Why isn't this a hate crime?

[juiblex]

Motivation doesn't mean anything to me.

so if someone killed you because you use a blue pen, you wouldnt see any difference between this and someone who killed you because you killed their son? Yes, youre still dead either way, but the degrees of culpability are far different.

and FWIW, i agree with seebs, from this article, littered with emotive language and with facts far and few between, it seems the woman was killed because of her actions and not her religion.

 

[TwinCrier]

I would be dead so no, I wouldn't see any difference, I wouldn't see anything.  Neither her actions nor her religions justified her murder.  If someone is so filled with hate they want to kill another human, does it really matter what they hated the person for?  IF the victim did do something worthy of death, that's for the courts to decide, not some biased citizen vigilante.

 

[smurfy2day]

This is definitely a hate crime.

 

[tom]

it should be a hate crime  no doubt about it.

 

[Brimshack]

I'm still trying to figure out whether or not the point of this thread is to argue against hate crime statutes in general, or just to argue for greater attention to Christians as possible victims of said statutes. It's easy enough to accuse the other guys of hypocrisy, but if you don't take a clear stance yourself, then you get to indulge in the same inconsistencies yourself.

 

[cenimo]

Brimshack

The point is all too often the hate crime charges are done selectively, not across the board. Majority on minority is almost a guaranteed hate crime. As in this case, a reverse situation may or may not be a hate crime.

Example, shouldn't the 9-11 attacks be a hate crime? Have those charges been made? 19 Muslims set out to kill as many non-Muslims as they could, even taking some Muslims with them, but the goal was killing non-Muslims.

Case in Kentucky, early 90's. three black teens shoot a young father because he had a Confederate flag on his truck. They cam out and said that's why they shot him. (He died). He was a year or so out of high school, the high school being nicknamed The Rebels. At the trial, all the perps families are in court shouting, "It wasn't racial, it wasn't racial." Sounds like a hate crime to me, and racially motivated.

We haven't even talked about hate speech. How can a country that allows rap music have laws about hate speech?

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

It's obvious a conspiracy perpetrated by all the Communist-liberal-pinko-homosexual-Socialist-queer-gay-black-Mexican-immigrant-migrant worker-Muslim-ACLU-atheist-agnostic-leftist-radical-Democratic-non/anti-American-people-who-aren't-exactly-like-you-consortium of doom. Obviously.

 

[Brimshack]

You've supplied some more anecdotes, but you still haven't answered my question.

 

[Lacmeh]

This is only a hate crime, if the offender has a long history of assaulting Christians, if other evidence of his hate against Christians is found, or if he admits hating Christians in general.
Then an assault on a Christian is a hate crime.
In case of the terrorists that flew the airplanes into the WTC. It is a basic principle of justice to not being able to be tried more than one time for the same action. You can´t try them for action flying an airplane into WTC simultanoulsy for hate crime murder, premediated murder and murder under passion. And thos epeopel can´t be convicted to be guilty of all three. Of course the action napping and flying hte plane into WTC involved kidnapping, violating aerial laws and so on. For all those things they can be tried too and convicted.
The anectote brought earlier for the black guys shooting. Thios can only be a hate crime, if the blacks did have an explicit hatred for all whites (racial hatred) or all christian whites. I have the feeling, tha tin that case, the race of the victim didn´t matter. An Asian would have been treated in the same way. Therefore it can´t be a hate crime.

 

[Tolpel]

Originally posted by Brimshack
I'm still trying to figure out whether or not the point of this thread is to argue against hate crime statutes in general, or just to argue for greater attention to Christians as possible victims of said statutes.

The point of the article seems to be that other groups do not get a "hate Crimes" charge when committing crimes against Christians while if the oppostite occurs the Christian would be charged with a hate crime.  Basically that "hate crime" laws are not fairly enforced.  That also seems to be the point of this thread although some have stated that hate crime laws are wrong in the first place.  So I would say the point is to "argue for greater attention to Christians as possible victims of said statutes."

It's easy enough to accuse the other guys of hypocrisy, but if you don't take a clear stance yourself, then you get to indulge in the same inconsistencies yourself. [/B]

true.  So I will make my opinions known.  I believe that hate crime laws are selectively enforced.  I do not agree with hate crime laws because of the many ideas of what constitutes hate.  It seems that if someone disagrees with another's beliefs that is hate.  Many say to me that I hate gays when I state that I believe that the lifestyle is wrong.  I do not hate gays at all.  I have been told that my taken a firm stance against homosexuality is homophobic.  I see that hate crime laws are enforced about as evenly as the death penalty.  If you have money you do not get the death penalty and if you belong to ceratin majority groups you have a good chance at getting a hate crime conviction. 

 

 

 

[Brimshack]

It is obvious enough that Cenimo wants to point out the inconsistency; it is not so obvious how he wants it resolved. That is what I am asking.

This is a reasonable answer:

"So I would say the point is to "argue for greater attention to Christians as possible victims of said statutes.""

And so is this:

"I do not agree with hate crime laws because of the many ideas of what constitutes hate."

The two do not belong together in the same position, however. Am I right in assuming that you regard the former as Cenimo's original point, and the latter reflects your own position?

 

[Talking Rain]

I agree whole heartedly that hate crime is a moronic distinction, not only do you run into the problem of selective prosecution, but it deals specifically with changing the penalty of the crime based on what was going on in side the perpetrators head. This is very difficult ground to tread. How do you prove what someone was or was not thinking, and borders on the notion of thought police. Criminal should be prosecuted on the basis of illegal actions not unpopular opinions.

 

TR (Just my .02)

 

[Dewjunkie]

OK, on the original point; IF the murderer can be proven to have killed this woman solely because she was a christian, then it could be defined as a "hate crime". If, however, the motivation was her harrassing him because of his lifestyle, then it would not be a "hate crime" by statute. The crime has to be committed with the primary motivation being because of the victim's race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender to fit into the scope of "hate crime". But, if he killed her as a result of her harrassment, and had no idea of her religious affiliation, then it is not a "hate crime".

As far as "hate crime" law in general, as I stated earlier I think they are redundant in that they only amplify current, existing law. "Hate crime" statutes do nothing more than turn simple battery into a felony and get the perpetrator on the FBI's "hate crime" convict list. They serve no point other than over-complication of the law and appeasement of special interest lobbyists.