Hate Crime Legislation.. do we really need it?

[T-Bone]

The 1968 Act was the first allow for prosecuting heat-related crimes.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C.§ 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"

Full link

Hate Crime legislation has since been expanded to cover gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.

You can Google this part yourself, but there appears to be no credible evidence indicating having the death penalty deters crime. So then I wonder if hate crime legislation will really deter crime?

I doubt the legislation will deter anything. We've had hate crime legislation for many decades, and we still have hate crimes.

The question is do we really need hate crime legislation? If I am murdered because I am eating a hamburger, or if I am envied by a bad guy, or because I happen to be white, or I might be playing a song that a bad guy doesn't like, the penalty should be the same.

It's the ACT that's important. Not how we got to the ACT, in my opinion.

-T

 

[Deleted member 159002]

No. Mistreating other people isn't worse if it's motivated by social group membership.

 

[Thurisaz]

Hate is not a crime. Hate is a human right. Even God hates the wicked.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

i think it was first made because people (generally whites in the south) would get off easy for these types of crimes.

maybe in modern times, we should just let murder or assault charges be murder or assault charges imo. not that race doesnt matter any more, but i think it occurs less frequently that a white gets let off easy now.

 

[T-Bone]

Hate is not a crime. Hate is a human right. Even God hates the wicked.

Interesting point. Punishing humans for being... human.

-T

No. Mistreating other people isn't worse if it's motivated by social group membership.

That's the worst part... it sets up groups to be "protected"... pitting groups against each other... i.e. group warfare.

-T

 

[KILL KILL]

i think it was first made because people (generally whites in the south) would get off easy for these types of crimes.

maybe in modern times, we should just let murder or assault charges be murder or assault charges imo. not that race doesnt matter any more, but i think it occurs less frequently that a white gets let off easy now.

Yeah, it was created as a deterrent for targeting minorities, which was obviously a problem in certain areas of the country.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Hate Crime Legislation.. do we really need it?[?QUOTE]

Absolutely. Its a wonderful tool to use against dissenting Political Groups.

 

[National Acrobat]

Hate crime legislation came in when state and local authorities would outright not enforce murder/assault/rape etc... charges if the assailant was white. Since none of those crimes are federal offenses a new class of crime was created that would be enforced at the federal level to get around local incompetence.

It came out of a practical need. Whether thats the case anymore, probably not.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

its almost the same situation as affirmative action. at the time it was created, there was a need for it. maybe not so much any longer.

 

[klnOmega]

Its always been stupid.

Someone shooting me to death because they want my car, is just as bad as someone shooting me to death because they hate my race.

Same crimes should do same times.

 

[Thurisaz]

Interesting point. Punishing humans for being... human.

I find it more interesting that you equate human with wicked. Are you a misanthrope, perhaps?

 

[T-Bone]

Hate is not a crime. Hate is a human right. Even God hates the wicked.

^^^^ you said this. So it's a right for people to hate. Seems reasonable enough. Your words not mine.

But in your words, you said God hates the wicked.

Were you implying that people are wicked? I thought you meant that God hates the wicked. And there are plenty of things to hate that are not human but that are wicked.

-T

Interesting point. Punishing humans for being... human.

-T

^^^^ then I said this. In response to your post. I was pondering aloud. So we are punishing people for exercising their right to hate. People are not Wicked. They are exercising their right to hate. Your words not mine.

-T

I find it more interesting that you equate human with wicked. Are you a misanthrope, perhaps?

^^^^ then you said this and seems like it's out of left field. And diverged from the conversation.

I never equated humans to being Wicked. How did you get that idea?

-T

 

[Thurisaz]

Were you implying that people are wicked?

Some people are. It's rather odd of you to imply that by saying that God hates the wicked would mean He hates everyone.

Not that He wouldn't have reason to.

So we are punishing people for exercising their right to hate. People are not Wicked. They are exercising their right to hate.

Your leap of logic, not mine. I never implied or insinuated that people should be punished for hating. I stated the exact contrary of that, saying it is a human right.

I never equated humans to being Wicked. How did you get that idea?

Well, when you say "So we are punishing people for exercising their right to hate" in response to "God hates the wicked", one imagines what you say is supposed to have something to do with the quoted passage.

 

[Thurisaz]

double

 

[HunterSdVa29]

no, I don't think so. If some deeply held hatred was allegedly responsible for a brutal crime, simply give them the maximum sentence allowed then, right?

no need to add another made up charge

 

[n...not crazy]

Let's just make everything right, without overcompensating. Equal rights, and equal punishments for equal crimes.

 

[T-Bone]

Well, when you say "So we are punishing people for exercising their right to hate" in response to "God hates the wicked", one imagines what you say is supposed to have something to do with the quoted passage.

Actually, I see where the confusion came in.

In written word, intonation is missing. I said it more like a realization of that's exactly what we seem to be doing as a country. Punishing people for exercising their right to hate.

-T

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Interesting point. Punishing humans for being... human.

-T



That's the worst part... it sets up groups to be "protected"... pitting groups against each other... i.e. group warfare.

-T

My problem with it is exactly as I said.

My grandfather ran a small business in the Bronx. Twice he was robbed and beaten with inches of his life. My grandfather was an immigrant from Italy. There was no indication that his robbers targeted him either because he was white or Italian. The idea that the crimes committed against him should be considered any less outrageous than crimes committed against people for social group membership is stupid.

 

[T-Bone]

My problem with it is exactly as I said.

My grandfather ran a small business in the Bronx. Twice he was robbed and beaten with inches of his life. My grandfather was an immigrant from Italy. There was no indication that his robbers targeted him either because he was white or Italian. The idea that the crimes committed against him should be considered any less outrageous than crimes committed against people for social group membership is stupid.

I am agreeing with you. It makes no sense to treat groups of people differently .

-T

 

[irish_thug]

I am agreeing with you. It makes no sense to treat groups of people differently .

-T

In it's purest form it isn't treating different groups differently, it's punnishing the crimes differently based on the motive of the perpetrator. I'm of two minds on the situation. I think removing hate crime legislation would open too many doors, but the term "hate crime" is probably over used, and in many instances difficult to prove. In the wise words of Bart Simpson, it's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't.