Wren wrote:

slickback wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

Wren wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can some people be protected more than others?

No one is more protected because everyone can potentially be the victim of a hate crime. If a group of African-Amercan lesbian bikers goes on a rampage against white male Mormons, the white male Mormons would be the victims, and the African-American lesbian bikers would be guilty of a hate crime.

But why the need for punishment enhancement because it was a hate crime? Crime is hateful intrinsically, is it not? Let the law act normally.

Let me ask you a question Wren. Do you think that burning a cross on a black person's lawn should be prosecuted as simple vandalism? If you do then you are ignoring the entire history of this act. It has always been used as an act of intimidation against blacks in general. An encouragement to move out of a "white" neighborhood. Warning blacks not to get too "uppity", like trying to register to vote, or trying to enroll their children in a "white" school. It has served as a warning that more severe retailiation (rapes, beatings, lynchings, etc.) would follow if they chose to ignore the burning cross. So it is a hate crime? or just simple vandalism?


You totally stole the example I always use on hate crimes. But you explained it better than I ever did.

Then make the act of cross buring the center of legislation with specified penalities severe enough to deter the act.

But there's thousands of other scenarios- should thousands of specific laws be drafted? Or just umbrella them all under -hate crimes-

Vlad Tepes wrote:

The march toward Sodom continues! Congress and the Courts will not be happy until they force everyone to engage in sodomy so we can all prove how "open minded" we are. Pathetic! Start voting the libs out!!! Otherwise, prepare for more of the same stupidity from our political leaders!


Vlad, what's with your constant fixation with anal sex? Are you afraid you're gonna like it?

slickback wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

Wren wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can some people be protected more than others?

No one is more protected because everyone can potentially be the victim of a hate crime. If a group of African-Amercan lesbian bikers goes on a rampage against white male Mormons, the white male Mormons would be the victims, and the African-American lesbian bikers would be guilty of a hate crime.

But why the need for punishment enhancement because it was a hate crime? Crime is hateful intrinsically, is it not? Let the law act normally.

Let me ask you a question Wren. Do you think that burning a cross on a black person's lawn should be prosecuted as simple vandalism? If you do then you are ignoring the entire history of this act. It has always been used as an act of intimidation against blacks in general. An encouragement to move out of a "white" neighborhood. Warning blacks not to get too "uppity", like trying to register to vote, or trying to enroll their children in a "white" school. It has served as a warning that more severe retailiation (rapes, beatings, lynchings, etc.) would follow if they chose to ignore the burning cross. So it is a hate crime? or just simple vandalism?


You totally stole the example I always use on hate crimes. But you explained it better than I ever did.

Thank you.

Wren wrote:

slickback wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

Wren wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can some people be protected more than others?

No one is more protected because everyone can potentially be the victim of a hate crime. If a group of African-Amercan lesbian bikers goes on a rampage against white male Mormons, the white male Mormons would be the victims, and the African-American lesbian bikers would be guilty of a hate crime.

But why the need for punishment enhancement because it was a hate crime? Crime is hateful intrinsically, is it not? Let the law act normally.

Let me ask you a question Wren. Do you think that burning a cross on a black person's lawn should be prosecuted as simple vandalism? If you do then you are ignoring the entire history of this act. It has always been used as an act of intimidation against blacks in general. An encouragement to move out of a "white" neighborhood. Warning blacks not to get too "uppity", like trying to register to vote, or trying to enroll their children in a "white" school. It has served as a warning that more severe retailiation (rapes, beatings, lynchings, etc.) would follow if they chose to ignore the burning cross. So it is a hate crime? or just simple vandalism?


You totally stole the example I always use on hate crimes. But you explained it better than I ever did.

Then make the act of cross buring the center of legislation with specified penalities severe enough to deter the act.

Wren, I'll make you a deal. If this law is ever used to prosecute anyone for speech alone, I will join with you in getting it overturned.

Roland, you've made a very good arguement. I can see the validity of a law to help with situations like you described. I have a couple of questions though.

First, why is this a federal issue instead of one to be handled by the states?

Secondly, why make this a group by group thing if the purpose is to have harsher punishments for crimes committed with an intent to terrorize?

It seems to me that minor changes to our laws regarding terroristic threats, assault and murder would resolve this issue without making certain groups a perpetual victim class and would remove the possible threats to the freedom of speech. If this were done, it would work for cross burnings and assaults on gays as well things currently left out such as assaults on the homeless and the continuous threats and assaults on school outcasts that sometimes lead to shooting rampages.

I get the feeling that these laws are less about protecting victims/punishing criminals and more about pandering to certain political groups by our congress.

Arty wrote:

Roland, you've made a very good arguement. I can see the validity of a law to help with situations like you described. I have a couple of questions though.

First, why is this a federal issue instead of one to be handled by the states?

Secondly, why make this a group by group thing if the purpose is to have harsher punishments for crimes committed with an intent to terrorize?

It seems to me that minor changes to our laws regarding terroristic threats, assault and murder would resolve this issue without making certain groups a perpetual victim class and would remove the possible threats to the freedom of speech. If this were done, it would work for cross burnings and assaults on gays as well things currently left out such as assaults on the homeless and the continuous threats and assaults on school outcasts that sometimes lead to shooting rampages.

I get the feeling that these laws are less about protecting victims/punishing criminals and more about pandering to certain political groups by our congress.

You raise some excellent points and I wish I had a good answer for all of them. I only reluctantly came around to supporting hate crimes legislation because I adamantly support freedom of speech, and as I said, I would oppose any law that penalized anyone for the content of their speech.
Utah has had a hate crimes law on the books which does not specify any protected groups. The courts have ruled that the law is too vague and therefore, unenforceable. The groups specified in the cureent law are broad enough, however, that the law protects anyone, not just minority groups. If a gay group set out to intimidate heterosexuals, they would be guilty of a hate-crime, as would a black group that was trying to intimidate whites. As to your point on the state/federal issue; if all states protected hate crime victims equally, there would be no reason for the federal goevernment to get involved.
Your questions have made me think, which is a good thing. I hope I clarified my position for you.