http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-harrislacewell/hate-crimes-and-justice-i_b_65842.html

If you rob, or shoot, or stab someone, it's not exactly a "love" crime

Creating a special law for "hate" crimes does nothing more than perpetuate the "I'm a bigger victim" mentality

I also "feel" the same way. I always thought that hate crimes were just another way for libs to make themselves feel good and pander to minorities.

But recently I listened to alternate reasoning. The claim is that while murder, rape, etc against a regular person are state crimes, too often the sentencing (and sometimes prosecution) is weak in certain areas. Federalization of the crime is a method to circumvent or "correct" the error.

I don't agree with the labels and the methodology. It seems there ought to be a more straight forward method to correct the situation. I think I would prefer application of existing federal civil rights laws. Also, I haven't seen evidence to what extent the problem actually exists. I'm sure it does in places, but to what extent. What are the unintended consequences of Federal hate laws? Prosecuting anyone based on what you believe they are thinking just seems crazy.

One of the arguments I have heard regarding the different penalties is that "hate crimes" are not so much an attack on one person as an attack on an entire group of people (or way of life, or thinking).  

It's not specifically a crime meant to harm that person (well, it is), but in a broader sense it is meant to terrorize an entire community.  So, when they drag some gay man down the street tied to a truck, yes, they are committing a crime against him, but they are also making a statement to others like him in the community.  The threat is meant to terrify and harass everyone like him.

Granted, if a neighbor gets killed during a robbery it more or less terrorizes that entire area, because they are in fear that they could be next, but the intent isn't really there to do that.  The intent is to rob that home and kill anyone that gets in the way.  While, if someone goes into a home to kill someone because he's black, he means to terrorize every black man/woman living in that area.  It's a message, not just a crime and the intent is different.

but if we are all supposed to be affored equal justice under the law,doesn't that make some people more equal than others?

my bad.

-- Modified on 10/14/2007 12:21:45 PM

I thought your post was cogent, succinct and made sense, so yea, you prolly would'a gotten in trouble for it. LOL

No, I wasn't worried about that, as i believe it sincerely and have made the point elsewhere several times.

It was self-deleted for silly  reasons having nothing to do with it's relative unpopularity.  

But, TYVM for the kind word.

-- Modified on 10/14/2007 12:36:43 PM

Anyway you look at it, it's a Federalization of what should be a state crime. But gosh, that's never happened before.

To enlarge the crime to include more than the immediately aggrieved person, I think you would  need to prove the intent. Maybe not in some people's way of thinking.

If the problem is truly lack of justice for the aggrieved person (due to rascism in DAs or juries), then rectify that problem in a more straightforward way.

-- Modified on 10/14/2007 12:36:11 PM

Nah, I don't think so, but i do appreciate your point.  The commission of violent crime is certainly no manifestation of the criminal's benign feelings towards his victim.

A lot of violent crime is incidental/instrumental to it's economic motives -- the sociopath who mugs you, the creep who carjacks you, the burglar who beats you insensate when you stumble upon his presence in your home, etc... would probably be just as happy to gain your property w/o having a direct encounter with you.

No consolation whatsoever to any victoim of vilent crime, whatever the specific motive of the criminal.

That leads to violent racist groups. It's important for that, because racism has been the country's historical disgrace, and still divides us. I think they should only be attached only to group behavior-- like a conspiracy charge, except it could be violence done right "on the moment."

No, I don't think it should be attached to religion or sexual orientation, too. Really, hatred is usually shown by motive, and one can presume it's considered in the sentence.  

That's the only way I think any "hate crime" legislation should be written and applied.

I think the Supreme Court is going to either going to scale back or totally knock down hate crime legislation.

Hey oops, what about skull fucking, is that a hate crime? BTW, did u choose oops as an alias cause you farted but shit ure pants?