Hate Crimes Bill

dies-l · Apr 30, 2009

This seems to be a pretty emotional issue, especially amng Conservatives. But, it seems that the emotionalism on both sides of issues such as these sometimes creates a distorted picture of what is really going on and makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So, I am wondering what other moderates think of the "hate crimes bill" that passed the House today. Some Conservatives seem to think that it is the death knell of free speech in America. I haven't heard much from Liberals, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who hope it will be the death knell of free speech.

Having read it, I don't see anything to be all that concerned about here, but I am interested in what other moderates think of this.

Texas Lynn · May 4, 2009

I think the accusation this bill will affect free speech issues at all is prevarication of the most cynically manipulative type.

dies-l · May 4, 2009

Texas Lynn said:
I think the accusation this bill will affect free speech issues at all is prevarication of the most cynically manipulative type.

Certainly, I agree with you that it is not a "free speech" issue. I also agree with you that those who treat it as a free speech issue tend to be on the cynical side of life. However, I am yet undecided whether is truly deliberate dihonesty for the purpose of manipulation or whether it is an honest misunderstanding fueled by a cynical worldview.

I suspect that the accusation started out as dishonsty. But, it seems that a fair number of people have come to sincerely believe that their right to express their opinions is at stake.

I am interested to see what other moderate Christians think about this.

Texas Lynn · May 4, 2009

dies-l said:
Certainly, I agree with you that it is not a "free speech" issue. I also agree with you that those who treat it as a free speech issue tend to be on the cynical side of life. However, I am yet undecided whether is truly deliberate dihonesty for the purpose of manipulation or whether it is an honest misunderstanding fueled by a cynical worldview.

I suspect that the accusation started out as dishonsty. But, it seems that a fair number of people have come to sincerely believe that their right to express their opinions is at stake.

They've been punk'd.

Izdaari Eristikon · May 5, 2009

I don't see anything in the bill that restricts freedom of speech. It restricts "willfully causing bodily harm", but that's a good thing.

Texas Lynn · May 5, 2009

Izdaari said:
I don't see anything in the bill that restricts freedom of speech. It restricts "willfully causing bodily harm", but that's a good thing.

That seems to be a reasoned analysis. But the "sky is falling" people are not responding to rational things.

AzA · May 5, 2009

HR 1913 (now S 909) does not criminalize speech, thought, or private doctrine. It doesn't even criminalize violent crimes of bias because those have been well-defined and criminal in this country since the 1960s.

What it does do is allow federal law enforcement agencies to support state prosecution of these crimes with resources and funding. It adds another four protected classes to the original four. It limits the maximum possible sentencing for these crimes such that the death penalty is not in play. And it loosens some restrictions on when a crime can be called a hate crime and treated as such.

That is all.

I don't mind if people object to these things because they are antifederalist, or because they don't like the idea of certain groups of people being singled out under any circumstances -- though when you find me someone who is consistent about that, let me know.

I do mind people misreading the law and teaching others to misread it. There are significant responsibilities associated with teaching and that is why not everyone should do it.

ChristianCritic · May 5, 2009

dies-l said:
This seems to be a pretty emotional issue, especially amng Conservatives. But, it seems that the emotionalism on both sides of issues such as these sometimes creates a distorted picture of what is really going on and makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So, I am wondering what other moderates think of the "hate crimes bill" that passed the House today. Some Conservatives seem to think that it is the death knell of free speech in America. I haven't heard much from Liberals, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who hope it will be the death knell of free speech.

Having read it, I don't see anything to be all that concerned about here, but I am interested in what other moderates think of this.

It's definitely not the "death knell" of free speech, but I understand the concerns of some conservatives that it could lead to legislation that punishes "hate speech." Regarding the specific issue of whether it is fair and beneficial to punish the same act of violence more severely if it is motivated by hatred for a particular group, on one hand, I don't think that the lives and well-being of minority groups are "worth more" than that of non-minorities (which is what some opponents of hate crime bills suggest the bill stands for). I do think that the motivation for a crime can be a factor in determining sentences. For example, second degree "in the heat of passion" murder has a lower sentence than first degree "premeditated" muder. Also, if an offender is motivated by hatred towards an entire group as opposed to a single individual, then that offender is more likely to become a recidivist because there are so many more victims to target and those victims need not do anything to provoke the offender--what the offender finds offensive is something inherent to the victim's group.

ChristianCritic · May 5, 2009

dies-l said:
This seems to be a pretty emotional issue, especially amng Conservatives. But, it seems that the emotionalism on both sides of issues such as these sometimes creates a distorted picture of what is really going on and makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So, I am wondering what other moderates think of the "hate crimes bill" that passed the House today. Some Conservatives seem to think that it is the death knell of free speech in America. I haven't heard much from Liberals, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who hope it will be the death knell of free speech.

Having read it, I don't see anything to be all that concerned about here, but I am interested in what other moderates think of this.

I do want to say for the record that while I have no problem with hate crime bills, I do oppose criminalizing hate speech or penalizing people for being politically incorrect. I do believe that freedom of speech is ultimately beneficial for everyone, and that even a racist has a greater chance of changing his viewpoints if he has a chance to air them out and discuss them with others. I highly recommend reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill--there is a section in that treatise on Freedom of Speech and Discussion.

spinningtutu · Jul 27, 2009

I think the bill was long overdue

Texas Lynn · Jul 28, 2009

The bill passed as a part of the Defense Reauthorization Bill but the final form of the legislation must be resolved between the House and the Senate. Because there is a controversy-the bill excludes an aircraft some Congressmen want but that Obama and the military do not want-it will be a rough conference committee. In the end that should not affect the hate crimes legislation though.

plmarquette · Oct 28, 2009

The hate crime "rhetoric" seems to be one sided...protecting one facet of society, percieved as being "oppressed", and the "perception" of guilt by the "usual suspects", who disagree with them....oppose their agenda's and doctrine....

And in the same breath...the ACLU defends the "rights" of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's to exist and parade in Skokie ,IL. ....., protects the privacy of the "predators" from their neighbors, and neighborhoods....

Some thing is messed up....

spinningtutu · Nov 7, 2009

I dunno... I've been a victim of hate crimes in the past (on one incident having to live in a wheelchair for a significant amount of time)... Seems kinda surreal and bizarre to think that only a few weeks ago it was still "legal" to hate me...

Well, guess I should enjoy the legal right to be for the few weeks I have left...

[At least it actually has been passed and is legal now]

DRK · Nov 20, 2009

My concern with it is the fact that it is used for political reasons. What I mean is people use it to score points with groups. It's like passing a law that outlaws texting in your car when there are already laws on the books that deal with unsafe driving that would cover this.

Enforce the laws we have first then if those don't cover something then fix the law or create a new one.

I am tired of being a nation of lawyers who are hell bent on making our lives more and more complicated.

Dark_Lite · Nov 21, 2009

The idea that any hate crime bill is needed is indicative of an overall problem in society. Certain groups should not have to be protected under the law. Every group should be protected equally. Unfortunately, most societies don't seem to be able to get along nicely, or at least tolerate each other, and stuff like this is necessary. This bill is needed. As long as it's not restricting things like freedom of speech, then it's all good.

its_nick · Dec 2, 2009

Hate is a shame. Perhaps a sin. It is not a crime. In my view.

If sentencing options for battery, for example, are expanded based upon the hateful, bigoted *motivation* that some neanderthal had for the beating...then my concern is that it will be possible someday to prosecute and punish for the motive alone. I don't think that would be a good thing.

dies-l · Dec 2, 2009

its_nick said:
Hate is a shame. Perhaps a sin. It is not a crime. In my view.

If sentencing options for battery, for example, are expanded based upon the hateful, bigoted *motivation* that some neanderthal had for the beating...then my concern is that it will be possible someday to prosecute and punish for the motive alone. I don't think that would be a good thing.

Motive is already a factor that is considered in many criminal prosecutions. For example, what is the difference between 1st degree murder (which is a capita or life offense in every state) and negligent homicide (which is usually a fairly light felony). In both cases, the perpetrator's actions cause the death of another human being. The only element that differs between is the mental state of the person who committed the crime (known by lawyers and legal scholars as the mens rea). In the case of 1st degree murder, the perpetrator is said to have acted intentionally and to have deliberated beforehand. In the case of neg. hom., the perpetrator is said to have acted negligently.

I don't see how it is all that different to say that when a person commits a violent act that is motivated by intense hate for a particular group of people that society has an interest in punishing that motivation. This does not make it a crime to have an unpopular opinion or even to have hatred towards a certain group, so long as one does not criminally and violently act out against that group. And, there is nothing that suggests that this is the beginning of any sort of slippery slope toward that end. The idea of motive as a factor in determining punishment is absolutely nothing new.

its_nick · Dec 2, 2009

I think it's very different, in fact, dies-l. I think there's a very significant distinction.

The hate crime situation seems very unlike the significant distinction drawn between first degree murder and negligent homicide. To my mind, it's more like trying to draw a distinction between first degree murder motivated by the unfaithfulness of a spouse and first degree murder motivated by the murderer's desire for the property of the victim.

In the first-degree vs. negligent homicides comparison, the issue seems to be intended and planned taking of life over against want of proper regard or care for the life of another that results in unintended ending of life.

(And though I'm pretty certain this isn't even germane to the point you've made, I would add that the taking of the life of, for instance, a homosexual because he is homosexual could be either murder in the first degree or negligent homicide. And I suppose that it might be prosecuted as a hate crime in either case.)

The distinction between first-degree murder and negligent homicide would seem to be precisely whether or not there was intent. Determination of hate crime or not seems to hang not on the presence of intent, but rather on the content or nature of the intent that is already clearly present.

But I'm no legal scholar...nor any other kind, for that matter.

Blessings.

dies-l · Dec 3, 2009

its_nick said:
I think it's very different, in fact, dies-l. I think there's a very significant distinction.

The hate crime situation seems very unlike the significant distinction drawn between first degree murder and negligent homicide. To my mind, it's more like trying to draw a distinction between first degree murder motivated by the unfaithfulness of a spouse and first degree murder motivated by the murderer's desire for the property of the victim.

In the first-degree vs. negligent homicides comparison, the issue seems to be intended and planned taking of life over against want of proper regard or care for the life of another that results in unintended ending of life.

(And though I'm pretty certain this isn't even germane to the point you've made, I would add that the taking of the life of, for instance, a homosexual because he is homosexual could be either murder in the first degree or negligent homicide. And I suppose that it might be prosecuted as a hate crime in either case.)

The distinction between first-degree murder and negligent homicide would seem to be precisely whether or not there was intent. Determination of hate crime or not seems to hang not on the presence of intent, but rather on the content or nature of the intent that is already clearly present.

But I'm no legal scholar...nor any other kind, for that matter.

Blessings.

I chose the examples that I did to make my point as clear as possible (they are the two extremes of homicide in most jurisdictions). But, there are other shades of homicide that are treated as less severe than 1st degree murder that involve an intentional act. For example, most states would prosecute a murder differently if, say, a man found his wife in bed with another man and lost his temper as opposed to if he was angry because his wife had spent too much money on her latest shopping trip (the former would be treated as intentional manslaughter or perhaps 2nd degree murder, depending on the circumstances; the latter as 2nd or perhaps 1st degree murder). The point is that it is commonly accepted within our legal system that certain mental states justify more extreme punishments than others, even if the resulting action is the same.

It is completely in line with this idea to say that hatred or contempt for an entire group of people, based upon some trait that we as a society deem involuntary or otherwise worthy of protection (such as religion and perhaps sexual orientation), should be penalized, if this hatred or contempt actualizes in violent or otherwise criminal behavior. The issue is not whether we should punish people more severely based upon the reason or mental state behind their criminal activity. This is already well established. The real issues is (a) whether hatred toward certain groups is a mental state that we have an societal interest in preventing inasmuch as it is results in violent and criminal behavior, and (b) what types of group hatred warrant this type of discouragement.

its_nick · Dec 3, 2009

Thanks. Your argument is clearer to me. I'll make sure to keep it in mind.

Blessings.

Hate Crimes Bill

dies-l

Guest

Well-Known Member

dies-l

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

NF | NT

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Member

Chewbacha

Cubs fan

dies-l

Guest

Cubs fan

dies-l

Guest

Cubs fan

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency