Hate Crimes Bill signedFollow

This is another Thing That Obama Has Done Since Being Elected that will immediately be ignored by Varrus, Gbaji, et al because it was for the gayz and doesn't count.

It only counts apparently if it involves blowing something up.

Honestly I've never been able to get behind the hate crime ideal. Of course it has some cool practical effects, but as goes the ideal itself, I can't really mentally support it. The motivation of just a subset bothers me. Then again, motivation is kind of important in lots of already present legal distinction. Whatever.

Aside from banal rumination...

Assuming the premise as true, meaning if we do need, or even have, hate crime legislation in the first place, it should be applied just like any other law: to everyone. In that regard, this is a good thing.

So I guess neither of you believes in anti-discrimination law either, then.

Since when does hate crime legislation protect minorities only?

They absolutely do. Both are based not actions themselves, but the perceived motivation for those actions. In that way, they are exactly the same.

Not at all. Discrimination is an actual act in and of itself. Firing an employee, or refusing to hire someone, or denying an application or a loan or lease are not crimes. Doing so because of someone's race, religion, or what have you, however, IS. It's hard to prove sometimes, specifically because you do have to demonstrate the cause of the act, as opposed to some other, legitimate cause (i.e. person was not hired due to poor qualifications rather than race, fired not for poor performance, but because of race/sexual orientation, etc.) If you are able to do that, however, there is an actual act which is legally punishable.

"Hate crimes," however, are entirely different. The "act" which is being punished is violence, and it would be punishable under the law regardless of the motivation. Assault, murder, vandalism, etc are crimes, full stop. Regardless of who the victim is, a crime has been committed and is punishable. What hate crimes legislation does is increase the penalty depending upon the state of mind of the perpetrator. In other words, the perp is not being punished for what he did, but rather for what he thought. And that's...very, VERY iffy ground.

You mean like premeditated murder as opposed to murder that is not premeditated. We make these judgments all the time. It's about intent and intended effect. They aren't "thought crimes."

Edited, Oct 28th 2009 9:45pm by Annabella

What Anna said, retards.

I have to agree. I am all for prosecuting people who assault, rob, murder, or intimidate minorities - but hate crime laws do tend to turn a blind eye to minority-on-white crime.

Take this story of group of black kids in Philadelphia who set out to kill as many white people as they could; they ended up killing some guy. There is zero question weather or not it was a hate crime - it was. No charges akin to racial intimidation / hate crimes were brought though. So, we have hate crime laws here in PA, but it wasnt applied when it was black-on-white crime. They were on record of saying they were targeting whites, and yet, they were not slapped with a hate crime because it was said it was more so a "(societal) class crime."

And that is why we shouldnt have hate crime laws: its not applied equally.

And whats the danger in having these hate crimes if they arent applied equally to everyone? Well, firstly its grotesquely unjust - which was mentioned. But also.....

As a white, liberal guy who lives on the edge of a KKK stronghold (Boyertown, PA), I come into frequent contact with the dregs of white society. If you are a white liberal near a town like this, you will be called a nÃgger lover and you will be harassed from time to time - and you put up with it, because its the right thing to do. What so many people dont understand is that white supremacist groups use the obvious laws that are tipped in minorities favor as recruitment, and it is effective. When Robert Pierson was murdered by that animal (and fyi, if he was white I would have still said animal), the KKK in the area literally ate up that story and then, when no hate crime charges came, it was "see? the liberals wont even hold the nÃgger to a hate crime! Us whites have to stick together now more than ever, because minorities - and white liberals - are going to destroy the white race."

It doesnt matter if on some academic level someone, somewhere can justify a law that overwhelmingly applies to the prosecution of white people over minorities, if only to level the playing field. An academic win is NOT worth the recruitment power of such things to white supremacists.

Okay, wow, I just suck at talking I guess. That's at least two people who have quoted me and seem to think that Obama signing this stuff is not good, because the category of hate crimes is too troublesome to deal with. I'm going to try to put it in better terms...



"I like the fact that prosecuting a murder can be made more severe by counting ones motivated by hatred, however, I am not sure that the mental state of this legislation is pure insofar as attempting what it might claim to do. The motive should be to stop hate, not political lip-service. In any case though, we have mitigating and aggravating circumstances in other crimes (implicit: the motive of which may be also not pure) so whatever"



"In any case, let's say that the category of crime is legitimate. Because of that, everyone should be free of hate. In that regard, the broadening of this status to include more people is a good thing"

Funny, thats the same argument I get from the white people I argue with when I give them an example of police harassing blacks.



And what is the purpose of these laws? To deter people from committing a hate crime? Do you have any evidence to suggest it is a deterrent? In other words, why are you measuring the success of it?





And so what if I am? Are you trying to make some sort of assumption about me if I am? Arent we taught that is wrong to do? Would you think that my opinion matters less if I am? Isnt that discriminatory in and of itself?

Edited, Oct 28th 2009 11:59pm by ManifestOfKujata

Yes, but that's the point though. Not all crimes are from hate - stealing bread to live, for example - but a lot of them are, sure. The hate here is compounded though; it's the hate of someone as a symbol, instead of as a mark of vengeance or malice against that person in itself. The word "hate" is a stupid one, really, to talk specifically about just one example of it, but it seems to serve its point well enough. Minimizing this brand of hate just cos it's an inelegant description is foolish.



Well get on proving that man. It's something with a pretty real verification condition, so long as you can define what you mean by harm. Research and tally.

South Park already did it.

Cartman's Silly Hate Crime, 2000, season 4 I believe.