The Truth about Hate Crimes

[BigBadWlf]

When one of the "moral" people is arguing for the side of the murderers.

Examples:
1983
In Washington DC a gay man was abducted, slashed with a knife, kicked, and urinated on. His two attackers would later be found guilty and sentenced to probation.

A judge in Texas was censured for giving a light sentence to a teenager who murdered two men because they were gay. He explained the sentence by saying that he couldn't give a life sentence to a teenage boy just because he killed a couple of homosexuals.

1985
A gay man was beaten to death by a man who feared he could contract AIDS because he drank from the same bottle as the man. He would be sentenced to three months in prison for the murder.

Is that justice?

Having been down the hate crime road in these forums before I can only say how saddened I am that there are a good number of posters here who believe a Christians who assaults and murders a homosexual is a hero. I am just shocked that more right wing Christians have not posted in support of the criminals you mentioned

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Good thing that Christians don't think it's criminal then, right?

I mean, since it's a "thoughtcrime" then Christians should be totally against anyone being prosecuted.

No?

OK.

I'll go with the odds.



-----You know guys, most people like us. We should be happy about that.

 

[b&wpac4]

I am generally liberal, but I don't support hate crime laws. It just seems too vague in a lot of ways. We have different degrees of murder because we can clearly define what each degree is. It is a lot harder to define if someone murdered another person due to something as hard to know as the emotion behind it.

 

[LittleNipper]

People often ask why there is a differentiation between Crime and Hate Crime. If I kill you, how is that different just because of my skin color? Aren't both the same?

Well, if I want to kill my wife because I know that she's been cheating on me, send the kids off to their grandmothers, then wait for my wife with a shotgun, I am charged with premeditated Murder, 1st Degree.

If I walk in on my wife having sex with someone, and in anger, shoot her, I can argue that my emotions took over, and be charge 2nd Degree Murder, a "murder of passion."

If I am driving drunk and accidentally kill my wife, its Manslaughter.

The intention matters.

In Hate Crime, there is a difference.
People who want to steal for drugs, look for anyone who is an easy target.
But these people usually have a record.

People with Hate crimes target people who they deem ok to beat up, because society has told them that they are bad for everyone.

So, at one time, drunk boys went out bashing gay guys, and others thought, well, what did gay guys expect?

There was a time when people thought it was their right to take a black man from his home, sting him up in the middle of the night, and strangle the life out of him, and leave him there for everyone else to fear, and wonder who they were coming for next. And they weren't "criminals". The people in hood were people they saw every day, on the street, the baker, the banker, the store clerk, and they caused terror. There were terrorists, and dared to burn a cross, a total sacrelige of it meaning.

So, it was disturbing when I read this:

Assault on red-haired student investigated as hate crime
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081121/canada/calgary_calgary_kick_ginger_attack_1

On South Park, there was a parody of hatred, about why red haired people are evil, and deserved to be killed, etc.
And it motivated the kids to then go out, and attack a kid, because he had red hair.

And that's the Truth about Hate Crimes - that the only real difference between a person who commits a Crime, and a Hate Crime is that the person committing the Crime knows he's a criminal. The person doing the Hate Crime thinks he's innocent, justified, or even called to do it out of duty, for the good of the people. But he is a criminal.

The Truth seems to be that for many, the only think that keeps them from beating up other people, or even killing them, is the law, and that makes you the same as someone who kills people anyway. I mean, a murderer has to have the thoughts first. Your thoughts fuel your words, and then its just a matter of finding someone who you can justify hurting, or killing even.

Why?
Because they dress funny.
Because they have a funny accent.
Because they are gay, or ever look gay.

Because they have red hair.

Even the lamest excuse will work, to justify the hatred, destruction, murder, and contempt for others that hides in their hearts like a leopard, just waiting for prey to pounce.

"Hate Crime" is the word applied by State Religion and the priesthood of Secular Humanists to label those which murder only for the fun of it. If someone murders because they want my money or they don't like my nose, I'm no less dead; however, the Federal Government needs an excuse to actively investigate some and shrug at others... So they make the murder of some a religious priority ---- though they will not admit to such...

 

[keith99]

Since I have heard some reasonable explainations I favor 'Hate Crimes' laws in theory. But I have some problems in practice.

It seems if a hit a guy who makes an unwanted and rude pass at my daughter I'm apt to go scott free. If I do the same for my son I'll be accused of a 'hate crime'.

If I shoot at my Russian, Jewish, Christian, African-American or Gay neighbor the same may happen. If the neighbor can claim no group it can not.

I think a needful requierment for something to be a 'hate crime' is a lack of provocation. The provocation by the victim needs to be lacking or so small the responce is totally out of proportion. I count a randomness as fulfilling this. So if a cycle of increasing provocation is involved and it can be shown the perpetrator started things simply because the victim belonged to a class of people then it qualifies.

In short if there is motive aside from membership in the group a 'hate crime' is pretty much rules out. Simple membership in a group does not make someone more important than anyone else. (BTW that hits both ways, it does not make them less important either and some cases referenced are disgusting in that respect).

 

[Andreusz]

Examples:
1983
In Washington DC a gay man was abducted, slashed with a knife, kicked, and urinated on. His two attackers would later be found guilty and sentenced to probation.

A judge in Texas was censured for giving a light sentence to a teenager who murdered two men because they were gay. He explained the sentence by saying that he couldn't give a life sentence to a teenage boy just because he killed a couple of homosexuals.

1985
A gay man was beaten to death by a man who feared he could contract AIDS because he drank from the same bottle as the man. He would be sentenced to three months in prison for the murder.

Is that justice?

It would seem to me, from these examples, that what is needed is not adding a new category of crimes, but losing a category of non-crimes (or minor cimes). The judges' attitude seems to be: assaulting or killing a homosexual is not as bad as asssaulting or killing a straight person. The judges need to be educated out of this. So, rather than introducing or expanding the definition of hatecrimes, how about a more rigid system of judicial review?

 

[jayem]

What about malevolence and ulterior motives? What if you desire to expose and drive away people that you feel have dark and evil motives for their positions?

And what if they really do? Many people tried to stop Hitler before he bacame all-powerful, and most people thought the opposition to National Socialism were wrong.

Remember that being charged with a hate crime is just that--a charge. The burden of proof is still on the prosecution.

If you think you have a just reason for your action, and it is not a hate crime, then your lawyer should present that as an affirmative defense at your trial. The jury will decide your guilt or innocence.

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe everyone should hate crime, but obviously there are those that do not.

 

[tcampen]

"Hate Crime" is the word applied by State Religion and the priesthood of Secular Humanists to label those which murder only for the fun of it. If someone murders because they want my money or they don't like my nose, I'm no less dead; however, the Federal Government needs an excuse to actively investigate some and shrug at others... So they make the murder of some a religious priority ---- though they will not admit to such...

Actually, if you got murdered because someone wanted your money, that would be considered "felony murder", and would carry with it a potential death penalty in qualifying states. No hate crime, even murder as a hate crime, itself carries such a steep penalty.

Intent can make the difference in a homocide from 1st degree murder all the way down to misdemeanor manslaughter, and everything else in between.

Hate crimes are not part of any "secular" agenda. We, as a society, enact laws that reflect our collective values through our representatives. Harming others specifically because of their skin color is considered worse than harming others because you were in a bad mood. And, yes, that's true even though the phyisical attack itself may be no different.

This is not unique in the law one bit, and there is nothing unusual about it.