Reporting a hate crime is notoriously hard. Can this digital tool change that?
- Thread starter SummerMadness
- Start date
fat wee robin
Newbie
Agree with you about the thought police thing ,and of course all crimes are commited in hate .Never heard of it throughout my generation, crimes were just crimes and I would understand why since I highly doubt crimes (if they be true crimes against persons or property) are rarely done in love.
Seems to be moving toward a kind of conditioning where thought police could likely become a reality.
Glad I'll be close to dead as that comes into fruition
Fascism always begins with trying to force a way of thinking,their thinking and then making it a crime not to agree with said thinking .
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
Not all crimes are committed in hate (aversion). Some crimes are committed because of love (attachment); e.g. someone steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. Other crimes are committed because of delusion; e.g. someone is mentally insane.
The three (delusion, aversion, attachment) are considered the Three Poisons in Buddhism, and constitute the roots of all suffering in the world.
Communism too!
Upvote
0
Wisconsin v. Mitchell (92-515), 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
But it is equally true that a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, may not be taken into consideration by a sentencing judge. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U. S. ---- (1992). In Dawson, the State introduced evidence at a capital sentencing hearing that the defendant was a member of a white supremacist prison gang. Because "the evidence proved nothing more than [the defendant's] abstract beliefs," we held that its admission violated the defendant's First Amendment rights. Id., at ---- (slip op., at 7). In so holding, however, we emphasized that "the Constitution does not erect a per se barrierto the admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because those beliefs and associations are protected by the First Amendment." Id., at ---- (slip op., at 5). Thus, in Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (plurality opinion), we allowed the sentencing judge to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim. The evidence in that case showed that the defendant's membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a "race war" were related to the murder of a white man for which he was convicted. See id., at 942-944. Because "the elements of racial hatred in [the] murder" were relevant to several aggravating factors, we held that the trial judge permissibly took this evidence into account in sentencing the defendant to death. Id., at 949, and n. 7.
But it is equally true that a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, may not be taken into consideration by a sentencing judge. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U. S. ---- (1992). In Dawson, the State introduced evidence at a capital sentencing hearing that the defendant was a member of a white supremacist prison gang. Because "the evidence proved nothing more than [the defendant's] abstract beliefs," we held that its admission violated the defendant's First Amendment rights. Id., at ---- (slip op., at 7). In so holding, however, we emphasized that "the Constitution does not erect a per se barrierto the admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because those beliefs and associations are protected by the First Amendment." Id., at ---- (slip op., at 5). Thus, in Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (plurality opinion), we allowed the sentencing judge to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim. The evidence in that case showed that the defendant's membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a "race war" were related to the murder of a white man for which he was convicted. See id., at 942-944. Because "the elements of racial hatred in [the] murder" were relevant to several aggravating factors, we held that the trial judge permissibly took this evidence into account in sentencing the defendant to death. Id., at 949, and n. 7.
Upvote
0
Hate crime is a specific legal term, so saying all crimes are committed in hate is irrelevant. Not all crimes are hate crimes.
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
How did they prove "racial animus towards his victim"?
Evidence is not proof. For example ... if some happens to join a pre-labeled "terrorist organization" - not because they agreed with their ideology - but for other reasons, e.g. ignorance, infiltration, reporting purposes, etc. How can others judge the intent of their heart?
Someone who commits a murder should be convicted of said murder. That is the one, actual crime committed.
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
The basis for "hate crimes" is the idea that someone can adequately & directly discern the condition and state of another man's heart and intentions. Since it has yet to be proven that anyone possesses the ability to do just that, there should therefore be no such thing as "hate crimes". Crimes yes, "hate crimes" no.
Upvote
0
- Jul 1, 2013
- 9,199
- 8,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Why does someone's identity seemingly make the reality of the crime worse? Murder is murder. I've never understood why the victim's identity should be a factor when assigning punishment to the perpetrator.
Upvote
0
Fireinfolding
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2006
- 27,263
- 4,084
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
These days, I would definately take it before the court of the ungodly to judge.
Places where similar accusations fly (even within various christian forums) so-called don't often require their participants to substantiate these sort of claims against others with proofs moreso from the horses mouth (so to speak) but just let folks run at the mouth accusing falsely (inserting words into others mouths). Seems pretty common these days as it was the former also
Jerm 5:26 For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.
Luke 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
Isaiah 29:21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
fat wee robin
Newbie
We clearly have very different cultures and reference points . In most cases, stealing a loaf of bread is NOT a CRIME , but a small misdeamenour, and fascism is simply a regime , which forces everyone to a singular way of thinking , and punishes them for not doing so , making it a Law of the state . You can call it what you want but that is fascism .
PS I do not have time nor inclination to pursue this line of thinking .So I wish you well .
Upvote
0
That's not what the Rehnquist opinion on hate crime sentencing says... but for some reason, the is ignored (along with the legal definition) to make facile arguments about dictionary definitions for love and hate.
Upvote
0
- Oct 26, 2006
- 21,868
- 6,275
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
You realize that just because the SCOTUS approved of it, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Also, did you actually read the link you provided? Because the racist in that circumstance was black and the victim white. I dislike hate crime laws, but at least it was applied consistently in this case.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Why does it matter that the perpetrator was black and the victim was white? That doesn't change the designation of a hate crime.
And yes, you can disagree with a Supreme Court decision, but you need to base your argument on the legal language, not the dictionary. If they were called thumbtack crimes, starting your argument complaining about the definition of a thumbtack is not relevant to the legal definition.
It's interesting to see people against hate crimes, but they never say anything about terrorism charges.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,712
- 14,596
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I agree with you in theory...however, that's not how things work in actual implementation.
When FBI directors are saying things like this:
The FBI's hate crimes statistics for 1993, which similarly reported 20% of all hate crimes to be committed against white people, prompted Jill Tregor, assistant regional FBI director, to decry it as "an abuse of what the hate crime laws were intended to cover", stating that the white victims of these crimes were employing hate crime laws as a means to further penalize minorities.
...it's pretty obvious that hate crime laws weren't designed to "protect all of us". They were put in place to discourage the majority from picking on the minority. Which, if that was what they wanted, fine, they should just be honest about their intentions.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
