TnTComic
Yeah, its all my fault.

I come out against the notion of a government regulating something as personal as emotions, and you try to say that my motivation is protecting the assholes who perpetrate hate crimes. Yeah, I'm the jerk here.

I'm just not seeing that, and despite the fact people start explaining about the additional crimes which have nothing to do with thought, and entail providing proof, you're still clinging to this weird Mad-Max fantasy that people are going to read your brain and arrest you for looking at that 13 year old girl funny.

Hypothetical, purely hypothetical.

You want hate crime legislation as the beginning steps toward controlling people's thoughts and emotions so that they'll never do anything illegal.

There, does that accurately depict your motivations? No. Of course it doesn't.

So you're using the slippery slope argument. That's fine. Being concerned about those issues is fine, but why don't you look at the hate crimes for what they are, not the fantasy of what they will become. You see a slippery slope where thoughts are treated the same as deeds. I could take your description of what you support, and say that it leads to legalizing actions like the KKK, where the intimidation is very carefully crafted to make sure no other laws are broken. Do you support that? My slippery slope is just as good -- if not better than yours, because my slope actually happens, while yours starred Tom Cruise.

You state of what *will* happen, with this prescient clarity. I don't see that happening because 1) We can't read minds yet, the 'Minority Report' thread notwithstanding and 2) the burden of proof of proving a hate crime is on the prosecution, not the defendant.

But what I want to know is this -- do you think terrorizing a group of people based on their skin color, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation is wrong? And if you do, I'd kinda be curious what groups of the above you think deserve that kind of treatment.

Uh oh!!! Break out the slippery slope!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

mapaghimagsik
But what I want to know is this -- do you think terrorizing a group of people based on their skin color, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation is wrong? And if you do, I'd kinda be curious what groups of the above you think deserve that kind of treatment.

Of course I think its wrong. I have no idea where you get the impression that I would think being a bigot is okay.

I'm a libertarian, get it? I don't want gun laws, drug laws, et cetera. And I DEFINITELY don't want the government tacking on extra jail time for a murder because you hated the guy you killed for a reason that is special. I want as little government intervention as possible.

You know, you keep coming up with all these scenarios that ignore the fact that we have existing laws in place for people who decide to be bastards. We have laws against threats, intimidation, et al.

So what I want to know is why you don't see it as regulating hate. If I kill a guy for his car, i'll get X amount of years. If I kill a guy because he's gay, I get X amount of years, plus Y amount of years. What is Y? Y is the punishment I receive for hating a man. I say again, the punishment I receive for hating a man.

But let's dig into that a little deeper. If I kill a man that I hate, and I hate him for a reason that falls under carefully delineated circumstances, then my hate has crossed a line and I must be punished for my hate. If I kill him because he banged my wife, or he touched my daughter, or he burned down my house, well that's fine and dandy. But if I kill him because he's gay, or he's black, or he's of a religion I don't like, well... now I have to be punished extra!

Why? Because we are regulating hate. Some hate is okay, some hate is not okay. Doesn't that seem a little hokey to you? I can hate a white guy, but I can't hate a black guy. Kinda spooky.

At the end of the day, none of this will ever affect me, because i'm not racist or sexist, and I don't have any religious convictions. You know who I hate? People who don't use their turn signals.

See, you keep having this idea that hate gets regulated by hate crimes, which is just willfully ignorant. Time and time again, people point out that its the *acts* that are punished, not the hate, but you can't seem to realize that.

Oh well. Funny how people get all libertarian on minority issues, but want big daddy government to take care of everything else.

mapaghimagsik
See, you keep having this idea that hate gets regulated by hate crimes, which is just willfully ignorant. Time and time again, people point out that its the *acts* that are punished, not the hate, but you can't seem to realize that.

Oh well. Funny how people get all libertarian on minority issues, but want big daddy government to take care of everything else.

Okay, if the act is getting punished, and the hate is not being regulated, then how does a murder by a racist get penalized any differently from a murder by an enlightened person?

Vindibudd

mapaghimagsik
See, you keep having this idea that hate gets regulated by hate crimes, which is just willfully ignorant. Time and time again, people point out that its the *acts* that are punished, not the hate, but you can't seem to realize that.

Oh well. Funny how people get all libertarian on minority issues, but want big daddy government to take care of everything else.

Okay, if the act is getting punished, and the hate is not being regulated, then how does a murder by a racist get penalized any differently from a murder by an enlightened person?

I don't know the wording of the law, but if you accept the idea that a "hate crime" as a misnomer, and you're penalizing terrorizing a group of people, then its just like assault with a deadly weapon.

The lawyer asserts it was murder (insert your favorite degree) and gives submits evidence why.
The defense asserts it was merely assault. Her client didn't intend to kill, merely to assault and there just happened to be a deadly weapon in the heat of the moment. "Sure he picked up the pipewrench in the Kitchen, but Colonel Mustard didn't intend to kill..."

A jury decides.

So in my mind, whether the murderer is a racist or not doesn't matter -- so you can relax about whether the person is a racist or not. It has no bearing on the case. But the following does:

Said murderer threatens many members of a community, usually some sort of public demonstration. These demonstrations might be of the mundane crime type -- vandalism, harassment, etc. I would think that a criminal history of such behavior would bear weight, while saying "I hate so and so." wouldn't, unless said outbursts were directed continuously at the community and with malice -- again a provable item.

Said murderer also is involved in several groups who have demonstrated they are tired of "their kind" being in the area. Murderer kills victim X, and the lawyer can demonstrate that the murder, in addtion ot any robbery or whathaveyou was meant to send a message to the rest of the community of which that person belongs.

The jury decides if this is indeed the case. They might decide the defendant is innocent, guilty of murder, or guilty of murder and of terrorizing a community. The jury of peers decides.

Hate crimes should be provable through evidence in order for a guilty verdict to be rendered. In the end, the jury decides.

Note that in a lot of situations, the quiet hater in your example doesn't get convicted of a hate crime. Again, and I'll point it out because you'll ignore it -- the racial preference of the attacker isn't the issue. The prosecutor will have to prove that the crime was meant to target a community, and was meant to send a broader message to deny liberties to that community.

If you're consistantly bashing homosexuals near a gay bar with your buds, a good lawyer might be able to convince a jury that you're targeting homosexuals to drive them out of the area. It will help if your friends are screetching "die, faggot die" has they beat him/her to death.

Those organized and concerted efforts will, and will carry substantial penalties.Not that its possible that the person *could* be innocent of the murder, and still be guilty of the hate crime, such as those people who helped rape an iraqi girl. They weren't guilty of rape, but were still punished for other crimes.


But, I didn't write the law, though its my understanding that is the intent of the writers.

Again, I think the naming really screws up what the law does. Its not the emotion of hate, or even the hatred itself the laws seek to punish. Its to punish the perpetrators of "sundown towns" and other such ilk. And for the third time, because that's the charm. The racial preference of the perp has nothing to do with the crime -- its the impact of that crime on the community.

Unless of course, you think that sundown towns are a good idea, then you'll not like it at all.

mapaghimagsik
such as those people who helped rape an iraqi girl. They weren't guilty of rape, but were still punished for other crimes.

Those would be the far worse crimes of helping to murder the kid, kill her entire family and burn them in their home to disguise the evidence... Not to mention holding the family at gunpoint in another room while the initial act was committed. And after that covering up for each other. They all got off far too lightly. I'm against capital punishment but I'd rather have seen them hang than Saddam.

Hmm, but that's not for this thread. :(

mapaghimagsik
I don't know the wording of the law, but if you accept the idea that a "hate crime" as a misnomer, and you're penalizing terrorizing a group of people, then its just like assault with a deadly weapon.

The lawyer asserts it was murder (insert your favorite degree) and gives submits evidence why.
The defense asserts it was merely assault. Her client didn't intend to kill, merely to assault and there just happened to be a deadly weapon in the heat of the moment. "Sure he picked up the pipewrench in the Kitchen, but Colonel Mustard didn't intend to kill..."

A jury decides.

So in my mind, whether the murderer is a racist or not doesn't matter -- so you can relax about whether the person is a racist or not. It has no bearing on the case. But the following does:

Said murderer threatens many members of a community, usually some sort of public demonstration. These demonstrations might be of the mundane crime type -- vandalism, harassment, etc. I would think that a criminal history of such behavior would bear weight, while saying "I hate so and so." wouldn't, unless said outbursts were directed continuously at the community and with malice -- again a provable item.

Said murderer also is involved in several groups who have demonstrated they are tired of "their kind" being in the area. Murderer kills victim X, and the lawyer can demonstrate that the murder, in addtion ot any robbery or whathaveyou was meant to send a message to the rest of the community of which that person belongs.

The jury decides if this is indeed the case. They might decide the defendant is innocent, guilty of murder, or guilty of murder and of terrorizing a community. The jury of peers decides.

Hate crimes should be provable through evidence in order for a guilty verdict to be rendered. In the end, the jury decides.

Note that in a lot of situations, the quiet hater in your example doesn't get convicted of a hate crime. Again, and I'll point it out because you'll ignore it -- the racial preference of the attacker isn't the issue. The prosecutor will have to prove that the crime was meant to target a community, and was meant to send a broader message to deny liberties to that community.

If you're consistantly bashing homosexuals near a gay bar with your buds, a good lawyer might be able to convince a jury that you're targeting homosexuals to drive them out of the area. It will help if your friends are screetching "die, faggot die" has they beat him/her to death.

Those organized and concerted efforts will, and will carry substantial penalties.Not that its possible that the person *could* be innocent of the murder, and still be guilty of the hate crime, such as those people who helped rape an iraqi girl. They weren't guilty of rape, but were still punished for other crimes.


But, I didn't write the law, though its my understanding that is the intent of the writers.

Again, I think the naming really screws up what the law does. Its not the emotion of hate, or even the hatred itself the laws seek to punish. Its to punish the perpetrators of "sundown towns" and other such ilk. And for the third time, because that's the charm. The racial preference of the perp has nothing to do with the crime -- its the impact of that crime on the community.

An eloquent and well-reasoned post. I now see where you're coming from, and don't entirely disagree.

ozoneocean

mapaghimagsik
such as those people who helped rape an iraqi girl. They weren't guilty of rape, but were still punished for other crimes.

Those would be the far worse crimes of helping to murder the kid, kill her entire family and burn them in their home to disguise the evidence... Not to mention holding the family at gunpoint in another room while the initial act was committed. And after that covering up for each other. They all got off far too lightly. I'm against capital punishment but I'd rather have seen them hang than Saddam.

Hmm, but that's not for this thread. :(

Ya, thanks for the details :P

TnT: Glad we can reach some sort of agreement.