Blood On Their Hands - Will Grigg

[Rab Tull]

"Hate crimes" statutes invert the priorities described by Justice Felix Frankfurter (in a moment of atypical wisdom): "Law is concerned with external behavior and not the inner life of man." By enhancing the penalty for criminal acts either provably or putatively rooted in certain proscribed attitudes, "hate crimes" statutes impermissibly assert the government's jurisdiction over the inner life of individuals. This is, in principle, an assertion of totalitarian power.

Read the article HERE

Grace & Peace, Rab

 

[nvxplorer]

"Hate crimes" statutes invert the priorities described by Justice Felix Frankfurter (in a moment of atypical wisdom): "Law is concerned with external behavior and not the inner life of man." By enhancing the penalty for criminal acts either provably or putatively rooted in certain proscribed attitudes, "hate crimes" statutes impermissibly assert the government's jurisdiction over the inner life of individuals. This is, in principle, an assertion of totalitarian power.

Read the article HERE

Grace & Peace, Rab

Nonsense. Hate crime laws are concerned with external behavior; specifically, violent behavior. You are still free to hate all you want, and you can even organize that hatred and march in its support.

 

[DerSchweik]

Nonsense. Hate crime laws are concerned with external behavior; specifically, violent behavior. You are still free to hate all you want, and you can even organize that hatred and march in its support.

Existing laws already cover the behaviors that "hate crimes" seek to enhance or redefine with additional punishment or criteria based solely on attitudes the person may have for the victim - which of course is why they're dubbed "hate crimes." Given that all manner of violent behavior is already covered by existing laws, and all punishments are prescribed too, how in the world can one say that "hate" crime is concerned with external behaviors? They're NOT.

 

[revanneosl]

Existing laws already cover the behaviors that "hate crimes" seek to enhance or redefine with additional punishment or criteria based solely on attitudes the person may have for the victim - which of course is why they're dubbed "hate crimes." Given that all manner of violent behavior is already covered by existing laws, and all punishments are prescribed too, how in the world can one say that "hate" crime is concerned with external behaviors? They're NOT.

Then by the same logic, rape of a child should not be tried nor sentenced differently than rape of an adult; kidnapping for ransom should not be tried nor sentenced differently than what is now called "custodial interference"; killing one's spouse because he was unfaithful should not be tried nor sentenced differently than killing a mugger in self defense.

 

[nvxplorer]

Existing laws already cover the behaviors that "hate crimes" seek to enhance or redefine with additional punishment or criteria based solely on attitudes the person may have for the victim - which of course is why they're dubbed "hate crimes." Given that all manner of violent behavior is already covered by existing laws, and all punishments are prescribed too, how in the world can one say that "hate" crime is concerned with external behaviors? They're NOT.

Your argument lacks cohesion. That there may be existing laws is irrelevant. Read the law. It covers violent acts. It does not cover attitudes.

 

[DerSchweik]

Your argument lacks cohesion. That there may be existing laws is irrelevant. Read the law. It covers violent acts.

I'm almost certain that's what I said - behaviors equalling acts.

It does not cover attitudes.

I'm almost certain I covered this as well, the prescribed punishments being a function of not only the act (behavior) itself, but considers special circumstances - mitigating or aggravating conditions - as well. Those prescriptions are already in place and part of the deliberative process.

What are you telling me, that if because someone is of a particular color, a particular religion (or not), a particular sexual persuasion, a particular nationality - hey, let's cut right to the chase - a particular OPINION OR BELIEF - are you telling me that if another were to murder, rob, assault, rape, or commit some other felony against that person who is in one or more of the above categories, that the law does NOT COVER either such behavior or special circumstances right now? Is that what you're telling me? If it is, you would be wrong.

These "hate" crime laws are being promoted to make it unlawful to HOLD ATTITUDES, to HOLD OPINIONS against certain pre-defined groups of people such that the HOLDING of such [attitude/opinion] is itself a crime - a crime of someone else's definition of what it means to "hate."

They're being promoted to protect special interest groups like - oh I don't know - the homosexual lobby, whose primary interest is to silence or eliminate altogether those who believe their behaviors are wrong. And this is already happening - ministers, for example, are being tried and convicted and punished for speaking out against homosexuality from the pulpit - on the basis that such proclamations are "hateful."

I daresay an atheist, for example, would not want a law enacted that made atheism a "hate" crime. Or, our political climate changing as it does periodically, the pendulum of public opinion swinging alternatively between conservatism and liberalism - suppose public opinion were swayed to consider one of these political views a "hate" crime?

Such possibilities are not at all out of the realm of possibility; indeed, we have examples from recent human history where such attitudes were held as public dangers and prosecuted as felonies. This is not speculative fear-mongering - but a very real possibility which everyone who holds a contrary opinion/belief to ones that are currently in the vogue should be seriously afraid.

 

[Grizzly]

What are you telling me, that if because someone is of a particular color, a particular religion (or not), a particular sexual persuasion, a particular nationality - hey, let's cut right to the chase - a particular OPINION OR BELIEF - are you telling me that if another were to murder, rob, assault, rape, or commit some other felony against that person who is in one or more of the above categories, that the law does NOT COVER either such behavior or special circumstances right now? Is that what you're telling me? If it is, you would be wrong.

It's my understanding is that if you commit a crime BECAUSE someone was in a protected group, then you might get the "hate crime" component attached to your crime. For example, you can hate black people all you want - and you can even rob a black person - and still not have it considered to be a hate crime. You have to rob the person BECAUSE he is black.

Personally, I am against the idea of hate crimes because it discriminates against certain types of criminals (it treats certain criminals unfairly). But the hate crime bill hasn't introduced one single new category of crime. Not one. This law only applies to existing crimes. Someone who commits a crime based on hatred of a protected group will get a harsher sentence.

But I see alot of Christians worried about this bill. <staff edit> Hate Speech is still protected speech (as well as it should be). <staff edit> You'll be able to do all the things you did before. <staff edit>

 

[Grizzly]

Rab is right. The law punishes criminal acts that are believed to be caused out of hate more than criminal acts that aren't. And since there is no real way of know what's inside a man's heart, this is a bad law.

It discriminates against certain types of criminals.

 

[Maren]

You do realize that hate crime laws have been a part of Federal Law for 40 years? This makes the rant about how it is going to suddenly morph into "thought crimes", how it has happened frequently in the last few years, seem like the scare-mongering it is. Oh, and atheists have been covered by hate crime laws for 40 years as religion (which is extended to a lack of religion) was covered by the original federal hate crime law. What happened now is that sexual orientation was added to federal hate crime statutes.

Now, the true reasoning is the same as laws against terrorism. From your arguments there is no reason to have laws against terrorism -- after all, they can still be adequately prosecuted for the murders and other crimes they can commit, right?

The idea behind hate crime laws is that they are a more limited form of terrorism; rather than terror against the entire US, hate crimes are terror against a single group of citizens (belonging to one of the protected classes) in the United States.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

"Hate crimes" statutes invert the priorities described by Justice Felix Frankfurter (in a moment of atypical wisdom): "Law is concerned with external behavior and not the inner life of man." By enhancing the penalty for criminal acts either provably or putatively rooted in certain proscribed attitudes, "hate crimes" statutes impermissibly assert the government's jurisdiction over the inner life of individuals. This is, in principle, an assertion of totalitarian power.

It's the old saw about your right to swinging your fist ending where someone else's nose begins. So hate crimes are not about "inner lives" but rather outward actions.

Having said that, I have mixed feelings about hate crime laws. I think the penalties for premeditated, wanton, unprovoked violence toward innocent people or the property thereof should be high enough no additional penalties are necessary. Drag a man to death behind a truck, you earn a noose. Burn a family out of their home, you get arson and attempted murder and fifteen years in a labor camp (not a prison where you lift weights and watch TV all day).

Do that, and we won't need hate crimes law. As far as organized groups (the Klan, etc.) we have conspiracy and RICO statutes, and anti-terrorism laws.