Hate Crime Laws Being Added

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Yesterday the House of Representatives added a law that would expand definitions of hate crime to include those against the LGBT community... or politically correct "Not to be judged on Sexual Orientation, or Gender Identity"

~Thoughts?  

[Lord Bitememan]

Troubling in some respects, not troubling in others. Hate crimes laws in general trouble me greatly. I would do away with them altogether. They serve to punish thought, not misdeed. We already have laws to cover the actual misdeeds. Also, hate crimes create protected classes of victims. It creates a standard where the same conduct committed against one or more groups is more discouraged than the same conduct committed against a different group. Furthermore, it can create relative protection for groupps of people committing the same crime based on their editorial choice in the crime. I like to use this example. A black man driving an SUV stops at a red light. On either side of the road is a man with a molotov cocktail. One is a neo-nazi intent on killing a black man. The other is an eco-terrorist striking a blow for mother earth. They hurl their cocktails simultaneously, and the driver is burned to death. The eco-terrorist is convicted of a premeditated murder. The neo-nazi goes up for premeditated murder AND a hate crime. Both did the same thing with the same general intent (to kill the driver). The message that sends is the eco-terrorism doesn't offend us, racial terrorism does.

Furthermore, this is creating a law beyond the scope of current civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act identifies the suspect classes as race, religion, skin color, national origin, and ethnicity. Those are the classes for whom anti-discrimination laws generally apply. sexual orientation is not part of that language, and this is going down the road of creating nebulous and amorphous scrutiny class protections to no coherant cohort of groups. Doing so will create a nightmare of inconsistant and changing standards as to who gets protection where instead of a clearer legal standard of certain groups protected in all discriminatory instances.

That said I have no objection to excoriating hatred towards gays, evening out marriage laws to include gays, eliminating absurd military prohibitions against gays, and I'm all in favor of the legislatures taking the lead on this and defining the courts' instructions as opposed to the other way around. It might even be a good idea to amend the 1964 civil rights act to incorporate sexual orientation so as to provide the group some legal protections against discrimination. I would certainly take an amendment to the CRA over new thought. . . I mean hate crimes legislation.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

However, the terrorist would also be accused of terrorist... therefore they are both charged on their actions!

Let's reverse this, a man burns down a gay couples house, and another man burns down a gay couples house and paints f** on the sidewalk... would you think that the two should be charged equally, though one did it in hate towards a gay couple? If they're both equally charged than the security of the gay couple [which is frowned on by some of society.] One obviously had further intentions, therefore has every right to be further charged.  

[Lord Bitememan]

"However, the terrorist would also be accused of terrorist [sic]"

As no state boundaries were crossed in the commission of the crime federal terrorism statutes couldn't be applied. In fact, we've actually not invoked anti-terrorism laws against domestic terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, the one major case we have of this, was tried for first degree murder, not terrorism. So, no, what you're talking about would not happen.

"Let's reverse this, a man burns down a gay couples house, and another man burns down a gay couples house and paints f** on the sidewalk... would you think that the two should be charged equally"

No. One should be charged with arson, the other should be charged with arson and cited for graffiti. Now, if you really wanted to get down to a comparison, you would have said "one guy burns down the house and spraypaints 'f**' on the sidewalk, the other burns down their house and spraypaints 'ha ha, I burned down your house'." The question is, do you think this couple really gains any solace from someone who burned down their house just because he felt like burning down their house? Would it make them feel any better to know that he's a supporter of gay marriage? Even better, let's suppose in both instances the arsonist kills himself. In the former case, we know it's because he hates gays. In the latter case we're left wondering. "Why would he do this to us" the couple is left to ponder. Like it or not, having a rationale, even an odious one, gives us more peace of mind than if the action is committed for seemingly no reason. It's not for nothing that a full decade later we still probe the all important "why" behind Columbine. This is even though we've long since moved on from incidents like Oklahoma City, where more people died but the motivations of the criminal were clear.

Now, assume we have the motivations. One burns down their house because he hates homosexuals. The other burns down their house because he feels like burning down a house. Yes, they should be charged for the same crime. Arson. Similarly, if someone burns down a gay couples house because he hates gays, and someone burns down my house because he doesn't like my brother, I certainly don't want protections under the law witheld from me because I don't fit a suspect class.

Lastly, I really don't think we should have laws forcing us to like each other. Government isn't mom. Liking or disliking someone is the natural right of any who have the capacity to form opinions. Hate crimes laws are a case of the government sticking its foot in the door on issues that are the rights of individuals. The government should never have the power to tell people what their opinions ought to be, no matter how noble the intent.

"One obviously had further intentions"

No. Both intended to burn down a house. What you mean is that one had a different motive. So, let's run some multiple scenarios. a. Guy burns down the house because he's gay. b. Guy burns down the house because he's a jilted lover. c. Guy burns down the house because one of the dudes inside owes him money. d. Guy burns down the house because he's jealous of the fact that the homeowner is a homeowner, he's homeless. So, beyond the 10 years for arson, what do we give each motive? 2 years for guy a. for hate? 1 year for guy b. for lovers revenge? 18 months for guy c. for business retaliation? Knock a year off the sentance for guy d. because society failed him? You see the very prickly ground we're getting into here. People commit crimes for all kinds of reasons. If we open the doors, people are going to demand all sorts of motives get special consideration. What it boils down to, we want people who wrong us, or wrong people in similar dispositions as us, to get hammered with everything we can throw at them. You want the guy who burned down the house and spraypainted f** on the sidewalk to get nailed with a hatecrimes charge. I'm pretty sure that guy who got tortured in Abu Dhabi would be thrilled with an anti-business-retaliation law. And if we start giving everybody their motive law, we might as well scrap the minimal sentances for the actual illegal acts because they will have no correlation to what sort of time you're looking at.

In short, the idea is we don't want people committing crimes. Period. If the actions are illegal anyways the hate crimes charges will do nothing to deter the act from taking place. What they will do, instead, is allow the courts to put people's opinions on trial, and that is something we were promised in the Constitution wouldn't happen.  

[RavenX9]

The crime should be punished, not the motive. The bottom line is, a person did an act against another, the end. Somebody kills a gay. Ok hate is involved. Somebody kills their spouse and his/her lover because of the cheating. That's out of hate too right??? >.> I think you can see where I'm going with this. So should the husband/wife be charged with a hate crime?
Holy crap...

It's just political correctness. I personally say that minorities,special interest groups, etc. don't deserve the special treatment they're getting.

What's wrong with this country is that a lot of people think that if they can whine and complain excessively, they'll get what they want. What they really need is to struggle and suffer. That's what real life is like. No free lunch, no special treatment.  

[Lexille]

 

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

RavenX9

The crime should be punished, not the motive. The bottom line is, a person did an act against another, the end. Somebody kills a gay. Ok hate is involved. Somebody kills their spouse and his/her lover because of the cheating. That's out of hate too right???

They would be charged with premeditated murder as well!

Quote:

>.> I think you can see where I'm going with this. So should the husband/wife be charged with a hate crime?

^^ again with what was said previously ^^

Quote:

It's just political correctness. I personally say that minorities,special interest groups, etc. don't deserve the special treatment they're getting.

It's everyone. Christians, Races, Mentally Disordered, now they just added another group that was long mistreated by many!

Quote:

What's wrong with this country is that a lot of people think that if they can whine and complain excessively, they'll get what they want. What they really need is to struggle and suffer. That's what real life is like. No free lunch, no special treatment.

What's wrong with a country that gives freedom only to those who agree with their religious beliefs? Where certain people can get hated and abused, and only get charged with a misdemeanor. Where people cannot marry because a religion says that it's wrong, yet science proves otherwise.  

[Lord Bitememan]

On the other hand, Mouse, a wise man once said:

Rainbowfied Mouse

Any government act that prevents "biasing" is flat out wrong. I've never been a fan of government censorship. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the people to freely bias their speech. If it wasn't nothing would get done.

"I believe in equal marriage rights for homosexuals, but I agree with the other side that it may cause AIDS to spread to everyone and kill them" <-- over exaggerated for get-the-point-across purposes

No, it's to show our arguments in a way that will allow people to think "Hey, this guy might be right, why was I listening to person 'y' when person 'x' seems more convincing and logical!

The problem with hate crimes laws is that they have a tendancy to snowball into fields of legitimate concern. Mark Steyn, for example, was dragged through the Canadian "Human Rights Tribunal" for some very valid concerns he expressed. This was all in the name of suppressing "hate speech." Punish the acts, not the opinions.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Lord Bitememan

On the other hand, Mouse, a wise man once said:

Rainbowfied Mouse

Any government act that prevents "biasing" is flat out wrong. I've never been a fan of government censorship. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the people to freely bias their speech. If it wasn't nothing would get done.

"I believe in equal marriage rights for homosexuals, but I agree with the other side that it may cause AIDS to spread to everyone and kill them" <-- over exaggerated for get-the-point-across purposes

No, it's to show our arguments in a way that will allow people to think "Hey, this guy might be right, why was I listening to person 'y' when person 'x' seems more convincing and logical!

The problem with hate crimes laws is that they have a tendancy to snowball into fields of legitimate concern. Mark Steyn, for example, was dragged through the Canadian "Human Rights Tribunal" for some very valid concerns he expressed. This was all in the name of suppressing "hate speech." Punish the acts, not the opinions.

But it's not the speech that matters, it's the fact that their acts were initiated because of the way a person is! If I were to... completely an example. I don't want to sound like I'm waffling, but my problem is we have a stupid government, everything get's taken out of hand, and nothing get's done! But, overall, ethically speaking, it's great. If a person attacks another person for being who they are, they should be charged for that! However, the government takes it too far if I call a black person a n-word I'm racist, if a black person does it for the same reason they're just horsing around!

I often try to believe that our government can be illustrated in the ideals of my beliefs, but unfortunately most of the congressmen and leaders are incompetent hypocrites that chase after any green they can get their hands onto! But, unfortunately, they're not, which is why a lot of my beliefs (socialism for example) I won't vote on, as I would rather vote for something more moderate, and something that I know will work out better... which is the only reason you can expect I'll be voting in Liberal-Republicans for the next few elections.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

it's the fact that their acts were initiated because of the way a person is!

So, we want to punish people for murdering someone for being gay. However it is more tolerable to kill someone if they dump you, owe you money, or because shooting people gives you an erection? I, for one, don't find hate as a motivation for criminal behavior anymore odious than any other motivation for criminal behavior. Much as you shouldn't be punished for being gay, I shouldn't be punished for breaking up with a lover, being bad with money, or because I happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Quote:

If a person attacks another person for being who they are, they should be charged for that!

But that's just it. You're arguing that government shouldn't criminalize bias. At the same time, government is there to criminalize violence. The violence is already criminal. You're criminalizing the bias behind the violence. You're by default defining conditions under which it's better to kill one set of people than another. The only equal treatment is to have viewpoint neutral prosecution of crimes taking into account only the mens rea of the criminal. Anything else and we create protected classes of victims and susceptible classes of victim, and opinions that are legal to have while in the commission of a crime and opinions that are illegal to have. The problem is the law is meant to protect you even when you're doing things you're not supposed to do. That's why if a thief slips on your icy sidewalk on the way back from robbing you he can still sue you for personal injury. His right to safe walking conditions applies even though he is engaged in wrongdoing. We violate that legal precept when we declare the opinions the criminal has while in the commission of the crime illegal, while that viewpoint is protected while not breaking the law. Setting up standards where our rights stop applying based on our good behavior is a very dangerous ground to get into.

Quote:

However, the government takes it too far if I call a black person a n-word I'm racist, if a black person does it for the same reason they're just horsing around!

That's just it, government doesn't declare you a racist here (the Steyn example was in Canada). Society makes that proclamation, and applies the double-standard. Government is legally bound to approach your right to free speech with neutrality, even if the speech is racist, sexist, or homophobic.