Black man in Georgia gets the same justice as a black man in Maryland.You seem to think you have it all figured out. Put up or shut up. And your alleged blindness to groups is extremely convenient given that you are a member of the group with the all the benefits."Oh, no, there's no racism here. That _MAN_ was lynched, but not because he was a member of a group. It's because he's an individual. The KKK is just a group of individuals who target other individuals based on their individuality."Give me a break. First of all, I think it's pretty damn outrageous that a man who presents himself as HITLER is complaining about character assassination while simultaneously complaining how unfair it is that he may be subject to additional penalties for criminal behavior.If you don't want to be subject to these laws, DON'T commit these crimes. That's the BASIS of our legal system. We DON'T want people to do X, we create a law that say: "Don't do X or you will be punished".You have been bitching and moaning for a week now about how unfair that is and we're supposed to assume that DON'T want people to do X?Please. Obviously you have some personal stake in the matter.

FAIL. AGAIN. FOR the SAME reasons.If you are going to keep making this argument, can you be honest enough to show how silly you are being.Instead of 10 years, why not have the rapist get a gift certificate to Barnes and Noble?You are falsely comparing these two crimes as though one criminal receiving a longer sentence some how negatively impacts the sentence another criminal receives.Either 10 years IS or IS NOT sufficient. Whether or not someone else was convicted of a similar crime and sentenced to more or less time is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the first case.If 10 years IS NOT sufficient and the OTHER rapists ALSO gets 10 years, then NEITHER victim has gotten justice.If 10 years IS sufficient and the other rapist gets MORE than 10 years, the victim of the first rapist STILL GOT JUSTICE.This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had to explain this to you. I don't know how I can make it MORE simple.Either you are capable of understanding this simple idea or you aren't. If you aren't, please stop posting as there is no way you'll ever be able to keep up with the discussion.

Are you being deliberately dense? We aren't talking about the criminals, we are talking about the victims. OMFG! Again with this mistake. Write this down. If a crime has a punishment and a 2nd crime has a different punishment it doesn't mean that the first crime no longer has a punishment.Seriously! That's what the 6th time I've had to explain that to you?! Okay, now I KNOW you are being deliberately dense.If you murder someone in New Hampshire, that is a state crime, it is investigated by local police. It is tried in a local court.If you commit a FEDERAL offense, your LOCAL police and LOCAL court are NOT the ones who investigate and try the case. OMFG. It's a FEDERAL STATUTE! F.E.D.E.R.A.L. No one is trying to. They are trying to change people's ACTIONS. Again with the deliberately dense stuff.Do you recognize that this is adding elements to ALREADY CRIMINAL ACTS?You ARE doing something wrong. You SHOULD be worried.Your quip about the patriot act is talking about people who AREN'T doing something wrong and therefore are complacent about the government tapping their phones or whatever.If the patriot act said "Blowing people up with a bomb carries an ADDITIONAL punishment above and beyond murder" then we'd be on the same page. The freedom to commit crimes without punishment. Very patriotic of you

Thank you! I've made this point to him about 10 times now. He STILL doesn't get it.I don't think he's familiar enough with the concept of Federal vs State. Add that to his crazy idea that all sentencing retroactively effects earlier sentences for similar crimes and you've got one SERIOUSLY confused guy.

I understand your perspective. You're just not living in reality.That's evident from your continued assertion that punishing one criminal somehow reduces the sentence on an unrelated criminal.

Let's also remember that this took place in the UK where they have an ENTIRELY different set of laws and where the US Constitution has no power.Last time this story was brought up people were railing about how her 1st amendment rights had been violated by the police warning her that her letter had been deemed inappropriate.No 1st amendment rights if you don't live in the US - sorry campers.This story is fail tall, fail long and fail deep.

The spray paint scenario is pretty sad."Tagging" isn't writing hate speech. "Tagging" is signing your name to something in order to score points with other taggers based on how hard the target was.A typical tagger will hit dozens of spots in an area. I've gone out in the morning to find the same three initials on every tree and street sign between my house and the 7-11.If a wall of a religious structure were "tagged", then surely the rest of the neighborhood would likewise be "tagged" and we'd know that the building was being treated as a building - no more significant than a park bench or a moving van.However, if instead of "tagging" they had written a message specifically directed to the people who primarily use the building, we'd have context for the crime.But, unfortunately, he wants to keep the scenario so limited as to have it be nonsensical.