US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[Strix]

Do we add the very young? the old? handicapped people? rich people? homeless people?  All these groups are targeted for who and what they represent. So, where do you stop?

How about increasing the penalty if the primary motivation for the attack is a character of the victim, and not something like material gain?

That would be to easy to get around. An attacker can easily make it look like a crime for gain.

[Capetan Mihali]

I personally think we should include additional penalties for crimes motivated by vice, venality, vindictiveness, weakness of will, and lack of moral fibre.   

[Faeelin]

That would be to easy to get around. An attacker can easily make it look like a crime for gain.

People try to lie about their motive in crimes all the time, and have for centuries. I'm willing to risk it.

[Jaron]

I disagree Strix.

People who do hate crimes want you to know why you're being targetted. If a group of men kick down a black man screaming "nigger!" and drag him through the streets, but then take his wallet, its not going to look like a robbery.

I do not see how this flies in the face of equal protection. I think I could equally argue accidently hitting someone with your car because they were wearing all black at night and stumbled drunk upon a poorly lit roadway and shooting someone in the face also flies in the face of equal rights. After all, why is one life more valuable than another?

It couldn't possibly have something to do with motivation, right?

[Malthus]

The fact is that people are reasonably frequently attacked for being members of some identifiable religion, for being of some disfavoured race (disfavoured by the attacker at least), and for being gay.

I haven't kept up with my hate crime stats.  How frequently are we talking?

I don't have statistics, but is anyone disputing that "gay bashing" happens? I've known personally some to whom it has happened, which leads me at least to believe, anecdotally, that it's a problem.

[Malthus]

The fact is that people are reasonably frequently attacked for being members of some identifiable religion, for being of some disfavoured race (disfavoured by the attacker at least), and for being gay. If there is any other groups of people frequently attacked for their visible identity, it would make sense to add them, too.

Do we add the very young? the old? handicapped people? rich people? homeless people?  All these groups are targeted for who and what they represent. So, where do you stop?

I don't see any problem with adding punishment for attacking people specifically because they are young, old, handicapped, rich, or homeless.

Why is this a problem?

[Strix]

I don't see any problem with adding punishment for attacking people specifically because they are young, old, handicapped, rich, or homeless.

Why is this a problem?

Of course it's a problem. It makes a mockery of the whole idea of equal protection.

[Jaron]

No, it actually doesn't.

The situation left alone would make a mockery of equal protection. Hate crime laws should equally protect everyone. If you're white and targetted because you're white it should be no different than a black person being lynched. That sounds pretty equal to me.

[Faeelin]

Of course it's a problem. It makes a mockery of the whole idea of equal protection.

Uh, how? It's treating animus as a worse motivation than, say, robbery.

It's not clear to me how this is different than looking at 1st v. 2nd degree murder. We treat one different than the other; it requires analysing the defendant's state of mind. What's the difference?

[Malthus]

I don't see any problem with adding punishment for attacking people specifically because they are young, old, handicapped, rich, or homeless.

Why is this a problem?

Of course it's a problem. It makes a mockery of the whole idea of equal protection.

What would make a mockery would be if one cause (say, race) was considered worse than another (say, religion).

[Strix]

What would make a mockery would be if one cause (say, race) was considered worse than another (say, religion).

Hate crime legislation does just that. One cause i.e. the protected group is considered worse than another i.e. everyone else not protected under hate crime legislation.

[stjaba]

I don't see any problem with adding punishment for attacking people specifically because they are young, old, handicapped, rich, or homeless.

Why is this a problem?

Of course it's a problem. It makes a mockery of the whole idea of equal protection.

You do realize that a victim's age can make a difference in certain offenses. For instances, a victim's age or disability can be an aggrevating factor for certain sex crimes. Florida's statute for sexual battery is one such example. If the victim is less than 12 years old, and the offender is older than 18, and certain other factors apply, the penalty is worse than if the victim had been an adult. Same thing if the victim is physically incapacitated in some way.

And have you ever heard of elderly protection laws? Many states mandate special penalties for abuse of the elderly. Protecting certain classes of victims is nothing unusual.

[Faeelin]

You do realize that a victim's age can make a difference in certain offenses. For instances, a victim's age or disability can be an aggrevating factor for certain sex crimes. Florida's statute for sexual battery is one such example. If the victim is less than 12 year, and the offender is older than 18, and certain other factors apply, the penalty is worse than if the victim had been an adult. Same thing if the victim is physically incapicated in same way.

I'm imagining a defendant arguing statutory rape is unconstitutional now. Thanks.

[Martinus]

I acknowledge that principle; I disagree with it, but dont' see it as a big issue one way or another. But the current talking point of the GOP in Congress is that they are okay with hate crimes for "immutable characteristics" like race and religion, but not for sexual orientation.

Let me get this straight: they are saying that religion is immutable but that sexual orientation is? 

[Martinus]

One could for example perfectly well argue both that hate crimes laws should not exist, and at the same time, that if they do exist more groups (such as gays) ought to be added.

Other groups (those who like the Star Wars Christmas Special?) can certainly agitate that them being left off the list is unfair, and if there is any serious threat, they would I think have a point.

Thus the entire concept flies in the face of equal protection under the law.

Not really. The idea behind hate crimes is to increase punishments for certain motivations, not for assaulting certain victims.

Anyone could be a victim of a hate crime - it's the attacker's motivation that matters.

Your argument is like arguing that if we make the penalty higher for, say, killing someone to steal their money than for killing someone because they are in great pain and are asking the killer to kill them (mercy killing), then it violates equal protection, because it places a higher value on the life of people who have money than people who are in pain. Total nonsense.