A little counterpoint for Martinus.... :)
Quote
Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Thursday to extend new federal protections to people who are victims of violent crime because of their sex or sexual orientation, bringing the measure close to reality after years of fierce debate.
The 68-to-29 vote sends the legislation to President Obama, who has said he supports it.
The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim's gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.
"Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation," Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said afterward. "For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens."
Mr. Leahy sponsored the hate-crimes amendment to the military bill and called its passage a worthy tribute to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who first introduced hate-crimes legislation in the Senate more than a decade ago.
Opponents argued to no avail that the new measure was unnecessary in view of existing laws and might interfere with local law enforcement agencies. Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said he agreed that hate crimes were terrible. "That's why they are already illegal," Mr. DeMint said, asserting that the new law was a dangerous, even "Orwellian" step toward "thought crime."
Ten Republicans voted for the hate-crimes measure. The only Democrat to oppose it was Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who said he could not vote for the current bill "because it does nothing to bring our open-ended and disproportionate military commitment in Afghanistan to an end and/or to ensure that our troops are safely and expeditiously redeployed from Iraq." The Senate action came two weeks after the House approved the measure, 281 to 146, and would give the federal government the authority to prosecute violent, antigay crimes when local authorities failed to.
The measure would also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to assist local communities in investigating hate crimes, and it would allow the agency to assist in investigations and prosecutions if local agencies requested help.
Federal protections for people who are victims of violent crime because of their sexual orientation have been sought for more than a decade, at least since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student.
Is this the US equivalent of a proscription list? :P
Eh. While I'm ambivalent about hate crimes, as long as we're going to have them and recognize hate crimes towards inaminate objects, :cheers:
Great, more special rights for teh geyz.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2009, 03:41:25 PM
Great, more special rights for teh geyz.
I'm sorry - special rights?
I find the US practice to combine unrelated issues into one law dubious.
Quote from: Zanza on October 23, 2009, 03:46:12 PM
I find the US practice to combine unrelated issues into one law dubious.
Yeah, so do we.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2009, 03:41:25 PM
Great, more special rights for teh geyz.
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
Besides, when the GOP pushes for the repeal of the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 I'll agree to support the repeal of this.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2009, 03:41:25 PM
Great, more special rights for teh geyz.
Woohoo I have a special right now if someone kills or brutally mauls me! Yay me! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
It won't work. When a group of homosexuals try to beat up a heterosexual bodybuilder and get their asses hand to them. He'll still face hate charges because he was discriminating against their abilities to act like bullies. :D
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 04:19:45 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
It won't work. When a group of homosexuals try to beat up a heterosexual bodybuilder and get their asses hand to them. He'll still face hate charges because he was discriminating against their abilities to act like bullies. :D
[/quote]
Why do you cultivate the stereotype that a group of homosexuals are wimps who couldn't bring down a single heterosexual?
I can assure you that you would probably get your ass kicked by many a homosexual or a transgender person.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
He he. He's right Speesh.
Which begs the question of why there has to be a special list at all. Why not treat all hate crimes the same?
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:22:01 PM
Why do you cultivate the stereotype that a group of homosexuals are wimps who couldn't bring down a single heterosexual?
I can assure you that you would probably get your ass kicked by many a homosexual or a transgender person.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 04:23:15 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
He he. He's right Speesh.
Which begs the question of why there has to be a special list at all. Why not treat all hate crimes the same?
Eh, this was probably an easier way to address the issue. After all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 04:23:15 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
He he. He's right Speesh.
Which begs the question of why there has to be a special list at all. Why not treat all hate crimes the same?
Well it depends what you define as a "hate crime" then.
I think we had this discussion before, but just to repeat, imo, the rationale behind the heavier penalisation of "hate crimes" (i.e. violent crimes that are inspired by the victim's generic and inherent characteristic) is that such crimes have a similar effect to a terrorist attack - i.e. they spread fear and terror within a certain group of people, such fear/terror being more acute, as the victim was chosen on the basis of an innate and unchangeable trait (as opposed to, say, wearing expensive clothes, and thus looking rich).
In that, they damage social fabric in a way that is much more deep and profound than "ordinary" crimes.
Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.
Of course, it also sends a strong message to the majority that the minority group is unwilling to "fit in" and needs special treatment which in turns creates a "them vs us" mentality of that minority.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.
Of course, it also sends a strong message to the majority that the minority group is unwilling to "fit in" and needs special treatment which in turns creates a "them vs us" mentality of that minority.
I don't see how. GLBT people are being targeted for violence because of their GLBT status - you are not disputing that, I hope. What do you mean in this context as "fitting in"? Going into the closet? Pretending to be straight?
I also wonder how the same logic applies, to, say, black people. How do they "fit in" in a way that prevents them from being beaten up by skinheads for being "niggers"? By not being "uppity" perhaps?
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.
:bleeding: Oh FFS. No-- it enshrines said group's 'victim' status, encourages their sense of entitlement, and worsens the "us vs. them" mentality.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2009, 04:41:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.
:bleeding: Oh FFS. No-- it enshrines said group's 'victim' status, encourages their sense of entitlement, and worsens the "us vs. them" mentality.
I don't see it. Being a member of the said minority, I can tell you that for me - and for others I have heard commenting on this issue - it actually means that the majority sees at us one of them, and thus extends to us the protection. Do you know any GLBT people for whom this kind of legislation enforces the "us vs. them" mentality?
In fact, do you know privately (outside of this forum) any GLBT people at all?
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:38:42 PM
I don't see how. GLBT people are being targeted for violence because of their GLBT status - you are not disputing that, I hope. What do you mean in this context as "fitting in"? Going into the closet? Pretending to be straight?
I have issues with the whole concept of "hate crimes" in it's current form. Do GLBT people get attacked because of their GLBT status, yes I believe it happens. Are they targeted? No, I am not certain that is the case most of the time. I think they are picked on by people who just plain HATE. These are people who hate people for their color, gender, way they wear their hair, type of shoes, etc, and so on, people who pick a victim then pick a hate to match.
The idea of "hate" crimes gives the idea that a war of terror on GLBT is being planned and fought.
What do I mean by "fitting in"?
It's simple. The act of becoming an everyday American and not having to throw whatever it is that you think makes you special in other people's faces.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 04:49:00 PM
It's simple. The act of becoming an everyday American and not having to throw whatever it is that you think makes you special in other people's faces.
I just love when the expression is used.
What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.
I read that morst jurists in the West frown upon hierarchization of rights? In that light, doesn't the designation of groups of people as specific victims invalidate that unwritten principle?
I'm asking this question since the issue has resurfaced in Quebec recently with the ever brewing 'reasonable accomodation' debate. Some are asking that gender equality be added as an interpreative clause to the charter of rights; in order to make sure that in cases of demands for accomodations based on religious grounds (which could include refusing to be served by officers of the state of the opposite gender), the principle of equality between men and women would outweight whatever religiously inspired demands made by citizens.
G.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 04:49:00 PM
I have issues with the whole concept of "hate crimes" in it's current form. Do GLBT people get attacked because of their GLBT status, yes I believe it happens. Are they targeted? No, I am not certain that is the case most of the time. I think they are picked on by people who just plain HATE. These are people who hate people for their color, gender, way they wear their hair, type of shoes, etc, and so on, people who pick a victim then pick a hate to match.
:lol: Most homophobic attacks are perpetrated by people who "just plain HATE" gays, not because they target them. Of course...
And I can't tell you how many friends I have who've been beaten, chased, threatened, and cursed at for wearing Timberlands. Unlike all of my gay and lesbian friends who rub it in everyone's face and walk away scot-free.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:24:26 PMAfter all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.
Not true, I think plenty of people are against the idea of hate crimes in general. However, if it exists as it already does, it should apply to gays as well.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 23, 2009, 05:09:38 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:24:26 PMAfter all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.
Not true, I think plenty of people are against the idea of hate crimes in general. However, if it exists as it already does, it should apply to gays as well.
Well, the way I see it, the concept of hate crimes is not really something that is sustainable in the long run vis-a-vis principled justice. However, it is useful for social engineering purposes (as I explained earlier) for a limited period of time, say a generation.
Quote from: Grallon on October 23, 2009, 04:58:21 PM
I read that morst jurists in the West frown upon hierarchization of rights? In that light, doesn't the designation of groups of people as specific victims invalidate that unwritten principle?
I'm asking this question since the issue has resurfaced in Quebec recently with the ever brewing 'reasonable accomodation' debate. Some are asking that gender equality be added as an interpreative clause to the charter of rights; in order to make sure that in cases of demands for accomodations based on religious grounds (which could include refusing to be served by officers of the state of the opposite gender), the principle of equality between men and women would outweight whatever religiously inspired demands made by citizens.
G.
If a list of protected groups exists, I have no problems with basically extending it so that everyone is covered. The real injustice (given such a list exists) is leaving gays off, not adding them on.
Of course it may be the case that there should be no list, and thus no hierarchy ... but extending the list has much the same effect: eventually, every possible person targeted
purely for their identity will be added.
Creating a
hierarchy of rights is, as you say, a bad idea - for example, if one beats up someone for being a gay you get two years added to your punishment, but if one beats up someone for being a Jew, you get 10 years. That would be bad.
But having an outcome in which you get (say) 2 years added to your sentence for
targeting someone, I have less problems with. Really it is adding a new degree of assault - assault motivated by pure hatred - and saying that this is worse than assault (say) motivated by a personal fight.
The key is I think that the "targeting someone' category be as general as possible so as not to in effect say it is "more okay" to target group X than group Y.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 05:12:45 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 23, 2009, 05:09:38 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:24:26 PMAfter all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.
Not true, I think plenty of people are against the idea of hate crimes in general. However, if it exists as it already does, it should apply to gays as well.
Well, the way I see it, the concept of hate crimes is not really something that is sustainable in the long run vis-a-vis principled justice. However, it is useful for social engineering purposes (as I explained earlier) for a limited period of time, say a generation.
If hate crime legislation was put into place when it was first needed in America, we would have had anti-black violence laws for several generations now. :(
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:52:09 PM
I just love when the expression is used.
What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.
None of the above.
It's when
special legislation has to be made setting them apart from everyone else. America is supposed to be a "melting pot" of people and cultures. Every law passed that singles out a group makes it that much harder for that group to become part of the "pot".
It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other? When it does, it makes the majority resent the fact that the homosexuals death was considered more repugnant than the neighbors. And that makes them resent the minority that caused such legislation to be passed.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:19:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:52:09 PM
I just love when the expression is used.
What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.
None of the above.
It's when special legislation has to be made setting them apart from everyone else. America is supposed to be a "melting pot" of people and cultures. Every law passed that singles out a group makes it that much harder for that group to become part of the "pot".
It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other? When it does, it makes the majority resent the fact that the homosexuals death was considered more repugnant than the neighbors. And that makes them resent the minority that caused such legislation to be passed.
Well I gave reasons above for why targeting someone based on their identity as a member of a broader group may be seen as deserving a higher penalisation above. Malthus has also explained it quite eloquently. Of course you may disagree, but that's your "why". :)
The problem with your scenario as presented is "I'm going to kill my neighbor, that asshole" can happen to anyone. Its an equal opportunity killing.
Someone saying "I'm going to kill that fucking fag!" can only happen to a gay person. It specifically targets that person because of a particular trait thats sets him apart from the rest of society.
You or I will never be targeted because we're homosexuals, it cannot happen. Therefore, if someone decides they're gonna go out and kill a fag tonight, you and I are safe. There needs to be an extra deterrent to protect those who are vulnerable.
I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:17:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 05:12:45 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 23, 2009, 05:09:38 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:24:26 PMAfter all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.
Not true, I think plenty of people are against the idea of hate crimes in general. However, if it exists as it already does, it should apply to gays as well.
Well, the way I see it, the concept of hate crimes is not really something that is sustainable in the long run vis-a-vis principled justice. However, it is useful for social engineering purposes (as I explained earlier) for a limited period of time, say a generation.
If hate crime legislation was put into place when it was first needed in America, we would have had anti-black violence laws for several generations now. :(
This actually is one of the strongest arguments against hate crime legislation, imo - that when it is finally passed, it is no longer needed. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2009, 04:41:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.
:bleeding: Oh FFS. No-- it enshrines said group's 'victim' status, encourages their sense of entitlement, and worsens the "us vs. them" mentality.
Tell ya what, when your state recognizes my marriage we can repeal the hate crime law.
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:22:45 PM
The problem with your scenario as presented is "I'm going to kill my neighbor, that asshole" can happen to anyone. Its an equal opportunity killing.
Someone saying "I'm going to kill that fucking fag!" can only happen to a gay person. It specifically targets that person because of a particular trait thats sets him apart from the rest of society.
You or I will never be targeted because we're homosexuals, it cannot happen. Therefore, if someone decides they're gonna go out and kill a fag tonight, you and I are safe. There needs to be an extra deterrent to protect those who are vulnerable.
I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?
Yup. As I said, it is like a terrorist attack - hate crimes breed terror and fear that goes beyond "living next door to a whacko". To combat that fear - affecting entire communities of people - you show the extra "displeasure" of the society against such crimes.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 05:24:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2009, 04:41:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Also, special penalisation of "hate crimes" serves an additional purpose of sending a strong message to a minority (usually one that had been previous reviled) saying that the majority considers that minority "one of us" - which in turn furthers social cohesion and tranquility and prevents the creation of "us vs. them" mentality of that minority.
:bleeding: Oh FFS. No-- it enshrines said group's 'victim' status, encourages their sense of entitlement, and worsens the "us vs. them" mentality.
Tell ya what, when your state recognizes my marriage we can repela the hate crime law.
You're married? :o
*snap* Another one got away. :weep:
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:17:31 PM
If hate crime legislation was put into place when it was first needed in America, we would have had anti-black violence laws for several generations now. :(
Several generations ago I don't added hate crime laws would have helped much :P
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 23, 2009, 05:04:45 PM
:lol: Most homophobic attacks are perpetrated by people who "just plain HATE" gays, not because they target them. Of course...
And I can't tell you how many friends I have who've been beaten, chased, threatened, and cursed at for wearing Timberlands. Unlike all of my gay and lesbian friends who rub it in everyone's face and walk away scot-free.
So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?
People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 23, 2009, 05:04:45 PM
:lol: Most homophobic attacks are perpetrated by people who "just plain HATE" gays, not because they target them. Of course...
And I can't tell you how many friends I have who've been beaten, chased, threatened, and cursed at for wearing Timberlands. Unlike all of my gay and lesbian friends who rub it in everyone's face and walk away scot-free.
So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?
People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.
So you think those boys in Texas would have chained a white man to their truck and dragged him a few miles if they'd come across him first?
I don't think so, Strix. This is just denial on your part. Don't deny racist attacks happen in this country, and don't deny that gay bashing happens.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 23, 2009, 05:04:45 PM
:lol: Most homophobic attacks are perpetrated by people who "just plain HATE" gays, not because they target them. Of course...
And I can't tell you how many friends I have who've been beaten, chased, threatened, and cursed at for wearing Timberlands. Unlike all of my gay and lesbian friends who rub it in everyone's face and walk away scot-free.
So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?
People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.
You were right until you got to Berkut.
The fact is, even if they don't go out with a plan in mind to target a
specific minority, they essentially go out to target
some minority. This means straight white men are usually safe.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:19:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:52:09 PM
I just love when the expression is used.
What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.
None of the above.
It's when special legislation has to be made setting them apart from everyone else. America is supposed to be a "melting pot" of people and cultures. Every law passed that singles out a group makes it that much harder for that group to become part of the "pot".
It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other? When it does, it makes the majority resent the fact that the homosexuals death was considered more repugnant than the neighbors. And that makes them resent the minority that caused such legislation to be passed.
I'd agree that this would have some merit, if gays were the only group so protected.
As I understand it, there already exists "hate crimes" laws that protect people from being attacked on a number of grounds - "Die, you motherfucking Kike!" or "Die, you motherfucking Nigger!".
All this legislation does, is extend the list.
While having the list at all may arguably be a bad idea, once it exists, as many identities as possible ought to be on it - as otherwise you get a hierarchy of rights: that attacking someone for *one* identity is seen as "less bad" than attacking someone for *another*.
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:22:45 PM
The problem with your scenario as presented is "I'm going to kill my neighbor, that asshole" can happen to anyone. Its an equal opportunity killing.
Someone saying "I'm going to kill that fucking fag!" can only happen to a gay person. It specifically targets that person because of a particular trait thats sets him apart from the rest of society.
You or I will never be targeted because we're homosexuals, it cannot happen. Therefore, if someone decides they're gonna go out and kill a fag tonight, you and I are safe. There needs to be an extra deterrent to protect those who are vulnerable.
I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?
Yes, because it violates the equal protection (not extra protection) clause to value some people higher in the court of law than others. Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity. This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:22:45 PM
I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?
Yes, yes it does. It creates and feeds into the "them vs us" mentality that leads to more hate. You can create a hate crime list that covers every group but it will never cover one particular group i.e. white males. As a result, it's one more law that pisses off white males and contributes to their not accepting the minority in question.
The problem is that minorities drink the politician's kool-aid. They believe that the politicians care and that the legislation helps them. In reality, it sets back relations between the majority and minority.
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:19:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 04:52:09 PM
I just love when the expression is used.
What do you mean by that? Is a gay guy holding hands with his boyfriend and walking down the street "throwing it in other people's faces"? Are two girls sharing a kiss "throwing it in other people's faces"? In fact, what is it that gay people do, that straight couples don't do, that "throws it in other people's faces"? Tell me please.
None of the above.
It's when special legislation has to be made setting them apart from everyone else. America is supposed to be a "melting pot" of people and cultures. Every law passed that singles out a group makes it that much harder for that group to become part of the "pot".
It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other? When it does, it makes the majority resent the fact that the homosexuals death was considered more repugnant than the neighbors. And that makes them resent the minority that caused such legislation to be passed.
I'd agree that this would have some merit, if gays were the only group so protected.
As I understand it, there already exists "hate crimes" laws that protect people from being attacked on a number of grounds - "Die, you motherfucking Kike!" or "Die, you motherfucking Nigger!".
All this legislation does, is extend the list.
While having the list at all may arguably be a bad idea, once it exists, as many identities as possible ought to be on it - as otherwise you get a hierarchy of rights: that attacking someone for *one* identity is seen as "less bad" than attacking someone for *another*.
I think the way it should be done, to be fair, is to make it a "hate crime" to attack someone because of their innate, "passive" characteristic. This is how it is done, for example, in Polish law, and the "protected characteristics" (gender, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, race, ethnicity, or disability) are only mentioned as examples.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:31:27 PM
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:22:45 PM
The problem with your scenario as presented is "I'm going to kill my neighbor, that asshole" can happen to anyone. Its an equal opportunity killing.
Someone saying "I'm going to kill that fucking fag!" can only happen to a gay person. It specifically targets that person because of a particular trait thats sets him apart from the rest of society.
You or I will never be targeted because we're homosexuals, it cannot happen. Therefore, if someone decides they're gonna go out and kill a fag tonight, you and I are safe. There needs to be an extra deterrent to protect those who are vulnerable.
I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?
Yes, because it violates the equal protection (not extra protection) clause to value some people higher in the court of law than others. Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity. This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.
If it could be proved he attacked her
because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.
Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:31:27 PM
Yes, because it violates the equal protection (not extra protection) clause to value some people higher in the court of law than others. Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity. This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.
Actually, this would be a hate crime.
Hate crime laws are not about white on black violence. If a white man robs a store and shoots the black clerk before fleeing, that is not a hate crime and should not be treated as one.
If a black man kills a white man for racially motivated reasons, I'd have no qualms about extra time being added on.
Let's make it fair, but lets make it very clear that in our society we won't tolerate these types of crimes.
In a sense, we already have such laws. Doesn't killing a policeman usually carry a tougher penalty than killing any random civilian? Isn't that also a violation of this equal rights idea?
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2009, 05:34:30 PM
If it could be proved he attacked her because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.
Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.
I dunno. We've been looking at motivation for centuries in law. Why does it become a much bigger issue here?
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 05:30:21 PM
You were right until you got to Berkut.
The fact is, even if they don't go out with a plan in mind to target a specific minority, they essentially go out to target some minority. This means straight white men are usually safe.
That is where you are wrong. The majority of crime is committed against the majority. It just doesn't get a lot of press because it isn't sexy enough. "GAY MAN BEATEN OUTSIDE BAR" sells more paper than someone beat up in a bar parking lot. Your paranoia makes it hard for you to accept what I am saying. That's understandable. :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 05:34:08 PM
I think the way it should be done, to be fair, is to make it a "hate crime" to attack someone because of their innate, "passive" characteristic. This is how it is done, for example, in Polish law, and the "protected groups" (gender, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, race, ethnicity, or disability) are only mentioned as examples.
Oh, I totally agree.
It seems to me that this is happening, as it were, incrementally; as various groups get the political clout to be added to the "list". This a result of the way it has historically evolved here.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:32:51 PM
but it will never cover one particular group i.e. white males.
Why not? It would be a hate crime under Polish law.
Remember, for something to be a hate crime, the identity of the victim is secondary to the motivation of the attacker. If the attacker is motivated by the fact that the victim is of a specific ethnicity, race, gender and/or sexual orientation, then someone targeting a victim because he is a white straight male (of course the prosecution would need to prove that motivation, but that's how it always goes) would be guilty of a hate crime.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2009, 05:34:30 PM
If it could be proved he attacked her because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.
Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.
I dunno. We've been looking at motivation for centuries in law. Why does it become a much bigger issue here?
Indeed. We have crimes of passion. "Mercy killings". Etc. All carrying different penalties because we value different motivations differently.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:32:51 PM
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:22:45 PM
I guess as mainstream, white men both you and derspiess can't understand what it is like to be a minority. Being on some whackjobs kill on sight list because of something you were born into sucks. Does it really harm you all that much to let us have some extra protection?
Yes, yes it does. It creates and feeds into the "them vs us" mentality that leads to more hate. You can create a hate crime list that covers every group but it will never cover one particular group i.e. white males. As a result, it's one more law that pisses off white males and contributes to their not accepting the minority in question.
The problem is that minorities drink the politician's kool-aid. They believe that the politicians care and that the legislation helps them. In reality, it sets back relations between the majority and minority.
No, just no. A hundred times over, NO.
Your argument is that racially motivated crimes do not occur, and it is in the best interests of minorities - colored or gay or otherwise, to just suck it up and look the other way because it supposedly hurts relations between majority and minority?
I don't know of ANYONE who would say "I'd like to be your friend, gay Martin, but those hate crime laws...they piss me off, so..no"
As usual, you are delusional. You know absolutely nothing about minorities, except that you clearly have a disdain for them and that they should dare speak up and ask for protection.
As a friendly reminder Strix, don't forget that "they" are growing faster than "us" and pretty soon its going to be YOU on that minority list. ;)
Maybe you shouldn't think of hate crime/minority protection as anyone less than an investment in your future.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 23, 2009, 05:04:45 PM
:lol: Most homophobic attacks are perpetrated by people who "just plain HATE" gays, not because they target them. Of course...
And I can't tell you how many friends I have who've been beaten, chased, threatened, and cursed at for wearing Timberlands. Unlike all of my gay and lesbian friends who rub it in everyone's face and walk away scot-free.
So, most homophobic attacks begin with a person or group sitting around deciding that they'll target a gay person that day? Have you been watching a lot of bad movies lately?
People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them. If they come across Marty, they'll beat him because he is gay, if they come across Jaron they'll beat him because he is Hispanic, if they come across Berkut, they'll beat him from his strawmen, etc, and so on. They beat people because it's what they do.
:lol: I'm sorry, I don't know how to respond to this without being a prick. What have you been watching lately?
I think in your line of work you would have realized that people tend to commit crimes for some kind of reason, not just randomly. Why do you deny the existence as homophobia as a motive for crime?
If you do any cursory research you will find ample evidence of people doing exactly what you make seem absurd: literally sitting around, planning to attack gay individuals on the exclusive basis of their being gay.
Here's one you may remember, from Paul Broussard's murder:
Quote from: Houston ChronicleThree youths from The Woodlands pleaded guilty Monday in the killing of a banker that occurred after they, along with seven companions, drove to Houston's Montrose area to "beat up some queers."....
By the time the group had assembled in a McDonald's parking lot, they were "amped up," Buice indicated. They made a unanimous decision to drive south to Montrose and "go beat up some queers." Some of them even filled their pockets with "queer rocks," which were ordinary stones meant to be thrown at men in the area known for its gay nightspots.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 23, 2009, 05:34:30 PM
If it could be proved he attacked her because she was White, I'd hope there would be no outrage.
Though this points out a significant problem with the laws: it may be very difficult to prove the exact motivation.
I dunno. We've been looking at motivation for centuries in law. Why does it become a much bigger issue here?
Because it is so much more specific. Generally, under the law the
mens rea is merely the will to commit the crime at issue; for example we normally don't care as much
why you chose to kill, only whether it was premeditated. The exceptions have always been difficult (for example the partial defence of "provocation" which in Canada reduces murder to manslaughter).
Though motive can in some cases figure in the sentencing it is true. However, this is more in the realm of judicial discretion than statute (at least, up here).
Reading Strix/Hans posts, it's either that they are deeply misinformed about how hate crimes legislation in America works or that it is indeed, as they say, deeply fucked up.
When it comes to race, how is the hate crime legislation worded?
Is it a harsher penalty for targeting a victim "because he or she is black" or "because of his or her race"?
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them.
I really don't think this is true. Some people hate to begin with, and then go looking for a target they hate, whether it is based on skin color, religion, or sexual orientation. Even happens to white people, thousands of white South African farmers have been murdered in the past 15 years, often brutally and with no possession taken.
Its raining Mens Rea!
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:35:29 PM
Hate crime laws are not about white on black violence. If a white man robs a store and shoots the black clerk before fleeing, that is not a hate crime and should not be treated as one.
If a black man kills a white man for racially motivated reasons, I'd have no qualms about extra time being added on.
Let's make it fair, but lets make it very clear that in our society we won't tolerate these types of crimes.
In a sense, we already have such laws. Doesn't killing a policeman usually carry a tougher penalty than killing any random civilian? Isn't that also a violation of this equal rights idea?
We already have laws that demonstrate that we don't tolerate murder, so why do we need laws that say "but we especially don't like it if you kill certain especially protected categories of people?"
An no, police officers are not especially protected under the law, law enforcement will just work harder to protect one of their own and punish a cop-killer.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
An no, police officers are not especially protected under the law, law enforcement will just work harder to protect one of their own and punish a cop-killer.
Killing a police officer is a higher category of murder under NY State law at the very least.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
We already have laws that demonstrate that we don't tolerate murder, so why do we need laws that say "but we especially don't like it if you kill certain especially protected categories of people?"
Hate crime laws are actually more commonly used for non-fatal assaults.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 23, 2009, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:26:42 PM
People attack random people because they want to do so. They find a person THAN find something to hate about them.
I really don't think this is true. Some people hate to begin with, and then go looking for a target they hate, whether it is based on skin color, religion, or sexual orientation. Even happens to white people, thousands of white South African farmers have been murdered in the past 15 years, often brutally and with no possession taken.
You don't have to go to South Africa for that. Black-on-white crime is far more common that white-on-black crime. Black racists are far more common than white racists (see White House). Of course white-on-white and black-on-black crime is vastly more common than crime across racial divides.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
An no, police officers are not especially protected under the law, law enforcement will just work harder to protect one of their own and punish a cop-killer.
I'm quite certain you are wrong. Of course it may vary from a jurisdiction to a jurisdiction, but I am willing to bet you $1,000 there are at least some states in the US where killing a cop carries a heavier penalty than killing a non-cop, by the statute.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
An no, police officers are not especially protected under the law, law enforcement will just work harder to protect one of their own and punish a cop-killer.
I'm quite certain you are wrong. Of course it may vary from a jurisdiction to a jurisdiction, but I am willing to bet you $1,000 there are at least some states in the US where killing a cop carries a heavier penalty than killing a non-cop, by the statute.
I sure hope not! That would be wrong!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.timeinc.net%2Few%2Fdynamic%2Fimgs%2F080411%2FKenneth-the-Page%2Fkenneth-the-page_l.jpg&hash=1a0c63ca24f0031bd76054ccfa2990f37349cc5d)
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:46:42 PM
You don't have to go to South Africa for that. Black-on-white crime is far more common that white-on-black crime. Black racists are far more common than white racists (see White House). Of course white-on-white and black-on-black crime is vastly more common than crime across racial divides.
I missed you. :hug:
Obama isn't racist, Hans.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:46:42 PM
You don't have to go to South Africa for that. Black-on-white crime is far more common that white-on-black crime. Black racists are far more common than white racists (see White House). Of course white-on-white and black-on-black crime is vastly more common than crime across racial divides.
I missed you. :hug:
Wait till he shows you statistics of all these gay gangs getting together to beat up breeders coming out of hetero clubs. ;)
For an even better laugh, do what I do: when you read anything Hans posts, just imagine that high pitched voice reading it to you.
The funniest thing is, I'm a Southern White Male and not in the LEAST bit threatened by blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, Jews, gays, or anything else.
But keep on pissing your pants, you too.
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:52:42 PM
For an even better laugh, do what I do: when you read anything Hans posts, just imagine that high pitched voice reading it to you.
LOL, the best thing is, Hans would probably get lynched for being a faggot down here.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
An no, police officers are not especially protected under the law, law enforcement will just work harder to protect one of their own and punish a cop-killer.
I'm quite certain you are wrong. Of course it may vary from a jurisdiction to a jurisdiction, but I am willing to bet you $1,000 there are at least some states in the US where killing a cop carries a heavier penalty than killing a non-cop, by the statute.
In Canada, killing a cop who is working in the line of duty is an automatic first degree murder sentence.
Quote231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.
Planned and deliberate murder
(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.
Contracted murder
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), murder is planned and deliberate when it is committed pursuant to an arrangement under which money or anything of value passes or is intended to pass from one person to another, or is promised by one person to another, as consideration for that other's causing or assisting in causing the death of anyone or counselling another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing that death.
Murder of peace officer, etc.
(4) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is
(a) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties;
(b) a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard or other officer or a permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties; or
(c) a person working in a prison with the permission of the prison authorities and acting in the course of his work therein.
This thread is great. Hans and Strix just got PWNT by two gay lawyers, a Jewish lawyer, a Mexican teacher, and the Sheilbh of America himself, Capitan Mihali.
Quote from: Fireblade on October 23, 2009, 05:50:52 PM
Obama isn't racist, Hans.
He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult. Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there. But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.
Just looking around - it seems that in the US different states do it differently.
In some, it is an "aggrivating circumstance" for determining whether the death penalty should be imposed:
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/F9andF10.htm
QuoteA.R.S. § 13-751(F)(10)-VICTIM IS A PEACE OFFICER
A.R.S. §13-751(F)(10) currently provides that it shall be an aggravating circumstance where "[t]he murdered person was an on duty peace officer who was killed in the course of performing the officer's official duties and the defendant knew, or should have known, that the murdered person was a peace officer."
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:12:53 PM
He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult. Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there. But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.
Not much about criminal law, apparently.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:12:53 PM
He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult. Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there. But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.
Not much about criminal law, apparently.
Why? I was right on the law issue.
Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:46:42 PM
You don't have to go to South Africa for that. Black-on-white crime is far more common that white-on-black crime. Black racists are far more common than white racists (see White House). Of course white-on-white and black-on-black crime is vastly more common than crime across racial divides.
I missed you. :hug:
Wait till he shows you statistics of all these gay gangs getting together to beat up breeders coming out of hetero clubs. ;)
I thought we had already established in this thread that no number of homosexuals would be sufficient to defeat a healthy heterosexual male.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:29:30 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:12:53 PM
He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult. Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there. But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.
Not much about criminal law, apparently.
Why? I was right on the law issue.
In NY State at the very least, the killing of a police officer is treated as a more severe category of murder than the killing of your average man on the street. Granted, police are not the only ones in the 1st Degree category (also includes COs, "peace officers," witnesses), but it is quite clearly treated differently.
Besides, assaulting an officer is a special offense beyond assaulting Joe Sixpack everywhere in this country, so the police quite clearly occupy a special position in terms of laws about being bodily harmed...
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:29:30 PM
Why? I was right on the law issue.
You thought hate crimes didn't protect white people, and then you said "police are not especially protected under the law", which has shown to be false in the case of the NY; it's also true in the case of many, many other states. If you want me to dig through state statutes, I will, though it might take a while.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 23, 2009, 06:35:07 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:29:30 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:12:53 PM
He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult. Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there. But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.
Not much about criminal law, apparently.
Why? I was right on the law issue.
In NY State at the very least, the killing of a police officer is treated as a more severe category of murder than the killing of your average man on the street. Granted, police are not the only ones in the 1st Degree category (also includes COs, "peace officers," witnesses), but it is quite clearly treated differently.
Besides, assaulting an officer is a special offense beyond assaulting Joe Sixpack everywhere in this country, so the police quite clearly occupy a special position in terms of laws about being bodily harmed...
But it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement. That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility. It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:29:30 PM
Why? I was right on the law issue.
You thought hate crimes didn't protect white people, and then you said "police are not especially protected under the law", which has shown to be false in the case of the NY; it's also true in the case of many, many other states. If you want me to dig through state statutes, I will, though it might take a while.
Of course I didn't state that hate crimes didn't protect white people, and police officers aren't especially protected under the law when being victims just for being cops (at least not in the two cases cited so far, though I wouldn't rule out that a state would have such a law, just as some states have laws on hate crims that I would find objectionable).
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:40:29 PM
But it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement. That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility. It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.
Interesting. Does the legislative history bear out that rationale?
Quote from: Hansmeister link=topic=2633.msg131005#msg131005 date=1256341229But it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement. That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility. It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.
You wrote: "police officers are not especially protected under the law." It's quite clear that they are.
Beyond that, I think it's a relevant analogy for hate crime legislation. Someone who kills a gay/black/etc. man indiscriminately during a home invasion robbery would not be charged under any hate crime legislation as far as I know; it is only to the extent that he is "being" gay/black/etc. in the eyes of the offender that it qualifies as a hate crime. Likewise for killing a police officer; he is only "being" a police officer when he is on-duty and can be recognized as such. The NY Law puts it:
Quotethe intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of
the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and
the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended
victim was a police officer
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:45:56 PM
Of course I didn't state that hate crimes didn't protect white people,
Indeed. When you said:
QuoteImagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity. This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.
You meant "I acknowledge that the law as it stands proscribes a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity, and this has not led to outraged cries of institutional racism. I am actually referring to a hypothetical where the law only protects minorities from hate crimes. But since that isn't the law under discussion, I am offering a strange hypothetical no one is defending.
I fully recognize that equal protection arguments aren't relevant to the hate crimes on the books, since they protect all victims of attacks based on race, religion, gender, and now sexual orientation equally. But What if, man? What if?"
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:19:34 PM
It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other?
Because the former is additionally an act of terrorism, putting other homosexuals in a heightened state of fear, while the latter doesn't actually cause the rest of your neighbors to be more scared once you're locked up.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 23, 2009, 06:47:23 PM
Quote from: HansmeisterBut it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement. That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility. It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.
You wrote: "police officers are not especially protected under the law." It's quite clear that they are.
Beyond that, I think it's a relevant analogy for hate crime legislation. Someone who kills a gay/black/etc. man indiscriminately during a home invasion robbery would not be charged under any hate crime legislation as far as I know; it is only to the extent that he is "being" gay/black/etc. in the eyes of the offender that it qualifies as a hate crime. Likewise for killing a police officer; he is only "being" a police officer when he is on-duty and can be recognized as such. The NY Law puts it: Quotethe intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of
the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and
the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended
victim was a police officer
Not really, because the way it is worded if the cop was off-duty and the murderer knew he was a cop it didn't count as a aggravated circumstance. The cop had to have been on duty
and the defendant should've known he was a police officer for it to count. Ergo, the aggravated circumstance lies in the harm to law enforcement, not the law enforcer.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 06:48:46 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:45:56 PM
Of course I didn't state that hate crimes didn't protect white people,
Indeed. When you said:
QuoteImagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity. This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.
You meant "I acknowledge that the law as it stands proscribes a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity, and this has not led to outraged cries of institutional racism. I am actually referring to a hypothetical where the law only protects minorities from hate crimes. But since that isn't the law under discussion, I am offering a strange hypothetical no one is defending.
I fully recognize that equal protection arguments aren't relevant to the hate crimes on the books, since they protect all victims of attacks based on race, religion, gender, and now sexual orientation equally. But What if, man? What if?"
You know I was using it as an allegory for singling out certain groups for being entitled for special protection, not as an actual example. Apparently, that was beyond your ability to grasp. hence the use of "What if".
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:56:54 PM
You know I was using it as an allegory for singling out certain groups for being entitled for special protection, not as an actual example. Apparently, that was beyond your ability to grasp. hence the use of "What if".
Yes, but the problem is your allegory makes no sense since hate crime legislation protects all groups, a point you now purport to acknowledge.
Quote from: ulmont on October 23, 2009, 06:52:11 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 05:19:34 PM
It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other?
Because the former is additionally an act of terrorism, putting other homosexuals in a heightened state of fear, while the latter doesn't actually cause the rest of your neighbors to be more scared once you're locked up.
Why would the other gays have to be "in a heightened state of fear" any more than the neighbors once the perp is locked up? And if they were, how would a hate crimes law actually have any impact on that "heightened state of fear"?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 07:00:43 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 06:56:54 PM
You know I was using it as an allegory for singling out certain groups for being entitled for special protection, not as an actual example. Apparently, that was beyond your ability to grasp. hence the use of "What if".
Yes, but the problem is your allegory makes no sense since hate crime legislation protects all groups, a point you now purport to acknowledge.
I don't see goths on that list, or trekkies, or the flat earth society. So apparently not all groups are on the list. An I don't know where you think I acknowledge that all groups are protected.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 07:04:00 PM
I don't see goths on that list, or trekkies, or the flat earth society. So apparently not all groups are on the list. An I don't know where you think I acknowledge that all groups are protected.
Oh. So you do not in fact think it's a hate crime to attack people based on race regardless of whether the victim is white or black? Or do you really think flat earthers are often attacked? I would be more concerned about adding those groups if I thought trekkie on jedi violence was a major concern for society.
Those law classes are paying off, Fae. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 07:00:54 PM
Why would the other gays have to be "in a heightened state of fear" any more than the neighbors once the perp is locked up?
I dunno Hans, why don't you explain to me how terrorism works again?
Quote from: Fireblade on October 23, 2009, 06:00:24 PM
This thread is great. Hans and Strix just got PWNT by two gay lawyers, a Jewish lawyer, a Mexican teacher, and the Sheilbh of America himself, Capitan Mihali.
:zzz:
Funny, I thought of them as Marty, Jaron, etc, and so on. I guess it's too much to expect someone from AR-Kansas to see minorities as individuals.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 07:05:18 PM
Oh. So you do not in fact think it's a hate crime to attack people based on race regardless of whether the victim is white or black? Or do you really think flat earthers are often attacked? I would be more concerned about adding those groups if I thought trekkie on jedi violence was a major concern for society.
I've never heard of a New Zealander being beaten up for being a New Zealander, but there they are on the list.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 07:05:18 PM
Oh. So you do not in fact think it's a hate crime to attack people based on race regardless of whether the victim is white or black? Or do you really think flat earthers are often attacked? I would be more concerned about adding those groups if I thought trekkie on jedi violence was a major concern for society.
I've never heard of a New Zealander being beaten up for being a New Zealander, but there they are on the list.
That's a fair point, but I would leave all nationalities on the list than start breaking it up according to what nationalities are more vulnerable at the current moment in America.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 11:38:25 PM
That's a fair point, but I would leave all nationalities on the list than start breaking it up according to what nationalities are more vulnerable at the current moment in America.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Are my eyes bleeding enough?
Quote from: citizen k on October 23, 2009, 11:43:18 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 11:38:25 PM
That's a fair point, but I would leave all nationalities on the list than start breaking it up according to what nationalities are more vulnerable at the current moment in America.
Are my eyes bleeding enough?
Sure, why not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 07:05:18 PM
Oh. So you do not in fact think it's a hate crime to attack people based on race regardless of whether the victim is white or black? Or do you really think flat earthers are often attacked? I would be more concerned about adding those groups if I thought trekkie on jedi violence was a major concern for society.
I've never heard of a New Zealander being beaten up for being a New Zealander, but there they are on the list.
Feckin' Kiwi had it comin'. <_<
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 07:05:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 07:04:00 PM
I don't see goths on that list, or trekkies, or the flat earth society. So apparently not all groups are on the list. An I don't know where you think I acknowledge that all groups are protected.
Oh. So you do not in fact think it's a hate crime to attack people based on race regardless of whether the victim is white or black? Or do you really think flat earthers are often attacked? I would be more concerned about adding those groups if I thought trekkie on jedi violence was a major concern for society.
I think the entire concept of a "hate crime" is rather absurd. But then of course you make my point when you exclaim certain groups needing extra special protection from the law. No group of people need more protection than other groups. Or as I prefer to put it, no individual needs more protection in kaw than any other individual. Isn't that the whole point of "equal protection under the law?"
The point of hate crimes is to punish crimes that are meant to terrorize whole groups, with the actual victim merely being an unlucky example. There are plenty of examples in American history of crimes with such a motivation being committed, and not doling out special punishment for such domestic acts of terror is what's absurd.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2009, 03:06:06 AM
The point of hate crimes is to punish crimes that are meant to terrorize whole groups, with the actual victim merely being an unlucky example. There are plenty of examples in American history of crimes with such a motivation being committed, and not doling out special punishment for such domestic acts of terror is what's absurd.
What I find funny about your argument is that it's the opposite of what you argue when it comes to the Sex Offender Registry but the same concept applies here. Hate crime legislation fails in America because it paints whole segments of criminal society with a broad stroke of the brush. Just as Sex Offender legislation does. The kid who screams "Take that you queer motherfucker" during a fight deserves extra time while the potential repeat sex offender placed on the list because of a borderline offense deserves a second chance?
Oh right, nevermind, hate crime only punishes the majority, so that's ok.
Quote from: Strix on October 24, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
What I find funny about your argument is that it's the opposite of what you argue when it comes to the Sex Offender Registry but the same concept applies here. Hate crime legislation fails in America because it paints whole segments of criminal society with a broad stroke of the brush. Just as Sex Offender legislation does. The kid who screams "Take that you queer motherfucker" during a fight deserves extra time while the potential repeat sex offender placed on the list because of a borderline offense deserves a second chance?
Oh right, nevermind, hate crime only punishes the majority, so that's ok.
Who are you talking to?
Quote from: Strix on October 24, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
What I find funny about your argument is that it's the opposite of what you argue when it comes to the Sex Offender Registry but the same concept applies here. Hate crime legislation fails in America because it paints whole segments of criminal society with a broad stroke of the brush. Just as Sex Offender legislation does. The kid who screams "Take that you queer motherfucker" during a fight deserves extra time while the potential repeat sex offender placed on the list because of a borderline offense deserves a second chance?
Oh right, nevermind, hate crime only punishes the majority, so that's ok.
Hate crimes do no such thing. They add extra penalties to criminals who paint whole segments of lawful society with a broad stroke of the brush. Your argument is quite absurd, the motivation of a KKK member lynching a black guy and a sex offender molesting a child are radically different.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2009, 03:06:06 AM
The point of hate crimes is to punish crimes that are meant to terrorize whole groups, with the actual victim merely being an unlucky example. There are plenty of examples in American history of crimes with such a motivation being committed, and not doling out special punishment for such domestic acts of terror is what's absurd.
Sorry, the idea of using motivation in determining punishment violates equal protection under the law.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 24, 2009, 02:04:28 PM
Sorry, the idea of using motivation in determining punishment violates equal protection under the law.
I'm arguing from a common sense approach, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. To me, it is fairly clear that lynching a black guy for trying to vote is a much more socially damaging kind of murder than killing your wife because she nagged you one time too many.
I have never felt threatened by anti-gay violence, therefore this is not needed.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2009, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 24, 2009, 02:04:28 PM
Sorry, the idea of using motivation in determining punishment violates equal protection under the law.
I'm arguing from a common sense approach, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. To me, it is fairly clear that lynching a black guy for trying to vote is a much more socially damaging kind of murder than killing your wife because she nagged you one time too many.
I don't think he was being serious. Surely, the claim is preposterous. Motivation is used all the time in determining the punishment.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2009, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 24, 2009, 02:04:28 PM
Sorry, the idea of using motivation in determining punishment violates equal protection under the law.
I'm arguing from a common sense approach, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. To me, it is fairly clear that lynching a black guy for trying to vote is a much more socially damaging kind of murder than killing your wife because she nagged you one time too many.
I think he's being sarcastic.*
Of course, motivation plays a role in determining punishment, but most of the time, deterrence is more of a factor than retribution. Think about the difference between first degree murder and second degree murder. In states that retain the difference, speaking generally, first degree murder is premeditated while second degree murder is in "the heat of the moment." First degree murder means you are death sentence eligible, while second degree murder means you may make it out of prison alive. Are both actions equally morally blameworthy? I'd say more or less, yes, of course, dependent on the circumstances. Obviously, in both cases, the main motivation in both cases to kill another human. Certainly, there are outliers one way or the other. What separates the two punishments mainly is deterrence: The idea that someone considering murdering someone may be deterred by the fact that if they are caught, they could potentially be executed or sent to prison for life. Meanwhile, someone in the heat of the moment most likely is not considering the legal repercussions of what they are doing, and therefore deterrence is less effective.
Now moving onto hate crime legislation, I think either deterrence or a retribution framework could justify a harsher punishment. Hate crimes, whether murder or otherwise, are more likely to be pre-meditated than a "regular crime." If that is true, at least theoretically a hate crime legislation would serve as more of a deterrence than using existing law. I think anyone could agree that hate crimes should be deterred. Likewise, from a retributive standpoint, hate crimes, at least in many circumstances, are more morally blameworthy than their non-hate counterparts. Many crimes are separated by degrees based on moral blameworthiness. For instance, certain theft offenses divide into either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the dollar value of what was stolen. That does not violate due process, that just how the law works. For the record, as I think Malthus suggested earlier, it would make more sense for hate crime legislation to operate on a victim selected by his or her "category" basis, as opposed to legislation simply recording possible categories.
----
*I know he's being sarcastic. Of course, motivation plays a role. I just read a case in which a 74 year old received five years probation and community service for strangling her 90 year old husband chronically ill husband. The wife had been taking of her husband for some time, and finally decided to perform a mercy killing. From what information I read, this wasn't simply a case of assisted suicide either. In any case, based on the facts, it seemed like a first degree murder charge would have been appropriate, but instead she was charged with second degree, and after pleading or being found, (I can't remember) guilty, the judge gave her that sentence.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2009, 01:19:02 PM
Hate crimes do no such thing. They add extra penalties to criminals who paint whole segments of lawful society with a broad stroke of the brush. Your argument is quite absurd, the motivation of a KKK member lynching a black guy and a sex offender molesting a child are radically different.
Thank you for so eloquently making my point. Hate crime legislation adds extra penalties to criminals above and beyond what is normal. The Sex Offender Registry adds extra penalties to criminals above and beyond what is normal.
You are correct. The motivation is different. A KKK member hates his victim because they are Black, Jewish, Yankee, Liberal, or what not. A sex offender loves their victim because they are young. One hates and the other loves but both are equally punished by adding extra penalties.
The problem really is a simple one. Discretion has largely been taken out of the hands of the Judges and it has been replaced by "guidelines". This was done to make sure that everyone received equal protection and treatment in the Courts. Guess what? Some people don't want to see equal treatment in the Courts. So, politicians create extra penalties to add to the "guidelines" they already inflicted on the judicial system. This creates the perception that the law is no longer unbiased which in turns makes those effected most by the new laws upset. And this makes it that much harder for minorities to be accepted.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:24:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 04:23:15 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
He he. He's right Speesh.
Which begs the question of why there has to be a special list at all. Why not treat all hate crimes the same?
Eh, this was probably an easier way to address the issue. After all, the GOP is not against hate crimes for blacks and religious groups; they just don't see beating up fags as a comparable wrong.
Lots of GOP regulars are opposed to hate crimes period. As are lots of civil libertarians.
Quote from: Scipio on October 25, 2009, 03:32:52 PM
Lots of GOP regulars are opposed to hate crimes period. As are lots of civil libertarians.
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.
QuoteLast week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
"All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance."
Based on that statement, CBSNews.com contacted Boehner's office to find out if the minority leader opposes all hate crimes legislation. The law as it now stands offers protections based on race, color, religion and national origin.
In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."
It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5381671.shtml
It is true that some Republican Congressmen do oppose all hate crimes, but that's not my real objection.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 03:38:41 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 25, 2009, 03:32:52 PM
Lots of GOP regulars are opposed to hate crimes period. As are lots of civil libertarians.
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.
See to me their position makes no sense. One could argue either for or against the very existance of hate crimes legislation; but once it exists, it is surely "more fair" to extend its reach rather than to restrict it. Whether or not those characteristics are "mutable" isn't a good criterion - would it be "okay" (as in not covered) for Muslims to go around attacking Christian converts, because they chose to be Christian?
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 03:45:30 PM
See to me their position makes no sense. One could argue either for or against the very existance of hate crimes legislation; but once it exists, it is surely "more fair" to extend its reach rather than to restrict it. Whether or not those characteristics are "mutable" isn't a good criterion - would it be "okay" (as in not covered) for Muslims to go around attacking Christian converts, because they chose to be Christian?
It makes perfect sense, if you think homosexuality is a morally wrong choice.
You basically summed up my feelings on hate crimes, BTW.
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 03:45:30 PM
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.
Quote from: citizen k on October 25, 2009, 03:59:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 03:45:30 PM
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.
Sure, to the extent some person is attacked for belonging to a group identity not covered by the law.
The more groups are added to the "list", the less this is true. If a person gets extra punishment for attacking a Jew because he's a Jew but not for attacking a gay because he's a gay, that's an affront to equal protection.
The best would be to make the law quite general, as Marty discussed above. Failing that, keep adding groups until everyone actually at risk is covered.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
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?
The slope! It's so slippery!
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 04:15:56 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 04:17:46 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 04:15:56 PM
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.
I personally think we should include additional penalties for crimes motivated by vice, venality, vindictiveness, weakness of will, and lack of moral fibre. :bowler:
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 04:21:26 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2009, 04:18:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 04:15:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:58:24 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 05:26:04 PM
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?
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 05:26:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:58:24 PM
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).
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 05:56:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 05:26:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:58:24 PM
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.
Quote from: stjaba on October 25, 2009, 07:13:33 PM
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.
:lmfao: I'm imagining a defendant arguing statutory rape is unconstitutional now. Thanks.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 03:38:41 PM
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? :lol:
Quote from: citizen k on October 25, 2009, 03:59:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 03:45:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2009, 04:18:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
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?
QuoteFBI statistics show there were 1,265 hate crimes based on sexual orientation in 2007, up from 1,017 two years earlier and 1,239 in 2003. That compares to 3,820 racially motivated incidents in 2007 and 1,400 in which the victim's religion was a factor.
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=13770
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population (which is much lower than the non-white people, not to mention religious people), these figures suggest they are more likely to be targeted than other minorities.
Also you have to feature in low reporting rates - the number of actual instance of violence against GLBT people is likely higher.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
Does it really matter how small of a percentage gays are?
According to Wiki, Jews make up only 2% of the US population, but most people don't have a problem prosecuting anti-semitic hate crimes.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
We had this conversation in a previous thread. 5-10% is a reasonable estimate. I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles. Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:27:57 PM
Let me get this straight: they are saying that religion is immutable but that sexual orientation is? :lol:
Isn't it? Once upon a time, gay people used to grow up, you know? These days, eternal childhood is considered a lifestyle choice. It's always a choice.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
Also you have to feature in low reporting rates - the number of actual instance of violence against GLBT people is likely higher.
And whose fault is that?
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
We had this conversation in a previous thread. 5-10% is a reasonable estimate. I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles. Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.
It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
We had this conversation in a previous thread. 5-10% is a reasonable estimate. I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles. Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.
It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.
Eh, I'd support a 4-8% range based on those numbers; what are you thinking?
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 09:37:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
We had this conversation in a previous thread. 5-10% is a reasonable estimate. I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles. Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.
It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.
Eh, I'd support a 4-8% range based on those numbers; what are you thinking?
Link me to something (not Kinsey) that shows a 8% estimate.
2-4% is it. I can't argue with it going as high as 5%, but nothing other than Kinsey (which is old and largely discredited) goes up to 10%.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 09:37:03 PM
Eh, I'd support a 4-8% range based on those numbers; what are you thinking?
Link me to something (not Kinsey) that shows a 8% estimate.
2-4% is it. I can't argue with it going as high as 5%, but nothing other than Kinsey (which is old and largely discredited) goes up to 10%.
Well, the 8% would assume a 50% combined underreporting bias and underregistration bias.
But there are quite a few surveys listed here that are 7% plus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results
While I'm not interested in what gays do I don't think we should make being gay a hate crime. That doesn't make alot of sense to me.
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
Well, the 8% would assume a 50% combined underreporting bias and underregistration bias.
But there are quite a few surveys listed here that are 7% plus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results
Your link doesn't say what you think it says. :mellow:
Almost all of the surveys mentioned put the % of homosexuals at <5%.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 03:38:41 PM
It is true that some Republican Congressmen do oppose all hate crimes, but that's not my real objection.
Right I can get that part and I am even a little sympathetic to it. They sorta lose all credibility when they start saying they are fine with hate crime legislation but just don't think committing crimes against gay people are hate crimes.
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
Well, the 8% would assume a 50% combined underreporting bias and underregistration bias.
But there are quite a few surveys listed here that are 7% plus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Modern_survey_results
Only the ones that asked them if they had ever had a homosexual experience. Which is a different question.
I suppose that makes me gay also. *licks his lips and thinks distantly of Marcin*
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
We had this conversation in a previous thread. 5-10% is a reasonable estimate. I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles. Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.
It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.
Well if we go with your 2% number, rather than 5-10%, it shows that a GLBT person is even more likely to be targeted with violence than I assumed, no?
So thanks for showing that hate crime legislation is even more necessary. :)
Quote from: stjaba on October 25, 2009, 07:13:33 PM
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.
You do understand the difference between hate crime legislation and statute law? There aren't extra penalties added on top of the normal statute, at least in NY.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 07:27:11 PM
:lmfao: I'm imagining a defendant arguing statutory rape is unconstitutional now. Thanks.
Marty tried doing that in a previous thread. :lmfao:
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 06:51:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 25, 2009, 05:56:08 PM
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.
Hence the notion that adding aggrieved groups to the list *increases* fairness. Ideally, eventually attacking someone for their identity, no matter what it is, would be "protected".
However, as it stands, having hate crimes protections which includes race and religion but not sexual orientation is unfair, for the reason you describe, and adding sexual orientation makes the law *less* unfair.
The problem I have is not with the notion that hate crimes legislation only protecting certain groups is unfair. I agree with that. The problem I have is with politicians who seem to be fine with hate crimes legislation and only as it were discover it's unfair when those protections are extended to gays. The impression I get is that these politicians are simply acting out of anti-gay animus.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population (which is much lower than the non-white people, not to mention religious people), these figures suggest they are more likely to be targeted than other minorities.
Also you have to feature in low reporting rates - the number of actual instance of violence against GLBT people is likely higher.
You do realize that only roughly 11-13% of the US is black and another 11-13% is hispanic? If you place homosexuals at 5-10% that places them very close to the percentages of the two main minorities in the US. It also likely means that they are the 3rd highest minority in the country. Also, according to the FBI, there are about 4,000 crimes committed a year per 100,000 people. The US has an estimated population of 303,824,640 (as of 2008) which means an estimated 12,152,000 crimes occur in the US a year.
You could multiply the crime committed intentionally against gay people by a factor of 10 and that still wouldn't be a drop in the bucket nor would it even justify special legislation at that number.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 09:06:48 AM
Hence the notion that adding aggrieved groups to the list *increases* fairness. Ideally, eventually attacking someone for their identity, no matter what it is, would be "protected".
However, as it stands, having hate crimes protections which includes race and religion but not sexual orientation is unfair, for the reason you describe, and adding sexual orientation makes the law *less* unfair.
The problem I have is not with the notion that hate crimes legislation only protecting certain groups is unfair. I agree with that. The problem I have is with politicians who seem to be fine with hate crimes legislation and only as it were discover it's unfair when those protections are extended to gays. The impression I get is that these politicians are simply acting out of anti-gay animus.
I am not sure what the motivation is of the politicians. It could be anti-gay animus or it could be that perhaps politicians feel that homosexuals have "arrived" and no longer need special protections. The whole civil marriage thing has kicked in the door and will lead to a lot of other benefits once denied same sex partners. I am not sure.
Quote from: Jaron on October 25, 2009, 04:30:57 PM
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?
It can and it does. The legal statutes of the State in question covers motivation. It's when you add "extra" penalties that it becomes a problem.
Does the guy driving the car deserve an extra few years in prison for hitting someone wearing all black at night who drunkenly stumbles into the road by accident because he is a card carrying KKK member? And we know all KKK members are racist, so it's obviously a hate crime.
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 09:14:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population (which is much lower than the non-white people, not to mention religious people), these figures suggest they are more likely to be targeted than other minorities.
Also you have to feature in low reporting rates - the number of actual instance of violence against GLBT people is likely higher.
You do realize that only roughly 11-13% of the US is black and another 11-13% is hispanic? If you place homosexuals at 5-10% that places them very close to the percentages of the two main minorities in the US. It also likely means that they are the 3rd highest minority in the country. Also, according to the FBI, there are about 4,000 crimes committed a year per 100,000 people. The US has an estimated population of 303,824,640 (as of 2008) which means an estimated 12,152,000 crimes occur in the US a year.
You could multiply the crime committed intentionally against gay people by a factor of 10 and that still wouldn't be a drop in the bucket nor would it even justify special legislation at that number.
Uhm, can you read or count? The statistics I quoted indicated that there were 3820
racially motivated crimes, not crimes against blacks only, and 1265 crimes against gay people.
So if we take the highest possible estimate, 10% of the population would be among those targeted in 1265 crimes, and 30% of the population (there are also Asians and other minorities, not just blacks and Hispanics) in 3820 crimes. Both rates are comparable, and it is hardly "a drop" for the gay people, unless you also mean the same for racially motivated crimes.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 09:06:48 AM
The problem I have is not with the notion that hate crimes legislation only protecting certain groups is unfair. I agree with that. The problem I have is with politicians who seem to be fine with hate crimes legislation and only as it were discover it's unfair when those protections are extended to gays. The impression I get is that these politicians are simply acting out of anti-gay animus.
I just want to say I like Malthus, he is a good man, but frankly I agree with everything he just said.
Could someone actually explain to me how is the US federal racist hate crime statute worded?
Is this for "crimes against blacks, Hispanics and Asians" (as Strix seems to believe) or for "crimes motivated by the race of the victim" that the extra penalty is applied? In other words, can a white person attacked because he or she is white, be a victim of a hate crime?
The wikipedia entry suggests that:
QuoteHate crime laws in the United States (also known as bias crimes) protect against crimes motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state and federal laws vary, typical protected characteristics are race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
so it seems that the hate crime laws are "color blind" (so a white protestant straight man can be a victim of a hate crime, if attacked by a commando of black atheist lesbians) and Strix is full of shit, and his "argument" is a strawman.
Of course, wikipedia can also be wrong.
Can any US lawyers weigh in?
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 09:36:26 AM
Uhm, can you read or count? The statistics I quoted indicated that there were 3820 racially motivated crimes, not crimes against blacks only, and 1265 crimes against gay people.
So if we take the highest possible estimate, 10% of the population would be among those targeted in 1265 crimes, and 30% of the population (there are also Asians and other minorities, not just blacks and Hispanics) in 3820 crimes. Both rates are comparable, and it is hardly "a drop" for the gay people, unless you also mean the same for racially motivated crimes.
Yes, they are both drops in a bucket. That's 3820 crimes committed against 60,000,000+ people. Does that seem like a lot to you? Against gays that 1265 crimes committed against 20,000,000-30,000,000+ people. That's something like .0006 of the gay population is effected by hate crime.
You seriously think that's a significant number?
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 09:40:42 AM
Could someone actually explain to me how is the US federal racist hate crime statute worded?
Is this for "crimes against blacks, Hispanics and Asians" (as Strix seems to believe) or for "crimes motivated by the race of the victim" that the extra penalty is applied? In other words, can a white person attacked because he or she is white, be a victim of a hate crime?
The recent amendment is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111ZjTeUI:e2000111:
The main work is done here:
QuoteSEC. 4707. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
-`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.
`(b) Certification Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
`(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
`(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;
`(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
`(3) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title;
`(4) the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and
`(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
`(d) Statute of Limitations-
`(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.
`(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
So yes, this applies in both directions.
So Strix is full of shit when he argues this violates equal protection? Well, should have expected it.
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 02:28:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
We had this conversation in a previous thread. 5-10% is a reasonable estimate. I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles. Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.
It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.
Well if we go with your 2% number, rather than 5-10%, it shows that a GLBT person is even more likely to be targeted with violence than I assumed, no?
So thanks for showing that hate crime legislation is even more necessary. :)
No problem.
I support hate crime legislation, and support including gays in that legislation. :)
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 09:47:27 AM
Yes, they are both drops in a bucket. That's 3820 crimes committed against 60,000,000+ people. Does that seem like a lot to you? Against gays that 1265 crimes committed against 20,000,000-30,000,000+ people. That's something like .0006 of the gay population is effected by hate crime.
You seriously think that's a significant number?
Hey, most people aren't victims of date rape, so why are we making that a crime?
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 09:40:42 AM
Could someone actually explain to me how is the US federal racist hate crime statute worded?
Is this for "crimes against blacks, Hispanics and Asians" (as Strix seems to believe) or for "crimes motivated by the race of the victim" that the extra penalty is applied? In other words, can a white person attacked because he or she is white, be a victim of a hate crime?
The recent amendment is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111ZjTeUI:e2000111:
The main work is done here:
QuoteSEC. 4707. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
-`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.
`(b) Certification Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
`(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
`(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;
`(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
`(3) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title;
`(4) the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics; and
`(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
`(d) Statute of Limitations-
`(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.
`(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
So yes, this applies in both directions.
Has it been? Have any minorities been convicted of a hate crime against whites or against a different minority?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 26, 2009, 10:15:09 AM
Hey, most people aren't victims of date rape, so why are we making that a crime?
There is no special legislation against "Date Rape" at least in NYS it falls under the Rape statutes and is treated accordingly without special protection for its victims. If they made special legislation giving extra time for date rape or for committing crimes while on a date than I would have issues.
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 09:51:58 AM
So yes, this applies in both directions.
Has it been? Have any minorities been convicted of a hate crime against whites or against a different minority?
Well, considering this bill hasn't become law yet, not under this statute.
I don't see actual conviction statistics broken down that far, but if you look at these 2005 California statistics you can see they track anti-white, anti-male, anti-Protestant, and anti-heterosexual hate crime incidents: http://www.ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf
Marty is easy to understand. He is insane and paranoid. He wants (and needs) to be treated special. :hug:
For the rest, the issue is simple. No one is arguing that hate motivated crimes do not occur. I am arguing that they don't occur often enough to warrant special legislation, and that extra penalties can (and should only) be added by the Judge. Creating special legislation adding extra penalties violates the ideal of equal protection for all under the law while also undermining the authority of the judiciary. The US has an important system of checks and balances which shouldn't be changed especially over something that affects so few crimes and people.
I dislike hate crime legislation not because of who it protects but because it's not good for the government nor its people. I would not have an issue if greater discretion was given back to the judiciary to allow more latitude in their sentencing.
This is feel good legislation that seems harmless but is anything but harmless.
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 09:51:58 AM
So yes, this applies in both directions.
Has it been? Have any minorities been convicted of a hate crime against whites or against a different minority?
Well, considering this bill hasn't become law yet, not under this statute.
I don't see actual conviction statistics broken down that far, but if you look at these 2005 California statistics you can see they track anti-white, anti-male, anti-Protestant, and anti-heterosexual hate crime incidents: http://www.ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf
I just wonder if it could be applied to violence against whites. I believe that in the US all the District Attorneys are elected (at least they were in NC and NY). I cannot see a DA charging a minority for a hate crime in a community with a large minority population i.e. most major cities in the US while I can also not see a DA charging a minority for a hate crime in a small place both for fear of being accused of racism.
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 11:05:56 AM
I just wonder if it could be applied to violence against whites.
Certainly there were 908 victims of anti-white hate crime in 2007 based on the FBI stats: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm
Strix: PAWNED
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 10:46:52 AM
This is feel good legislation that seems harmless but is anything but harmless.
Glen Beck says this is just the first step. You pass hate crimes legislature and then the commie-Nazis come for your dog. It's all there in the Rockefeller square! Just look for the signs, it's as plain as day.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 26, 2009, 10:15:09 AM
Hey, most people aren't victims of date rape, so why are we making that a crime?
Rape is already a crime, as Strix pointed out. So are assault and murder. The issue is whether there should be augmented sentences for date raping, say, college frehmen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2009, 12:12:42 PM
college frehmen.
I fail to see why Arrakis U coeds deserve special protection.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2009, 12:12:42 PM
Rape is already a crime, as Strix pointed out. So are assault and murder. The issue is whether there should be augmented sentences for date raping, say, college frehmen.
I get that logic. The question is not whether or not there should be hate crime legislation, there already is. If there is going to be something called hate crime legislation I do not see why homosexuals should not be included. I also fail to see why judges and juries cannot subjectively give out harsher sentences for hate crimes on their own without a federal law but that is neither here nor there.
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 10:46:52 AM
For the rest, the issue is simple. No one is arguing that hate motivated crimes do not occur.
Let me break down my objections, piece by piece.
QuoteI am arguing that they don't occur often enough to warrant special legislation,
How often does a crime need to occur to be worthy of punishment? If there were 10,000 instances, would that be enough? 100,000?
Quoteand that extra penalties can (and should only) be added by the Judge. Creating special legislation adding extra penalties violates the ideal of equal protection for all under the law while also undermining the authority of the judiciary.
I don't buy this, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. But I'll add another one. Sure, sentencing is often going to fall to the judiciary. But you're saying that the legislature is not allowed to determine punishments for crimes. Why not? Aren't you legislating from the bench here?
Canada's hate crime section:
Quote718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
As you can see we make it a factor to be considered on sentencing, not a whole separate crime. I don't get why you would do that.
Also I suspect that a crime motivated by hate based on sexual oreintation would have been catched by s. 718.2(a)(ii) with or without the words sexual orientation being included there.
Finally, if you're going to have such a thing as 'hate crimes' I can't see what justification there would be for not including sexual orientation as one of the factors.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 26, 2009, 12:25:15 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 26, 2009, 10:46:52 AM
I am arguing that they don't occur often enough to warrant special legislation,
How often does a crime need to occur to be worthy of punishment? If there were 10,000 instances, would that be enough? 100,000?
Since when does prevalence have to be a factor. Treason is almost never prosecuted in this country, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be one of the most serious crimes. Shoplifting happens constantly, but I'm not sure that should be a basis for making it a more serious crime.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 10:04:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 02:28:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 09:14:23 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 25, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:34:41 PM
If we consider that gay people make up between 5 and 10% of the population
:lol:
Try again.
We had this conversation in a previous thread. 5-10% is a reasonable estimate. I note that the self-identifying percentage in exit polls in the US has been 4% for 3 Presidential cycles. Considering that gays willing to self-identify are usually younger, and that younger people vote less often than older people, a 5-10% range is not unreasonable.
It is unreasonable, since the max upper range is 5%, and not the lower end of the range.
Well if we go with your 2% number, rather than 5-10%, it shows that a GLBT person is even more likely to be targeted with violence than I assumed, no?
So thanks for showing that hate crime legislation is even more necessary. :)
No problem.
I support hate crime legislation, and support including gays in that legislation. :)
Ok. :hug:
Quote from: Syt on October 26, 2009, 12:18:15 PM
I fail to see why Arrakis U coeds deserve special protection.
:P They have as much right as New Zealanders do.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 03:38:41 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 25, 2009, 03:32:52 PM
Lots of GOP regulars are opposed to hate crimes period. As are lots of civil libertarians.
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.
QuoteLast week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
"All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance."
Based on that statement, CBSNews.com contacted Boehner's office to find out if the minority leader opposes all hate crimes legislation. The law as it now stands offers protections based on race, color, religion and national origin.
In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics."
It should be noted that the current law does not include gender, though the expanded legislation would cover gender as well as sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.
"He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes," Smith continued.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5381671.shtml
It is true that some Republican Congressmen do oppose all hate crimes, but that's not my real objection.
Homos are apparently a discrete and insular minority, so to the extent that hate crimes laws are okay (which of course they are not, but whatevs) go ahead and include the pillowbiters as well.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 04:17:46 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 04:15:56 PM
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?
So if I think some coked up methhead is a piece of shit, it's worse to curb him than it is to curb someone I respect?
Quote from: Scipio on October 26, 2009, 12:51:49 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 04:17:46 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 04:15:56 PM
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?
So if I think some coked up methhead is a piece of shit, it's worse to curb him than it is to curb someone I respect?
It's worse to curb a methhead for the sole fact that he is a methhead, then it is to curb someone you have some real or imagined dispute with.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 12:30:02 PM
As you can see we make it a factor to be considered on sentencing, not a whole separate crime. I don't get why you would do that.
We actually have that too, since 1994:
QuoteSEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.
(a) DEFINITION- In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.
(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT- Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.
The reason for the specific law is that there's not a general assault / murder federal statute.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 12:53:34 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 26, 2009, 12:51:49 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 25, 2009, 04:17:46 PM
Quote from: Strix on October 25, 2009, 04:15:56 PM
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?
So if I think some coked up methhead is a piece of shit, it's worse to curb him than it is to curb someone I respect?
It's worse to curb a methhead for the sole fact that he is a methhead, then it is to curb someone you have some real or imagined dispute with.
I don't think it should be a crime to curb a methhead.
Quote from: Scipio on October 26, 2009, 12:51:49 PM
So if I think some coked up methhead is a piece of shit, it's worse to curb him than it is to curb someone I respect?
Depends on why you beat the crap out of them, obviously.
Quote from: Strix on October 23, 2009, 04:19:45 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
Hey, it protects heterosexuals against attacks based on sexual orientation too.
It won't work. When a group of homosexuals try to beat up a heterosexual bodybuilder . . .
Wait a sec . . . there are heterosexual bodybuilders?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 26, 2009, 03:23:31 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 26, 2009, 12:51:49 PM
So if I think some coked up methhead is a piece of shit, it's worse to curb him than it is to curb someone I respect?
Depends on why you beat the crap out of them, obviously.
Because I hate methheads. Duh.
Quote from: Scipio on October 26, 2009, 03:22:55 PM
I don't think it should be a crime to curb a methhead.
I'd vote for that.
So to sum it up: Not killing Martinus is a hate crime.
Quote from: Scipio on October 26, 2009, 12:50:22 PM
Homos are apparently a discrete and insular minority, so to the extent that hate crimes laws are okay (which of course they are not, but whatevs) go ahead and include the pillowbiters as well.
Some of these bitches can't keep their mouth shut.
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:14:33 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 26, 2009, 12:50:22 PM
Homos are apparently a discrete and insular minority, so to the extent that hate crimes laws are okay (which of course they are not, but whatevs) go ahead and include the pillowbiters as well.
Some of these bitches can't keep their mouth shut.
Let me help you with that.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrete
Quote from: A reasonably intelligent commentary by BalkinThis account shows us that Justice Stone's language is entirely apt: Prejudice against "discrete and insular minorities" is a "special condition" that prevents democratic procedures from moving us toward a more democratic culture. However, the condition is not "special" because it is "exceptional"-- because democracies normally do not feature status hierarchies. Indeed, democratic governments almost always exist against the backdrop of some forms of unjust status hierarchy. The problem has always been how to vindicate democracy in a society whose social organization is in important respects opposed to democratic culture. The condition Stone speaks of is "special" because it is a case where democratic procedures cannot be expected eventually to lead to a more democratic form of social organization. Here the zero-sum game of status politics works democracy into a rut, using the power of majorities to preserve unjust status hierarchies that they rightly see are in their interest to retain.
"Discreteness" and "insularity" are problematic terms. Neither term is synonymous with immutability. One might think the point is to protect "unpopular" groups. Yet political unpopularity is not the same thing as low social status in a status hierarchy. Rich people, for example, are often politically unpopular, but they do not have low social status. Quite the contrary: They are unpopular because they have high social status. Most people want to be rich even though they know that the rich are envied and resented; but most nonblacks do not want to be black. That is the difference between merely unpopular groups and groups on the bottom of a social hierarchy.
The language of "discrete and insular minorities" points, however awkwardly, toward the reality of status hierarchy and status competition in democratic societies. The metaphors of "discreteness" and "insularity" describe features of particularly egregious kinds of status hierarchies. They are inadequate metaphors because they describe special cases of more general phenomena. Both terms really refer to different forms of division and distinction through which status hierarchies are maintained and reproduced.(185)
Why emphasize this interpretation? The paradigmatic case of a "discrete and insular minority" in Stone's footnote surely must have been African Americans. Yet neither metaphor really applies to the paradigmatic case. Take discreteness: African Americans do not have one set of skin colors, or one set of facial features. Their color varies from dark to light; some can hardly be distinguished from whites, Hispanics, or Asian Americans. Nor are African Americans always "insular" in a geographical sense. There are now many racially segregated communities in the United States. But they were not always thus, particularly in the Jim Crow South.(186) Indeed, during the height of slavery, blacks were clearly not geographically isolated; they lived alongside whites. They were simply subordinate to them in all respects. A similar point can be made about women. Women are not geographically isolated from men but live with them as wives, daughters, and sisters.
We can make better sense of these metaphors if we reimagine them in terms of status hierarchies. Discreteness and insularity are metaphors of division that describe, albeit from a limited perspective, certain features of particularly egregious status hierarchies. "Discreteness," for example, really concerns the cultural categories that distinguish groups. In a status hierarchy, cultural markers--including dress, language, appearance, behavior, systems of belief, styles of life, or even so-called immutable characteristics--demarcate members of status groups and organize them into hierarchies. "Discreteness" refers to what distinguishes people into groups so that stratification can proceed. Yet the metaphor is also partly misleading because this semiotic organization can exist either in binary categories or along a continuum. For example, it is possible both for whites to have higher social status than blacks, and for lighter-skinned blacks to have higher social status than darker-skinned blacks. Discrimination against darker-skinned blacks by lighter-skinned blacks should not be constitutionally unprotected simply because there is no bright line that separates them.(187)
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 12:20:20 PM
I get that logic. The question is not whether or not there should be hate crime legislation, there already is. If there is going to be something called hate crime legislation I do not see why homosexuals should not be included. I also fail to see why judges and juries cannot subjectively give out harsher sentences for hate crimes on their own without a federal law but that is neither here nor there.
Has anybody seen the latest sentencing guidelines for those crimes?
Do judges get a lot of leeway in meting out punishment for those charges or could this also be a power squabble between Congress and USDOJ?