Daily Herald - Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty?

Comments

Daily Herald

Opinion

Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty? (1 viewing) (1) Guests

Favoured: 0

Page:
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > End >>

TOPIC: Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty?

Forum Tools

#245625

fefifofob (User)

Platinum Boarder

Posts: 1686

Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty? 1 Year, 4 Months ago

Karma: 0

Roland Kayser wrote:

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.

"However, Lonnie Rae, a WHAM, was charged with a hate-crime in Idaho when his temper got the best of him and he used the n-word when confronting the black male who assaulted his wife. White Michigan housewife Janice Barton was jailed when a deputy sheriff overheard her using the word "spic" in a private conversation with her mother."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts16.html

"But McHenry County States Attorney Lou Bianchi said the students clearly broke the law when they printed and distributed fliers that showed a male student and another boy kissing, along with inflammatory statements about homosexuality. Police charged two 16-year-old Crystal Lake girls last week with committing a hate crime, disorderly conduct, and obstructing justice.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_137105252.html

Report to moderator Logged

Logged

The administrator has disabled public write access.

#245629

Orator (User)

Platinum Boarder

Posts: 1301

Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty? 1 Year, 4 Months ago

Karma: 0

fefifofob wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

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.

"However, Lonnie Rae, a WHAM, was charged with a hate-crime in Idaho when his temper got the best of him and he used the n-word when confronting the black male who assaulted his wife. White Michigan housewife Janice Barton was jailed when a deputy sheriff overheard her using the word "" in a private conversation with her mother."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts16.html

"But McHenry County States Attorney Lou Bianchi said the students clearly broke the law when they printed and distributed fliers that showed a male student and another boy kissing, along with inflammatory statements about homosexuality. Police charged two 16-year-old Crystal Lake girls last week with committing a hate crime, disorderly conduct, and obstructing justice.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_137105252.html

Let the campaign begin.

Report to moderator Logged

Logged

The administrator has disabled public write access.

#245639

Wren (User)

Platinum Boarder

Posts: 11924

Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty? 1 Year, 4 Months ago

Karma: -8

slickback wrote:

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-

That's a hasty generalization, SB, so why don't you start with the most common twenty of your 'scenarios'.

Report to moderator Logged

Logged

The administrator has disabled public write access.

#245640

Wren (User)

Platinum Boarder

Posts: 11924

Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty? 1 Year, 4 Months ago

Karma: -8

Roland Kayser wrote:

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.

I would certainly hope so, and that we be joined by everyone on this Forum.

Report to moderator Logged

Logged

The administrator has disabled public write access.

#245642

Wren (User)

Platinum Boarder

Posts: 11924

Re: Would hate-crime law threaten liberty? 1 Year, 4 Months ago

Karma: -8

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.
Arty, I agree with Roland. Your thoughtful post should make us all think more about this.

Report to moderator Logged

Logged

The administrator has disabled public write access.

#245644

James (User)