What the heck kind of question is this poll question?

Hate crimes are not right — they criminalize thoughts not actions.
LifeTrek on May 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Yes

They should be called Thought Crimes, not Hate Crimes

If I murder my next door neighbor because I hate his guts, shouldn’t I be tried with a hate crime?

Isn’t that basically first degree murder, or at least second degree, since you’d have had a long time to contemplate doing it. We already have laws against crimes that are fully adequate. Trying to estimate what is going on inside a person’s head may have a place in a trial proving or disproving premeditation, murder 1. But it has no place in sentencing simply because finding two people who define what is and is not a hate crime the same way is impossible If you enshrine one way into law, who gets to make the definition? What is his agenda?

{^_^}

The Federal Government, or any other level of government, can enact a law, place penalties if that law is violated, and it can be enforced no matter what, even if unconstitutional, as long as the higher courts have not heard the case and overturned the law, and as long as the state or federal legislature have not in some manner “overwritten” the said law or reversed it, as the Dred Scott v Sanford case exhibited.

Many of you have missed the point all together. Hate crime legislation while unconstitutional. Is only unconstitutional if the law makes its way to the SCOTUS. In the mean time it makes these crimes FEDERAL crimes. The criminal will be tried in a federal court. Normal crimes are state crimes. The idea of hate crimes is a against the 10th amendment, they are anti-federalism. And at the same time they violate the 14th amendment – equal protection clause. Or do they?

The 14th amendment says (among other things) “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So technically it is not the 14th amendment that makes hate crimes unconstitutional. Since it is not the State making the law but the federal government.

In my view congress is bastardizing the constitution with these horrible laws.

Dasher on May 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM

Hate crimes are not right — they criminalize thoughts not actions.

Of course this is nothing new, liberals have been trying to criminalize thoughts and beliefs for years.
David

The 14th amendment says (among other things) “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So technically it is not the 14th amendment that makes hate crimes unconstitutional. Since it is not the State making the law but the federal government.

In my view congress is bastardizing the constitution with these horrible laws.

Necrophiliacs.

Pedophiles.

Butchers.

Islamofascist Militant Jihadis.

Homosexuals.

Blacks.

Hispanics.

People with Elephantitus.

Human Embryos.

Human Fetuses.

Human beings with birth defects.

Human beings with various handicaps.

Human beings with missing limbs.

United States military personnel.

United States military personnel who have lost limbs, eyes, ears, and other body parts or functions.

US military personnel who are held captive.

Asians-Orientals, often the brunt of racist jokes by Hispanics and Blacks.

White or Caucasian individuals who are often the victim of hate crimes – violent assault, robbery, harassment, vitriolic taunts, rape, etc.

All animals eaten by human beings – they must be slaughtered before they are eaten (in most cases.)

Catholics.

Evangelical Christians.

Jews.

Hindus.

Sikhs.

Buddhists.

Zoroastrians.

Jains.

Ba’hais.

Working class people.

Wealthy people.

Conservatives.

Sadomasochists.

Theives.

Vandals.

That is just a short list.

I am certain that, being of a mind of equality, Homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims wouldn’t mind including the others on this list as protected classes of people.

Should they?

unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Hell no … that’s my point, hate legislation will.

But there ain’t no bread in Hate Crime Prison. You live off whatever vermin crawls into the cell and lick condensation off the walls for drink.

I hate this hate crime nonsense… especially in its newest iteration.

Uh, oh….I guess I’m guilty of a hate crime now.

I’m going to hate being in prison.

Oops, there I go again.

I hate it when that happens…

oops.

Now I’m a three times offender.

Guess that means life in the chain gang.

I hate having to ‘make little ones out of big ones’ with a sledgehammer.

Oops. I guess that means execution.

I hate it when that happens.

LegendHasIt on May 2, 2009 at 5:47 PM

And do you know what I hate? I hate it when someone is more clever than I am.

Uh, oh, and oops….I guess I’m going to be joining you in prison. Leave some bread and water.

That’s why people want hate crime legislation.

Some crimes are committed not just to hurt a person, but to hurt that person and his community or ethnic group.

For example, the lynching of black men by the KKK was as much about terrorizing the general black community as it was about that specific black man.

Instead of “hate crimes” which increases the punishment based on motive, we should have an aggravating element of the crime that increases the penalties it the crime was committed in a way to terrorize a group of people, other than the specific victim.

I hate having to ‘make little ones out of big ones’ with a sledgehammer.

There you go again – this is the divisiveness that is the root of all prejudices…

Yes, but they don’t intimidate right wingers into shutting the hell up.

darwin on May 2, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Should they?

Really? What about the Beltway sniper? Wasn’t his death penalty upheld because his murders amounted to terrorist acts? That is, his sentence was higher than it would have been had he not intended to instill fear of further murders. Isn’t that right?

tneloms on May 2, 2009 at 12:09 PM

His penalty was indeed upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court on the reasoning that he committed a terrorist act. I do not know enough about Virginia state law to follow the reasoning, but I disagree with the finding. The finding was made on the basis of a note Mr. Muhammad wrote demanding 10 million dollars to halt the sniping — in my mind that was not terrorism so much as extortion — something which is indeed covered as a separate crime.

That being said, the fact that there exists a slippery slope and other practical problems on the civil end doesn’t mean it’s not appropriate for criminal law.

No, the slippery slope and practical problems are at the core of whether it should be criminalized. Criminal law exists to punish people who do bad things to other people. Civil law exists to “make whole” people who have had bad things done to them by other people. They work completely in tandem, like siamese twins. So, if something is barred by criminal law, it has a civil law analogue. Witness what happened to OJ Simpson for an instructive example of that tandem arrangement. In other words, if an act is covered by criminal statute, the bearing of any putative victims to bring a civil action to recover their damages is absolute. Hence, creation of a criminal statute brings with it the probability that lawsuits (and probably class action ones at that) will result from a resultant finding that a “hate crime” occurred.

Uh, oh….I guess I’m guilty of a hate crime now.

I’m going to hate being in prison.

Oops, there I go again.

I hate it when that happens…

oops.

Now I’m a three times offender.

Guess that means life in the chain gang.

I hate having to ‘make little ones out of big ones’ with a sledgehammer.

Oops. I guess that means execution.

I hate it when that happens.

If I murder my next door neighbor because I hate his guts, shouldn’t I be tried with a hate crime?

This is really a pretty stupid question. All crime is hateful to the degree that is violates anothers life, liberty and/or property regardless who commits it; person, institution or government. Trying to single out specific criminal actions as more hateful than others can only result in gross disparities in justice and punishment.

docdave on May 2, 2009 at 1:08 PM

So the question is not stupid but actually is the point.

thuja on May 2, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Please remember that there are gay people like me who called their congressman to ask him to vote against hate crime legislation–though it was a hopeless waste of time.

Thanks for doing that and posting it here. At the very least, I hope your posting wasn’t a waste of time, but will help some people better appreciate your point of view.

thuja on May 2, 2009 at 3:14 PM

People who get dragged into politics by a single issue like that are often morons and really should avoid politics. The gay political leaders benefit from firing these people up and telling them that should have had their equality five years ago.

You are laser-beam accurate. In my eyes this is clearly oppression and exploitation at work, prior to a future Election Day. It doesn’t matter if it is a gay politician or a straight ideological community leader firing these people up. Further, it doesn’t matter if it is a cultural or racial issue. Firing up the uniformed with a single issue creates a mental dichotomy.

Yeah. They really DO underestimate human nature, don’t they? Last year if you’d have asked me what I think about “gay marriage”, I’d have said.. “meh”.

Now, having witnessed the ugliness they’re willing to engage in, I’ve taken a closer look at it. Today, I see it as just another gambit in the left’s bid to ‘divide and conquer’.

Murf76 on May 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Please remember that there are gay people like me who called their congressman to ask him to vote against hate crime legislation–though it was a hopeless waste of time.

In terms of the marriage issue, it would be rather remarkable if some of the advocate weren’t overzealous. The gay marriage issue brings into the political sphere many gay people who just aren’t interested in politics. People who get dragged into politics by a single issue like that are often morons and really should avoid politics. The gay political leaders benefit from firing these people up and telling them that should have had their equality five years ago. Of course, they won’t be respectful of other people’s ideas. The good news is that these people will go away when they get gay marriage. I doubt that they will even vote! There are many stupid people who shouldn’t bother to vote.

Don’t the current laws take into account aggravating factors/circmstances regarding punishment already?

mossberg500 on May 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Yes, but they don’t intimidate right wingers into shutting the hell up.