Hate Crimes Bill Protecting Sexual Orientation Finally Gonna Pass

[StormfrontFL]

Yes that's what I said, one was because of the guy was asian, the other had nothing to do with anything racial.

If this deterred future racial/bigotry related crimes, okay I might understand. However, they don't. I mean if it did murders wouldn't happen.

I just cannot agree with a different sentence for someone who killed someone for a racial reason versus someone who murdered for some non-racial, discriminatory reason. It's just not right.

Also, understand I'm not defending bigotry or racism, it's one of the things I despise most. However, it's kind of like how Dateline basically abuses the system with suspected pedophiles by exposing them publicly, getting them arrested and then having no case against them.

I don't like pedophiles either, but it doesn't make what they're doing right. Same with giving someone a harsher sentence because their crime was racially motivated, and that was the only difference in crimes with the hypothetical one I'm comparing it to.



I think in one of the links I posted it showed how hate crimes are down over the years from the past. I question those percentages (Not that I don't believe they happen) because they have to conclusively prove the crime happened due to the bias. That's not a cut and dry thing like we talked about in this thread. If a white person stabs a hispanic man, they could count that as one when it might not have been, for example.

It's like how someone with 5 drugs in their system will be used an example for how marijuana causes car crashes, when it's only one of the drugs the driver had in them.

It's about the motive behind the murders. If man A killed man B because B had molested A's child then the charge is murder. If man A killed man B because B was a member of a different race and A hated all members of that race and wanted them all dead then A has also committed murder. Would it be fair for both punishments to be the same? Both crimes resulted in a person's death but the motive in the first scenario is one in which most people, if not all, would find more understandable.

Nobody is saying that this legislation will end all hate based crime. There is nothing that man has developed that can do that but this could help as a deterrent. If it makes one potential gay basher think twice it will have done it's job. If one temple isn't desecrated as a result of the legislation then it will have done it's job.

 

[MercyfulFate]

It's about the motive behind the murders. If man A killed man B because B had molested A's child then the charge is murder. If man A killed man B because B was a member of a different race and A hated all members of that race and wanted them all dead then A has also committed murder. Would it be fair for both punishments to be the same? Both crimes resulted in a person's death but the motive in the first scenario is one in which most people, if not all, would find more understandable.

If both crimes turn out to be murder in the first degree, both should get the same sentence.

The thoughts going through their head just before the murder shouldn't matter. Revenge Versus Premeditation or Accidental Versus Deliberate, these things change a case.

"I hate you for being an idiot"

and

"I hate you for being gay"

Being the only differences in a murder case, they should be treated the same. Thoughtcrime is not something that should play into the punishment.

 

[StormfrontFL]

If both crimes turn out to be murder in the first degree, both should get the same sentence.

The thoughts going through their head just before the murder shouldn't matter. Revenge Versus Premeditation or Accidental Versus Deliberate, these things change a case.

"I hate you for being an idiot"

and

"I hate you for being gay"

Being the only differences in a murder case, they should be treated the same. Thoughtcrime is not something that should play into the punishment.

So I take it you are also against the current system with it's differing levels( 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. )? Motive has always had a bearing on the way a crime is prosecuted and on sentencing.

 

[MercyfulFate]

So I take it you are also against the current system with it's differing levels( 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. )? Motive has always had a bearing on the way a crime is prosecuted and on sentencing.

I've been through this and I'm not going over it again.

Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant had to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime (opportunity). Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.
Furthermore, a showing of the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged. For an example, consider this ruling in the case of a suspect accused of robbery and assault:
... evidence of motive, means, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt are not enough to establish guilt. Compare Commonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 98 (1988) (evidence of motive, means, unexplained possession of property, and consciousness of guilt not enough to establish robbery). On this record the evidence is insufficient to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the victim's assailant... Nothing in the record sufficiently links the defendant to the crime to permit the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator.[1]http://www.truthinjustice.org/o'laughlin.htm
Contrary to popular depictions in the fictional media, the police cannot convict merely on these three famous elements, but must provide convincing proof of means used, and opportunity actually acted upon by the defendant charged.
For example, if a criminal shot someone with a handgun and took their money when the victim was in an isolated, secluded area at night, the means would be the handgun, the motive financial (i.e., the money they stole), and the opportunity the fact that it would be unlikely someone else would witness or stop them. For the majority of crimes, means and motive are the easiest to prove; however, for some offences (such as rape or serial killing), the motive can be hard to define."

If two murders are the same except for the reason they happened, the sentencing shouldn't be any different. 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder don't even apply with this.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

If two murders are the same except for the reason they happened, the sentencing shouldn't be any different. 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder don't even apply with this.

But if you don't have the reasoning, you can't even determine 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree to begin with. Without the reasoning, there's no way to even tell if both murders was premeditated. All you can say is that both cases someone was murdered, and we all know how dangerous it can be to pass judgement without knowing the full story. Just ask Rick Perry of Texas who is now under scrutiny for the execution of Cameron Willingham. A new investigation from The New Yorker has evidence to suggest that he may have actually been innocent. But I digress...

Are you suggesting we should just ignore the why, and just paint a broad brush on everyone who does the same crime just to promote equality? That, in itself, is discriminatory... even more so than Hate Crime Legislation. I'm kinda hoping I'm wrong with this assessment. :frown1:

 

[MercyfulFate]

But if you don't have the reasoning, you can't even determine 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree to begin with. Without the reasoning, there's no way to even tell if both murders was premeditated. All you can say is that both cases someone was murdered, and we all know how dangerous it can be to pass judgement without knowing the full story. Just ask Rick Perry of Texas who is now under scrutiny for the execution of Cameron Willingham. A new investigation from The New Yorker has evidence to suggest that he may have actually been innocent. But I digress...

Are you suggesting we should just ignore the why, and just paint a broad brush on everyone who does the same crime just to promote equality? That, in itself, is discriminatory... even more so than Hate Crime Legislation. I'm kinda hoping I'm wrong with this assessment. :frown1:

If you had just read what I posted....

"Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction."

You guys just keep assuming and then making off the wall assumptions. So this is getting quite old.

Proving pre-meditation does not necessarily require a motive. If the killer tells someone "I will kill X" and never says why or leaves any clues as to why, that proves he thought about it before it happened. If you get into a bar fight with someone you never met and he dies, it's likely not pre-meditated unless it can be proven you knew the person.

Look I've worked closely with law enforcement on cases for years now, I figured what I was saying should be clear but I guess not.

I mean it seems like many of you are saying two identical murders should be treated differently simply because of bias or bigotry. That's a scary way of thinking, seriously. Our justice system is already fucked, and that certainly doesn't help. It's why having the best friend of the accused on the jury can cause issues due to bias and such, but I digress. This discussion keeps running in circles and I've made my point, and sick of explaining it again.

 

[StormfrontFL]

But if you don't have the reasoning, you can't even determine 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree to begin with. Without the reasoning, there's no way to even tell if both murders was premeditated. All you can say is that both cases someone was murdered, and we all know how dangerous it can be to pass judgement without knowing the full story. Just ask Rick Perry of Texas who is now under scrutiny for the execution of Cameron Willingham. A new investigation from The New Yorker has evidence to suggest that he may have actually been innocent. But I digress...

Are you suggesting we should just ignore the why, and just paint a broad brush on everyone who does the same crime just to promote equality? That, in itself, is discriminatory... even more so than Hate Crime Legislation. I'm kinda hoping I'm wrong with this assessment. :frown1:

Spot on with your assessment. If we ignore the reason why then it is unfair to everyone. A woman is alone at home because her husband is out of town. She hears a noise and grabs her gun. She sees a figure in the dark room and fires. She turns on the light and discovers that the person she just shot is her husband. Situation two is that a women waits for her cheating husband to return home and she pulls a gun on him and kills him. In both situations a man lays dead. Both murdered, one accidental and one intentional. If the intention is to treat all cases the same in which a life is taken then both women get the same sentence. Is that fair?

 

[StormfrontFL]

I've been through this and I'm not going over it again.

Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant had to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime (opportunity). Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.

You just cited something that supports my point. "Proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction." If you accidentally bumped into someone at a baseball game and the other guy became angry about it and took a swing at you. You punched back knocking him to the ground causing him to hit his head and lose consciousness. When he later comes to, he has you charged with assault. At the jail you meet someone else who has been arrested for assault. This individual had attacked a total stranger because the man was Jewish and the attacker hated Jews. Without motive being a factor in prosecution and sentencing you both get the same punishment. Is that fair? According to the info you cited from Wikipedia without motive some criminals might not be so easily convicted.

 

[StormfrontFL]

If you had just read what I posted....

"Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction."

You guys just keep assuming and then making off the wall assumptions. So this is getting quite old.

Proving pre-meditation does not necessarily require a motive. If the killer tells someone "I will kill X" and never says why or leaves any clues as to why, that proves he thought about it before it happened. If you get into a bar fight with someone you never met and he dies, it's likely not pre-meditated unless it can be proven you knew the person.

Look I've worked closely with law enforcement on cases for years now, I figured what I was saying should be clear but I guess not.

I mean it seems like many of you are saying two identical murders should be treated differently simply because of bias or bigotry. That's a scary way of thinking, seriously. Our justice system is already fucked, and that certainly doesn't help. It's why having the best friend of the accused on the jury can cause issues due to bias and such, but I digress. This discussion keeps running in circles and I've made my point, and sick of explaining it again.

Motive may not be an element of many crimes but when motive can be shown and proven then it is a factor in prosecution of the crime.

If you have truly worked in the area of law enforcement it blows me away that you could appear so naive. You keep repeating that everyone should be treated the same and that all crimes should be prosecuted equally but anyone that has read a newspaper or watched the news knows that in our system that doesn't happen. Because the system is so skewed there has to be something to attempt to level the playing field. If the system treated everyone the same there wouldn't be a need for this legislation but the system doesn't work that way and all the wishing it were so isn't going to change what is. All the people on here that are against this legislation have stated the same thing, that the law should treat everyone the same. Why argue your points based on what isn't and not what is?

 

[FuzzyKen]

There are still places in the United States where the life or safety of a person is "less safe" and where "good old boys networks" have played major roles in the elimination of prosecution of individuals who have and continue to commit crimes from battery all the way up to murder based on hatred or prejudice.

Sadly, the hate crimes bill and the ammendment we need does have some impact on "thinking". But, at the same time the thinking involved is that of not only hatred of an individual based on their genetics, but in fact in order to qualify as a hate crime the person had to in fact "act on" that hatred. This is where the "thought police" objections begin to fall apart and or fail.

For many not familiar the standard defense in a "gay" hate crime is where the supposed murdered victim is almost always said to have made an innappropriate sexual gesture/overture to the perpetrator of the crime. There was a time that this was in fact a legitimate defense. Those reading the transcripts of the trials of those involved in the Matthew Shepherd case would if they have the stomach for it be sickened at what took place in that trial.

There was another case in the 80's where a gay teen was taken, tied to a tree and beaten to death by a group of males who were all less than 15 years of age. This case preceeded the Shepherd case.

By definition, ALL hate crime law is applied when the perpitrator of the crime takes thought and then places that thought into action against another person based on the legislated federal protection definitions.

The addition of this definition or qualification into hate crime law will have one major effect and that is a prosecutor or judge who is in fact also a homophobe will no longer have the authority to dismiss or not even prosecute crimes based on this definition. Remember that when it comes to Civil Rights that Federal supercedes State, State supercedes County, and County supercedes City. This also by definition and the legal application code within Federal Civil Rights Law kicks all of the above in the butt and can with zero mercy begin investigations into agencies or jurisdictions found or suspected to be in violation.

When this passes, we will see some quiet investigations of a few locations where these crimes in years past were not prosecuted.

In College, my minor was Law. This legislation really in fact in how it is written does little more than close one major loophole for those who would choose to ignore crimes where one of the definitions of "hate crime" are met.

If anyone is dumb enough to think that this will bring either "hate crimes" against those of alternate orientations, or acts against them to an end, they are foolish and easily taken in. What it will do however is to give federal investigators the right to not only take over investigations when it appears that prejudice exists, but it will also give federal investigating agencies the right to re-examine past trials and to investigate and "clean out" the pockets of individuals who should have gone the way of the dinosaurs decades ago.

It will take years for this to really begin to pay off if it does in fact pass.

 

[StormfrontFL]

there are still places in the united states where the life or safety of a person is "less safe" and where "good old boys networks" have played major roles in the elimination of prosecution of individuals who have and continue to commit crimes from battery all the way up to murder based on hatred or prejudice.

sadly, the hate crimes bill and the ammendment we need does have some impact on "thinking". But, at the same time the thinking involved is that of not only hatred of an individual based on their genetics, but in fact in order to qualify as a hate crime the person had to in fact "act on" that hatred. This is where the "thought police" objections begin to fall apart and or fail.

for many not familiar the standard defense in a "gay" hate crime is where the supposed murdered victim is almost always said to have made an innappropriate sexual gesture/overture to the perpetrator of the crime. There was a time that this was in fact a legitimate defense. Those reading the transcripts of the trials of those involved in the matthew shepherd case would if they have the stomach for it be sickened at what took place in that trial.

there was another case in the 80's where a gay teen was taken, tied to a tree and beaten to death by a group of males who were all less than 15 years of age. This case preceeded the shepherd case.

by definition, all hate crime law is applied when the perpitrator of the crime takes thought and then places that thought into action against another person based on the legislated federal protection definitions.

the addition of this definition or qualification into hate crime law will have one major effect and that is a prosecutor or judge who is in fact also a homophobe will no longer have the authority to dismiss or not even prosecute crimes based on this definition. Remember that when it comes to civil rights that federal supercedes state, state supercedes county, and county supercedes city. This also by definition and the legal application code within federal civil rights law kicks all of the above in the butt and can with zero mercy begin investigations into agencies or jurisdictions found or suspected to be in violation.

when this passes, we will see some quiet investigations of a few locations where these crimes in years past were not prosecuted.

in college, my minor was law. This legislation really in fact in how it is written does little more than close one major loophole for those who would choose to ignore crimes where one of the definitions of "hate crime" are met.

if anyone is dumb enough to think that this will bring either "hate crimes" against those of alternate orientations, or acts against them to an end, they are foolish and easily taken in. What it will do however is to give federal investigators the right to not only take over investigations when it appears that prejudice exists, but it will also give federal investigating agencies the right to re-examine past trials and to investigate and "clean out" the pockets of individuals who should have gone the way of the dinosaurs decades ago.

it will take years for this to really begin to pay off if it does in fact pass.

bravo

 

[Beachboy19]

Sad, truly sad.

Making thoughts more culpable and punishable than actual crimes, Each day we march closer to an Orwellian world and people are unapologetically and unthinkingly cheering it on.

Wow.

I guess premeditated murder shouldnt be more severely punished than manslaughter either.

Homophobes are getting dumber.

 

[Pendlum]

Spot on with your assessment. If we ignore the reason why then it is unfair to everyone. A woman is alone at home because her husband is out of town. She hears a noise and grabs her gun. She sees a figure in the dark room and fires. She turns on the light and discovers that the person she just shot is her husband. Situation two is that a women waits for her cheating husband to return home and she pulls a gun on him and kills him. In both situations a man lays dead. Both murdered, one accidental and one intentional. If the intention is to treat all cases the same in which a life is taken then both women get the same sentence. Is that fair?

That is a bad example. The first one, she would get off with self defense, and even if she were convicted, her sentence would be less than the second one because she planned to kill her husband, she waited for him. Motive would only make it easier to convict her, not increase her sentence. She would get the same sentence as any other woman who planned to kill their husband, regardless of reason. 1st-3rd degrees of murder aren't determined with thoughts, but actions. Planning the crime, how the victim was killed, was there torture, things like that (at least that's my understanding of it).

 

[Beachboy19]

That is a bad example. The first one, she would get off with self defense, and even if she were convicted, her sentence would be less than the second one because she planned to kill her husband, she waited for him. Motive would only make it easier to convict her, not increase her sentence. She would get the same sentence as any other woman who planned to kill their husband, regardless of reason. 1st-3rd degrees of murder aren't determined with thoughts, but actions. Planning the crime, how the victim was killed, was there torture, things like that (at least that's my understanding of it).

Isnt planning thinking?

 

[HazelGod]

So I take it you are also against the current system with it's differing levels( 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. )? Motive has always had a bearing on the way a crime is prosecuted and on sentencing.

This is precisely what I meant when I said that people here have no real understanding of our criminal justice system.

As MF has explained to you numerous times, degree of offense is a concept distinct and apart from what you're talking about. I'm not going to waste my pearls rehashing it again.

Suffice it to say, I've still seen nothing here to convince me that arguably circumventing the 14th Amendment and giving the federal government the power to usurp the right of states to prosecute offenses according to their own laws predicated purely on some "real or perceived" demographic bias against the victim is in the best interest of the general citizenry.

 

[Pendlum]

Isnt planning thinking?

Plan: A set of intedned actions, through which one expects to achieve a goal.

Think: to ponder, to go over in one's head .

So planning does require thinking, but that doesn't make them the same. I can think about killing people all day long, but that doesn't mean I'm planning to do it.

 

[Beachboy19]

Plan: A set of intedned actions, through which one expects to achieve a goal.

Think: to ponder, to go over in one's head .

So planning does require thinking, but that doesn't make them the same. I can think about killing people all day long, but that doesn't mean I'm planning to do it.

This legislation requires action as well tho, doesnt it? It doesnt punish thinking.

You can think about beating up gays, being str8 and anti-hate crimes legislation yourself. However, u wont get punished for that.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

If you had just read what I posted....

"Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes,

That's the second time you accused me of not reading what you've typed. Trust me, I read.

You do understand that to say this very statement is to suggest that many crimes are completely random. If motive is not an element, then you've successfully eliminated any reason for the culprit committing the crime. Now, the criminal is doing the crime "just because". That makes very little to no sense, unless you want to suggest that we're surrounded by a plethora of psychopaths who at any given second will snap and do something evil to the innocent. I tend not to be so pessimistic.

You guys just keep assuming and then making off the wall assumptions. So this is getting quite old.

I'm sorry, but you're the one trying to make a broad assumption that everyone who commits the same crime should be treated equally. And the only way you can logically do this is to ignore the very elements that make each crime different. That's what you do when you don't pay attention to the motive. Maybe we're both different in this regard, but I tend to think there's a reason why people do the things they do. Very few actions in one's life are truly "random" in nature.

So if we ignore motive, the person who steals food from a store gets the same punishment as the person who robs a bank because both incidents can be classified as theft. Even if the person who stole the food had no previous record and did it out of hunger because he was poor and wanted to feed his family, to you the details wouldn't matter. Theft is theft, so both criminals get 20 years.

I intentionally made that sound ridiculous to make a point. I'm sure most people will read this and see why you can't treat both of these people the same even if they've done the same crime. However, if you even try to validate any of the differences in that scenario above, you've essentially paid attention to motive which is exactly what you said we shouldn't take note of when people commit crimes.

I mean it seems like many of you are saying two identical murders should be treated differently simply because of bias or bigotry.

No... I say that because it's the right of every individual to have a fair trial. I mean, it is proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

And to do that, you make sure there's a thorough investigation to make sure the accused is truly innocent or guilty. That also includes finding out the reasons behind the culprit's actions even if the end result is because they did it "just because". Ironically, you're telling everyone that motive doesn't matter as you give a scenario of two murder scenes that are supposed to be "the same". Without any background information or details explaining the murders to verify this, we're now forced to just accept it at face value just so you can say they both should be treated as equals in order to show what you feel is unfair regarding Hate Crime Legislation. That's not an honest way to form an argument because very rarely are two cases ever identical. As someone who works in law enforcement, you should know that already.

 

[Pendlum]

This legislation requires action as well tho, doesnt it? It doesnt punish thinking.

You can think about beating up gays, being str8 and anti-hate crimes legislation yourself. However, u wont get punished for that.

My understanding is it is a tacked on charge to an already existing charge, the one that deals with the action. So it is charge time+10 basically.

The hate crime law REQUIRES me to hate said group, that is all it deals with I believe. Assault only requires that I beat someone up.

Also, I've never actually said "I'm against hate crime legislation." If you read back, I've already said that I'm playing the devil's advocate. I haven't said what my real opinion is.

 

[Beachboy19]

My understanding is it is a tacked on charge to an already existing charge, the one that deals with the action. So it is charge time+10 basically.

The hate crime law REQUIRES me to hate said group, that is all it deals with I believe. Assault only requires that I beat someone up.

Also, I've never actually said "I'm against hate crime legislation." If you read back, I've already said that I'm playing the devil's advocate. I haven't said what my real opinion is.

Well, einstein, they dont have thought reading machines. You need to *do something* (such as yelling homophobic slurs) to qualify for hate crimes. So that would be the extra action component (in addition to beating) just like planning is for premediated murder (in addition to killing).

Whats ur real opinion?